On the Rim of Insanity

Chris Kyle, the Lying Sociopath

2012-02-08T17:44:00.000-05:00

Ever heard of Chris Kyle?

If you have watch Faux News in the past couple of months, he made some minor headlines by claiming to have committed criminal assault against former Minnesota Governor Jessie Ventura. He claimed to have knocked out the man in a bar after Mr. Kyle alleged to have heard him say that soldiers deserved to die (specifically it was SEALs or Green Berets, I can’t remember which).

All of these claims came out when Ventura himself was on the road to Mexico for the winter, as he has currently refused to fly commercial airliners due to the TSA’s love of groping his genitals. This claim also coincided with Chris Kyle’s release of his ghost-written memoirs, American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History.

Jessie Ventura, as far as I know, was never given the proper chance to rebut this Chris Kyle’s claims, except on Alex Jones’ show, but I am certain that he is lying about the whole incident. He probably did this in order to promote his book since Ventura has been in the limelight a few months before shouting about the injustice of the his civil case against the TSA. He probably also did not like how a former SEAL reservist would be pointing out how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are misguided and wrong. In any case, I am convinced that he was lying about the whole incident.

But what was more alarming about Chris Kyle is not so much his willingness to lie on national television in order to promote a book, but the contents of the book itself. William N. Grigg did a good overview of the book on his own blog, so I am just going to sum it up in one word: sociopath.

Chris Kyle boasts about killing Iraqis, who he refers to as savages and evil, all the while saying he did so because it was his duty. I suppose he would be a wonderful candidate for Milgram’s obedience test and I’m sure he would gladly throw the lethal switch for the subject and ask the instructor if there were more.

Kyle claims to have killed over 160 people as a sniper in Iraq, including women in front of their children, all in the name of saving American lives. Now, I am not going to question the heat of combat and certainly anybody making aggressive actions against your compatriots gets what is coming. It is not the people he killed that I find horrific so much as the fact that he does not regret any of it. Most soldiers (and normal people in general) always regret the killings they have done, even if it was justified in self-defense or in the course of duty. Most normal people seek to avoid killing people unless it is absolutely necessary.

I am reminded of that scene in Gran Torino where Walt Kowalski explains to Thao that he once killed a man in Korea who was unarmed and scared and how it has haunted him all his life. This is the mark of true man: one who is willing to kill if necessary but does not hold it up as a virtue. Chris Kyle reminds of a child playing a video game and expressing regret that he didn’t get the high score.

Chris Kyle’s manner reminds of Odysseus who boasted to total strangers of how he raided villages and raped women. He is a man without a conscious and believes wholeheartedly in the moral authority of the State.

But what is most chilling of all is not his exploits in wartime nor his lack of guilt or shame in the deeds he did in the name of his “duty”, but the fact that he is currently training our police. A man with an attitude that the enemy is evil or a bunch of savages will almost certainly translate this philosophy unto the people he is instructing.

Kyle represents everything that is wrong with our military and police force. He believes in the virtues of the State, never questions the moral or ethical issues of what he does, nor does he appear to care either. As long as he gets to kill people in the name of the almighty State, he is content to not question the reasons. He is, in essence, the perfect soldier for the oligarchs who presume to be our gods.

Whether or not you support the wars in the past decade, you have to agree that this man is not someone you would let babysit your kids or hang out with at a bar. And you definitely would not trust to be with him in a dark alley somewhere.

Unfortunately, I fully expect more people like Chris Kyle to come out of the woodwork and start promoting the virtues of murdering for the almighty State. I have nothing but pity for these men who are so screwed up in the head that they cannot make any moral decisions on their own. This is how the police state grows: through the tireless work of sociopaths like Chris Kyle.

The Constitution Goes Out of Style

2012-02-07T14:44:00.001-05:00

It looks like the principles of the United States Constitution, and thus the principles of liberty and limited government, are now considered to be taboo in the newly emerging governments of the world:

In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”

A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.

When I read this I was reminded of the Canadian television show Kevin Spencer in a scene where Kevin’s father, Percy, confronts a border guard at the US-Canadian border. When the border guard gives reverence to the US Constitution in order to justify his search of contraband, Percy retorts, “So what? It’s just a fucking piece of paper. It’s not like you guys actually follow it.” Percy Spencer, by the way, was a character who embodied everything that could go wrong with a person, being perpetually on welfare when he wasn’t in prison, constantly smoking and drinking, and always cheating on his wife whenever he could. And let’s not forget about his IQ, which was probably in the legal range for being retarded. So if a legally retarded moocher from Canada can grasp this fundamental truth, so can you.

Indeed, that is the attitude of the entire Federal government and the entire spectrum of the political groups, from the Left to the Right. They revere the United States Constitution but only the parts they like. When it comes to limiting government in ways in which they do not like, often times people will flat out ignore it. And there are always politicians who have no problem ignoring the US Constitution in order to meet the demand of the dumb masses.

So what does the rest of the world have to do with the fact that nobody here adheres the the constitutional principles of limited government? Well, for starters, if we are supposed to be an example of freedom and representative democracy, we’re doing a bad job. We’re like all those wonderful sports athletes who are caught cheating on their wives. We constantly lecture the rest of the world on the principles of liberty and freedom but when they come through our airports, they are groped by thugs in uniform, they are constantly monitored by law enforcement via GPS devices and data stream monitoring, and they see that we love bombing the ever-loving Hell out of foreign nations for no real good reason.

What I found laughable about that article is their explanation of why this is occurring:

There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.

In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said.

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in “Our Undemocratic Constitution,” “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today.” (Yugoslavia used to hold that title, but Yugoslavia did not work out.)

So let me get this straight. Because our Founding Fathers knew that a strong central government was essentially tyranny and therefore limited the potential for it to be modified (unless the leaders just ignore it), they made sure it was incredibly difficult to change it.

There is a reason that a system of government and the laws it enforces should be static: because if you have limited government, you have no need to change how things are done. The whole reason for the disdain for the static nature of the Constitution has to do with the fact that the Statists, who presume to be our gods, want to be able to control every aspect of our life. And in order to do that, you need a government that can change its directives and objectives on a whim.

The entire static nature of the Constitution speaks to its timeless support of basic liberty and human rights. And while something more malleable may work well in other nations, I feel nothing but disdain for the people who support that in our nation.

Ultimately though, I firmly believe that the Constitution is out of style because of our lack of adherence to it and our own status as the great bully of the world, not because the Constitution is not a living, breathing document.

When you have no God, you believe in anything

2012-02-06T09:33:00.001-05:00

The problem I have with modern secular leftists is that they completely lack any sense of history, logic, or downright common sense. Case in point, here is an illustration:

1913

2012-02-03T16:25:00.000-05:00

When you consider it, the year 1913 was probably one of the most liberty crushing years in American history. What I mean is that this was the year in which several things were done that set in motion may vehicles of oppression that we are dealing with today.

In the first place, the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. It was the product of a bunch of elite bankers who met in secret, some even pretending to go hunting when they didn’t hunt, in order to take control of the money supply. By taking control of the money supply, they essentially took control of the medium of exchange in the United States, which opens up several possibilities including the eventual foreclosure on the United States itself. If you don’t think that could happen, look at what happened to Greece and Italy where two bankers essentially took control of those countries. If that is not a foreclosure, I don’t know what is.

I could probably go on about the Federal Reserve, but there is plenty of literature and websites out there which have been dedicated to its evils so I’ll move on.

Secondly, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, which allowed the Federal government to impose an income tax. Originally, this kind of taxation was struck down by the Supreme Court (in one of their more rational decisions) because it violated the Fourth Amendment. You see, when you have to report your income to the government, that is considered a search. And when you have to pay taxes out of your income, that is a government seizure. The Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional because the income tax was an unlawful search and seizure. So Congress passed an amendment in order to make it legit. The tax ranged from 1% on income exceeding $3,000 ($69,083.27 in today’s dollars) to 7% on incomes exceeding $500,000 ($11,513,877.55 in today’s dollars). Of course they promised to only soak the rich.

Thirdly, Public Law 62-5 was passed which capped the number of House Representatives to 435. Their excuse was that they couldn’t build enough office space. The truth is, the Federal government has never stopped building things, especially in DC. I suspect the real reason was to dilute the representation in Congress so that the people did not have adequate representation while at the same time tricking them into thinking that elections do matter. This law is, of course, unconstitutional as the Constitution (see Article 1 Section 2) requires that the ratio of representatives to people should not exceed 1 in 30,000.

Lastly, the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified. This amendment basically took away the right of the legislatures of the Several States to pick their Senators and placed it into the hands of the people of those States. This also served to dilute the will of the people in that representation in the Senate was now in the millions rather than representing the interests of the States. The whole point of the Constitution was to give a relatively strong, yet limited in scope, central government that they could rally around. With the passage of this amendment, you could say that Federalism died that day and the rise of central planning and central controls was born. I firmly believe that had this amendment not passed, we would have seen much less Federal government overreach.

The fact is, all of these things paved the way for corporate take overs of Congress and allowed them to gradually expand Federal government power all the while assuring the people that the next election would roll things back. Now that nearly a century has passed, I think a formal evaluation should be done of these actions taken by the Progressives and the bankers who foisted these radical changes upon so quickly and without too much forethought.

On a side note, isn’t it odd that the Progressives of those times wanted everyone to vote for every political office yet changed the system so as to make the vote of the individual so meaningless? Perhaps that was their goal all along.

The Ultimate Fix The Government List

2012-02-02T17:01:00.000-05:00

Most blogs are done by narcissists whose only desire is for people to pay attention and agree with them all the time. Often times, bloggers will vehemently attack those who oppose them on their own blog, unless they aren’t narcissists and instead are just generally apathetic. So most of the blogworld consists of complaints and grievances without out any solutions. I often complain about how our governments of the world, especially the United States’ government, are full of morons who couldn’t tie their shoes to save their pathetic lives yet insist on ruling over me, but I don’t often offer up solutions.

Here’s a quick list of possible long-term solutions. Please note that they aren’t perfect, probably will create some new problems, but I am confident that they won’t be as bad as the problems we are facing now:

Eliminate the Federal Reserve and allow free banking. This solution will curb inflation, allow people to grow real wealth rather than be beholden to the whims of snobby elitists who believe they know better. Right now, the interest rate from the Federal Reserve is essentially zero. This has the effect of making the inflation rate much higher than it should (and don’t quote the lie that is the CPI-U to prove me wrong) where it could potentially become 7-10%. In any case, our country survived without a central bank for decades before the Federal Reserve, so it is obvious they aren’t needed.
Require that every voter pass the citizenship test every two years in order to re-register to vote. This idea is designed to keep the dumb masses out of voting. The problem in this nation is not that people are voting, but that most people are too stupid to vote and make serious informed decisions, which affect all of us. I know this because most political blogs make no money (please click on my ads) while celebrity gossip blogs make six figures if they are written by gay men. I am all in favor of discrimination against the stupid and ignorant because they have the potential to deal the most harm. Since the only thing that separates American citizenship from legal residences is the right to vote, I say the citizenship test is a good standard to go by.
Increase the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Right now, they are limited to 435 members. Given that there are 310 million people in the United States, this makes each member of Congress a representative of roughly 712,644 people. The idea behind the House was to represent the interests of the majority and how can one person represent the interests of over 700,000 people? The Constitution actually demands that there be no more than 1 representative per 30,000 people. I think that ratio better represents the interests of the people. Yes there will over 10,000 representatives but that has some profound implications on the election process, like less laws being passed to oppress us and more access to representatives. There is less likely to be lobbying in the House since it would cost lots of money to bribe thousands of people and there will be more opportunities for third parties to gain footholds in the House. This also means that only the most important of laws would be passed as well.
Repeal the 17th amendment and have the Senate be selected by state legislatures. This will ensure that a whole house of Congress is not beholden to lobbyists and that they properly represent the interests of the state rather than the will of a large group of idiots (or the will of a small group of corporate bag-munchers).
Repeal the 16th amendment. It contradicts the 4th amendment and I’d prefer tariffs or sales taxes. Income taxes are probably one of the most oppressive forms of taxation in the history of mankind. Also, it doesn’t really tax the rich looters, just the rich producers.
Push through term limits for all members of the Federal government, including the judges and employees except the military. This will ensure that we don’t have people making careers out of oppressing the common man.
Pass the Balanced Budget amendment. Yeah, I know that Congress doesn’t give a flying frog’s ass about the Constitution, except maybe Ron Paul, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be codified into law to ensure that spending is balanced. Maybe add a section to allow the people to publicly whip their representatives who don’t adhere to this amendment.
Pass an amendment that gets rid of Presidential veto and forces all laws to be passed by 2/3 majority. This will ensure that any laws passed are ones that most people agree with. Yeah, the other 1/3 gets shafted, but 1/3 of all Americans could be considered legally retarded by most standards.
Allow the Senate to override all Judicial decisions by a 2/3 vote unless those decisions were from cases that were brought to them by the Federal government. Let’s face it, the Supreme Court is a place where the Constitution does not mean jack shit. At least this way we can stop them from making decisions that adversely affect us.
Require all leaders in the Congress, Presidency, and Courts to undergo mental health evaluations. This ensures that people aren’t suffering from dementia while in office, as I am certain many have been and still are.
Allow the states to nullify or contest laws passed by the Federal government and ultimately make a final decision as to its validity in a constitutional convention. We really should have more constitutional conventions, maybe one every three years and that people be allowed to settle differences with a PCP-fueled cage match or an old fashioned duel. It would at least get more people involved in the political process.

No, nothing will ever make any system of government (or lack thereof) perfect because people, especially in large groups, are not perfect. But if these ideas were implemented, I suppose we can see more peace and stability. But I’m sure this will create more problems because people are corrupt morons whose sole goals are to fulfill their own solipsistic desires.

However, if you disagree that these are good ideas, then you are a corporate moocher who deserves to be given 40 lashes for being an idiot.

Just sayin’.

Lovecraft Friday

2012-01-27T23:53:00.001-05:00

An adaptation of Azathoth, an unfinished story:

That’s how you travel through space: you just track the stars!

The War on the Internet

2012-01-23T17:08:00.000-05:00

Fellow tax paying units, the war has begun. Already, Federal authorities have raided the home of a German national who ran a file sharing website. Sure he was eccentric, and probably arrogant, but at the end of the day he was providing a service to meet a consumer need.

United States authorities have shutdown Megaupload and claimed that said website has cost copyright holders at least $500 million. If you knew anything about economics, then you would know that this statement is utterly ridiculous and that this man’s arrest (known as Kim Dotcom) was nothing more than a power play in order to control the Internet.

The power elites do not like competition. Make no mistake: I doubt that President Obama had anything to do with this other than relay orders from his handlers. The power elites, whoever they may be, are not happy that their gravy trains are losing money and that people are able to share entertainment. The arts have a long history in modern times of influencing people and thus controlling people. If you control the people behind the entertainment of the dumb masses, then you can effectively control the dumb masses.

I know that this is getting a little more crackpot than usual, but consider this: there was no crime in having a file sharing website. There are plenty of them out there and it amazes me that Megaupload go singled out by the Attorney General. By the way, did you know that we sent FBI agents to New Zealand to arrest this man? That has to violate some article of the constitution somewhere. At the very least, it demonstrates how the United States Government is not the world’s police, but the world’s bully.

As the economy gets worse and worse, I fully expect more actions such as these to go on. When you start to lose everything you’ve gained, you become more and more desperate. For many of the common man, it is merely a glitch in the system, where you might find an occasional breakdown resulting in violence. But when it starts happening to the world power brokers, they start to get more and more tyrannical.

Despite this, people do not appreciate being treated as slaves (or tax paying units), especially when they had a better life when they were not slaves. They will not respond well to what is going on, as witnessed by what Anonymous did to DOJ, MPAA.org, and RIAA.org.

For all you conservatives out there who think that this isn’t a big deal, you need to understand that like TARP, this is corporatism on display. In a truly free market, none of this would have happened as copyright would not exist and the government would not bend to the will of a corporate cabal.

The Internet is a powerful tool that has reduced all men and women down to their individual identities rather than grouping all of us together like what has been done in the past centuries. National allegiance, race, gender, creed, and many other things are almost non-existence on the Internet as people identify themselves by name, not by group.

The old dinosaurs who sit in the hollowed halls of power do not like that they cannot pit us against each other as well anymore. With Generation X and the younger ones rapidly figuring out many of their scams, we will see a new world bore out of the one. They will get their New World Order, but not the one they hoped to create.

Lovecraft Friday

2012-01-20T22:10:00.000-05:00

Don’t ever be that guy who ruins the show

The TSA Deception

2012-01-18T16:54:00.000-05:00

More evidence that the TSA is just an expensive deception:

A plane left the gate at DFW Airport with a gun on board before transportation officials alerted the pilot about the problem, FOX 4 has learned.

Airport spokesman David Magana said a 65-year-old woman from Little Elm, Texas had a gun in her carry-on bag that got through the security checkpoint .

By the time the woman took her bag and walked away, a TSA agent scanning the D-30 checkpoint noticed the .38-caliber handgun.

Magana said the TSA shut down only the security checkpoint, not the entire terminal, and began searching the D concourse and other terminals for the woman.

At least ninety minutes elapsed before the woman was in custody, Magana told FOX 4's Richard Ray.

The plane, American Airlines flight 2385 to Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport, returned to the gate before it got on the runway.

It's not clear if the gun in the luggage was loaded.

The woman, whose name has not been made public, is charged with "places weapons prohibited" -- a violation of state weapons control law, said Magana.

So let’s see here: a woman has a gun and gets past the checkpoint. The TSA agent does not notice it until she is gone. They end up shutting down the whole terminal and force a plane back to its gate in order to get her.

Will the agent be fired I wonder? He should have been able to stop her before she got too far, right?

In any case, I am willing to bet that many people have managed to bring guns and various other weapons on board airplanes and the TSA is none the wiser. In fact, I am almost sure of it and that this time around the government got lucky.

To be honest, I’d rather have this woman on the plane with a gun than a TSA agent checking the diapers of cancer patients. I would rather that we be allowed to bring guns onboard because that would prevent any person from hijacking it without having to resort to drastic measures. Heck, the last couple of attempts involved faulty explosives and passengers willing to beat the snot out the terrorist.

I say let’s leave airline security to the airline companies and shutdown this farce of an agency.

I Have Seen the Enemy and, Well, You Know

2012-01-17T15:38:00.000-05:00

So apparently some Iranian scientist was assassinated by a couple of motorcyclists using a bomb with a magnet and attaching to the scientist’s car. The Iranian scientist was working on Iran’s nuclear program, although I am not sure as to what level of influence he had in the program, and I guess that he was dangerous enough to warrant his death.

I have little doubt that the United States, Israel, and possibly Saudi Arabia had their hand in this. Israel fears Iran with a nuclear bomb. At least that is probably what the middle managers of the Israeli government fear. And their fears are not without merit as there is plenty of Iranian propaganda out there where Jews are portrayed in less than appealing light. The United States’ reason for fear stems from the 9/11 attacks and the prospect of Iran nuking a whole city. And the Saudis may want retribution for the alleged assassination plot against their ambassador.

My advice to Iran: do nothing except prosecute the murderers under your laws. The United States government is Hell-bent on starting a war with Iran, but they need justification. After all, if a country with superior firepower attacks another nation without cause is usually seen as an Empire and the United States government often likes to take on hypocritical positions in their foreign policy. They do not want to start the war, but they also want to go to war. So they need justification.

As an American, I am appalled by my government’s actions, especially in light of the fact that we are supposed to be representing the will of the people. But the will of the people can be manipulated by fear. We fear a nuclear Iran, much like how Iran fears being invaded by a superpower. However, two-thirds of the American people believe the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Given that this is the case, there is no point in engaging in yet another war with another Muslim country, especially when we are the ones agitating them.

The murder of this scientist is nothing more than an outright act of terrorism, albeit a little sexier and cooler than what those cave dwellers came up with. This whole incident does seem to be right out of an action movie.

In any case, I am sick and tired of my government taking the moral high ground while at the same time engaging in the very things they claim to despise. Their mouthpieces in the media will justify it by using confusing “logic” to point out how it is different than what our enemies do.

I want to ask all the warmongers out there something: did Iran seek out alliances with North Korea, Columbia, and seek out nuclear capabilities before or after George W. Bush labeled as part of the Axis of Evil?

If a powerful nation with enough firepower to level all of your cities and eradicate your very existence places you in the category of “Axis of Evil”, do you lay back and accept the inevitable consequences of your destruction or do you build up military firepower quickly in order to either deter or be prepared for the coming attack?

Iran is acting in the same way in which any nation would act: it is seeking its own self-preservation in the face of a stronger enemy. They may have had surrogate organizations attacking US troops in Iraq, but this may have been more the actions of a nation seeking to overtake a neighboring country that has a power vacuum, not the actions of a group of fanatics who seek a holy war with us. Granted, it was not acceptable behavior, but let’s be honest about it rather than hype it up.

I am not denying that there is a threat from fanatical Muslim sects. I do believe that there are plenty of fanatics out there who seek harm. But I fail to see how engaging in a war with Iran will resolve the situation, especially since we have apparently won the Iraq War, left there, and still have to take our damn shoes off in the airport.

War does not solve the problem, unless you completely eliminate your opposition down the last household pet. And I doubt that the majority of people in my country are willing to go through with complete genocide. War also does not hurt the very people we are looking to hurt either. Instead, the common man, who generally wants to live a life without strife and conflict, is the one who gets hurt. From the war widow to the orphan whose parents didn’t get out of the house in time, war only brings pain and misery. That is why we should not enter into war with them so readily.

And finally, to all those neoconservatives and mainstream conservatives who agree with them on Iran: if Obama is such a liar and a deceiver, why would he stop lying when it comes to Iran?

Government Property Rights

2012-01-12T16:24:00.000-05:00

Another case of government property rights trumping the First Amendment:

"We try to lead a simple, plain life," Gingerich said from his workshop as blue and navy shirts and pants fluttered on a clothesline outside. "Putting that orange triangle on the back of our buggy would not leave our buggies plain anymore."

He and seven other Amish men were sent to jail in September for a few days for refusing to pay fines related to vehicle sign violations. A ninth Amish man avoided jail time when a local resident paid his fine. At least two other Kentucky counties, Grayson and Logan, have recently summoned men into court for driving unmarked buggies. A court date on Thursday could land more in jail.

A group of Swartzentruber Amish who recently met with an Associated Press reporter at Gingerich's farm fear they would be treated as outcasts by other Swartzentruber communities around the country if they use the safety triangles.

This is where a man’s freedom of religion is thrown out the door: when it interferes with the interests of the government overlords. You see, part of the Amish man’s religion involves living a low-key lifestyle but the government requires something else when he is operating his buggy on government-owned roads.

Because he probably does not pay gasoline taxes and does not vote, the government feels free to pick on him. OK, maybe that is unfair and the government officials probably believe in the righteousness of their task, but at the end of the day, it all just comes down to property and who owns it.

This is why property rights are so vitally important and when you allow the government to own and manage property, you get all sorts of justifications for tyrannical acts of government. Remember, if the government provides a service, suddenly that service will become a privilege and not a right. We should be free to move about the country as we see fit, but because the government owns the roads, it sees fit to take away our rights for the flimsiest of excuses. From drunk driving checkpoints to TSA checkpoints, rest assured that your rights always end on government land.

The Increasing Irrelevance of Conservative Talk Radio

2012-01-11T17:49:00.000-05:00

Oh, how the mighty are falling:

Rush Limbaugh's ratings have fallen sharply in recent months, according to a new report by Arbitron.

Limbaugh still has the top-rated radio talk show in the country, but his audience has dropped by 33 percent since October. And he's not the only one--Sean Hannity's ratings have also slipped by 28 percent.

A spokesperson for Premiere Radio, which distributes both Limbaugh's and Hannity's shows, told Crain's Business that the company wasn't worried about the ratings dip, since they were still the two biggest talk show hosts in America.

I have said in the past that Mainstream Conservatives, like Hannity and Rush, always side with the neoconservatives against the Constitutional Conservatives. In Rush Limbaugh’s case, this appears to be detrimental to his own show as he had last year denounced Ron Paul as a man who will “destroy the [Republican] party”.

Both Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are shills for the Republican party. They talk a good game and do criticize Republicans when they act like, in their words, liberal Democrats, but at the end of the day they encourage you to pull that lever or push that button for the Republican. In fact, the only third party candidate I’ve seen them support was Joe Lieberman. They almost never endorse a third party candidate who more accurately reflects their views.

Because of these attitudes, the Ron Paul supporters (also known as the Constitutional Conservatives) are leaving their shows in droves. I’d argue that most of those listeners who have left are largely from that wing of the Republican party. They are tired of voting for Republicans again and again only to find bigger government and more tyranny in spite of what those hypocrites say to them. Also, they look at Ron Paul’s consistency and his message and they like what they see. Gradually, they begin to agree with him on so much more than just his fiscal policies.

There mere fact that Ron Paul won 23% of the vote in New Hampshire, when he only won 8% in 2008, shows that more and more Americans are tired of the same old dog and pony show, as demonstrated by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. They want actual reforms and changes, something only Ron Paul has really promised and most likely to deliver on.

In any case, I think Rush and Sean need to reevaluate their own ideologies and broadcast messages if they are to remain relevant. I suspect that many in their audience are of the late Baby Boomer persuasion who became more politically active around the time that Rush Limbaugh started broadcasting. Their children are just now becoming politically active and they do not like what they see with what has been left to them. Yet we constantly hear from these two blowhards about how it is all the Democrat’s fault when the Republicans are just as much to blame, if not more so because they promised less government when they campaigned and gave us more. At least the Democrats were honest about who they were.

In any event, I do not see Rush Limbaugh changing his attitude anytime soon as demonstrated by how he treats the following caller:

Notice his debate tactic toward the end. Was he reading my blog?

Swiftfoxmark2’s Guide to Online Political Debates

2012-01-09T16:33:00.000-05:00

So, you want to engage in political debates on the Internet now that you have finally figured out that people have different opinions. But you are not sure as to how to do it properly without looking like a fool. Do not worry, as an experienced veteran of online debates in various formats, I am here to help:

Always keep in mind that your opinion is the valid one and that the opinions of others are irrelevant, even if they agree with you. By and large, everyone on the Internet is dumber than you are because unlike those basement-dwelling twenty-something moochers who still live with their parents, you have a life outside of the Internet. Unless, of course, you are basement-dwelling twenty-something moocher, in which case, your opinion on, say Christianity, is only valid on the YouTube comments section for a Christian-oriented video. Otherwise, your opinion is the only one that counts on whatever format you are on.
Do not be afraid to resort to insults early on. Insulting the offending poster is probably the best thing you can do to win the argument. If you are dealing with a sane, reasonable poster, the typical response to whatever insult you can come up with will be a statement that you have lost the debate because you are no longer relying on facts. Do not fret over such trivial matters since your opinion is the absolute truth and his opinion is a lie. The poster obviously has no need of the logic or sanity that you bring to the table, so there is no need to make any fact-based research or logical claims to back up your assertions. Besides, if your opinion is the God-honest truth, then there is no need to back it up because you are God after all.
If a poster pesters you for information to back up your claims, insult them and deflect attention away from whatever it is you are talking about. For example, if you call a politician a racist and someone else demands that you prove your assertion, you simply that state that because some other person is a racist and he/she shook hands with said politician, that makes the politician a racist. Follow up by calling that person a loony, cultist, or ignoramus. Then point out that this person probably lives in his mother’s basement and does not have a job.
When insulting someone, sometimes it is necessary to use ALL CAPS. Be careful with this technique as you can be banned by the moderators of whatever site you are on.
If you are banned from a forum or a blog for your comments, keep in mind that the blog or forum is probably also run by basement-dwelling twenty-something moochers who wet the bed. Getting banned from their debate forum should be considered a badge of honor.
If you find a forum where the moderators share the same opinions as you do, be sure to kiss up to them. This will allow you to insult other posters without having to worry about banning. Pretend to care about their lives. For example, if you are on a Christian forum, tell them that you are praying for them even if you don’t believe in God.
Lying is always acceptable and recommended, even if you are morally opposed to it. The truth is, because most posters have short attention spans and they are generally idiots, they more than likely will not notice when you lie. Be careful, though, to space your “inconsistencies” out enough because even idiots can see a lie if you say it within the last 5 posts or so. And remember, if you are caught in a lie, you merely need to state that you were just a little inconsistent and then proceed to call that poster a troll.
If you find yourself dealing with someone who is smarter than you, then you are dealing with a devious liar. The truth is, nobody is smarter than you as your opinions are sacred and theirs are an abomination. However, you must be careful with them because the more intelligent they are, the more likely they can trounce you any debate. Your best bet is to constantly antagonize and insult them, even on things that are largely irrelevant to the topic of debate.
If you have to post references to back up your claims, make sure they do not notice the source or it is a source that they won’t bother to check. This is because the sources for your opinions will be either your own blog or someone else’s blog with whom you closely agree. Do not use Wikipedia, as that is a corruptible source, but stick to reliable blogs.
If a poster really ticks you off, follow them around on the Internet and harass them. Always exaggerate their claims to make them look like they are the kooks that you know that they are. If, for example, you support the police and they post an article about police misconduct, then always point out that they hate the police. That way, they will have to go on the defense.

Now that you are ready for online political debate, feel free to find a forum, blog, or social networking site to debate on. Do not forget to always find things that you disagree with and attack them. Don’t bother posting anything of substance or relevance because your ideas are the same ideas that have been embedded into the human mind and thus need no explanation. You primary purpose is to ensure that the people who do not know this are told that they are hacks, kooks, and freaks by you and other like-minded posters.

Lovecraft Friday

2012-01-06T23:09:00.001-05:00

Well, it’s back. This week it’s a silent film version of The Whisperer in the Darkness:

I thought Akeley was older in the story

What’s with the bicycle horn?

I must say the Migo did a good job with the hands and face…

The Sham of the Iowa Caucus

2012-01-06T12:24:00.000-05:00

So it looks like Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucus.

Well, perhaps not:

Caucus night was chaotic in many places, with hundreds of voters, candidates showing up and the throngs of media who followed. The world's eyes were on Iowa. But in the quiet town of Moulton, Appanoose County, a caucus of 53 people may just blow up the results.

Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn't.

"When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I've got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa," True said. "Not Mitt Romney."

True said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party's website, True's precinct cast 22 votes for Romney.

"This is huge," True said. "It essentially changes who won."

Indeed it does. If this happened, then that means that Rick Santorum won. The article mentions that Edward True is a Ron Paul supporter, so this cements more honesty in his claims as he is not trying to say that Ron Paul won. He is merely stating that there was a discrepancy in the counting that means Rick Santorum probably won. He also is not saying that the discrepancy was intentional, that someone entered 22 by accident.

I find it amusing that nobody bothered to demand a recount of the caucus votes based on the close results. But then again, the caucus itself in Iowa is nothing more than a elaborate straw poll. The Iowa delegates are chosen then, but they do not cast their votes until later. In other words, all the Iowa caucus has served to do is to provide some momentum to the winner for the New Hampshire primary.

But I’m sure if Ron Paul had won, you would be hearing all about how the Iowa Caucus is just a straw poll.

On a side note, I was slightly amused by this:

A spokeswoman with the Iowa Republican Party said True is not a precinct captain and he's not a county chairperson so he has no business talking about election results. She also said the party would not be giving interviews about possible discrepancies until the caucus vote is certified.

In other words, because Edward True is not a member of the system, he is a crazy man and should not be taken seriously. It is amazing how in this world of social media that people are still living by the archaic ways of doing things like voting. Perhaps we update to a system that serves the needs of the people better than the insanity that goes on now.

Ultimately, this whole dog and pony show is a sham. What needs to happen is that every single state has their caucus or primary on the same day in July. Like Christmas in a retail store, the Presidential election has bumped too far into the previous year and it is largely unnecessary.

Virginia Republican Primary Qualifications Legitimize Ron Paul

2012-01-03T15:36:00.000-05:00

In my state, the great Commonwealth of Virginia, there are only two Republican candidates for President on the ballot. They are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Apparently, while I was on vacation in the past two weeks (or while I was getting ready for it), Rick Perry and Newt Gringrich did not like that and have decided to sue. Normally, this would not have been a big deal, since last time Virginia’s primary happened one week after Super Tuesday, but this year it apparently happens on Super Tuesday (March 6th) and so it is a huge deal.

The state of Virginia requires 10,000 signatures from registered Virginia voters where 400 of those signatures have to be from all of Virginia’s Congressional districts. While those requirements are hefty, and probably do discourage third parties, they also ensure that only people who receive massive support from the general populace are given a chance versus the much more unpopular, but at least equally hyped, candidates. There is no opportunity for a write-in on the primary in Virginia.

What gets interesting in all of this is the face that this is the first time it has happened, because it appears to be the first time it has been enforced:

The only reason the Virginia Republican Party checked the signatures for validity for the current primary is that in October 2011, an independent candidate for the legislature, Michael Osborne, sued the Virginia Republican Party because it did not check petitions for its own members, when they submitted primary petitions. Osborne had no trouble getting the needed 125 valid signatures for his own independent candidacy, but he charged that his Republican opponent’s primary petition had never been checked, and that if it had been, that opponent would not have qualified. The lawsuit, Osborne v Boyles, cl 11-520-00, was filed in Bristol County Circuit Court. It was filed too late to be heard before the election, but is still pending. The effect of the lawsuit was to persuade the Republican Party to start checking petitions. If the Republican Party had not changed that policy, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would be on the 2012 ballot.

In other words, the state was making sure that you had to be a member of either faction of the Bank Party or suffer severe scrutiny. That is until one person had enough and successfully sued in order to see a much more fair election result. Now the state is forced to verify all petitions in order to ensure fairness.

I take from this whole fiasco a few things:

That the only viable candidates for the Republican nominee for President are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. This is because they were the only two candidates who have the widespread support needed. All other candidates do not have the support needed to gain the nomination.
If Ron Paul managed to qualify in Virginia, as one of only two, that means he can win despite what Mainstream Conservatives and Neoconservatives would have you believe.
The party machine that established this heavy-handed system in order to make people qualify did so with the idea that people like Ron Paul could be left out. Too bad times are changing….

I find it amusing that so many pundits still rail against Ron Paul as being an unwinnable candidate and that his ideas are fringe ideas. Time after time, when dealing directly with people who would vote Republican and not some elderly Democrat supporter who is home on a weekday, Ron Paul brings in the numbers that legitimize his candidacy. Yet he continues to be ignored, besmirched, or shunned because of his traditional conservative values when it comes to the role of the Federal government.

I still am skeptical as to whether or not Ron Paul will ultimately win the nomination. I have a suspicion that most primary and caucus voters are predominantly old-guard Republican or Mainstream Conservative, neither of whom have any love for Ron Paul because he does not like bombing women and children in foreign nations (or blowing up dogs or throwing puppies off cliffs).

But I have heard that there are more and more young people who adhere to the ideals of Constitutional Conservatism, as Ron Paul does, and they are the future of this nation, unless we are conquered by an outside power within a generation (which is always a possibility no matter how remote it seems).

Even if Ron Paul loses this year and retires from the life of a public “servant”, his ideas will carry on into the future. It seems that liberty and freedom are making a comeback and maybe we will be able to make this nation a shining beacon of hope once again.

Lovecraft Friday: Christmas Edition

2011-12-16T21:14:00.001-05:00

Here is something for the Christmas season, as I won’t be posting these for a while (yeah, yeah, you’re all sooooo sad about it):

Better CGI than some movies I’ve seen….

Conservatives Compromise with the Irrational (or Evil)

2011-12-16T15:57:00.000-05:00

My daily commute to work could be very insane. I despise traffic and it is one of the few things I lose patience over. Living here on the rim of insanity provides me ample opportunity to practice patience, if I took the usual routes from my home to where I work.

So what did I do about it? I simply went to MapQuest, got the directions from my home to my place of work, and eliminated all the roads that I know would be crowded with traffic. My usual route takes at least the same time as it would if I took the common one and it keeps me sane at the same time.

Why did do that? Why did I not just assume that the common route would be the best one? It’s simple really: I don’t settle or compromise on things that are important to me. I consider it very important to find the route to work with the least difficulty because I hate traffic. I am not about to wait around for the government to build more roads, increase lanes, or build reliable public transportation in order to get me to my work location faster. As it stands, it takes them years just to finish the approval to start building a new road in most cases.

Voting is a much more important than my daily commute. More specifically voting for the right guy to represent me in any government office is a very important endeavor and I am usually very careful to find the person with the best fit. I know most of you yahoos would rather watch football or log on to Facebook than investigate a political candidate, but I don’t like to swallow what some asshole on the mainstream media says about a politician. As such, I do not compromise my vote.

However, I find that most of even the most dedicated voter will still compromise on their values because they do not support the other guy, be they Democrat or Republican. Conservatives are notorious for this because they will always pick the most conservative guy in the primary and when they lose, they will still vote for the Republican because they think he or she will be better than the Democrat.

Unfortunately, when you make any kind of compromise, it is the more irrational party that will win. In other words, by compromising your values and not writing someone else in or voting for another candidate, you are perpetuating the growth of government by supporting the big government guy.

I talk about how both Newt Gringrich and Mitt Romney are not conservative a few days ago. I know that the current selections are not anywhere near what would be ideal for a conservative to choose. But why are they already compromising their principles? Because they think things are worse under President Obama.

How foolish is that? President Obama has done a lot of things I disagree with, but for the most part, I suspect most Americans lives have not been directly affected by President Obama. I know mine has not. This does not mean that the government does affect the market but can you really say that you lost your job because of President Obama (or President Bush for that matter)? More often than not, the collection of individuals engage in economic activity are what determine what companies succeed and what companies fail. You can have a really great product but if nobody wants, because they don’t see the utility of it, then your company goes broke and you lay off the employees.

I know, I’ve simplified things when it comes to studying the use of scarce resources that have alternative uses. But honestly, most great companies can overcome the restrictions and restraints that come from unnecessary government regulations and ultimately succeed. Sure it takes a lot more effort, but short of an outright government ban of your product (like domestic oil from the Gulf of Mexico), success comes in spite of regulations.

Sure, there should not be anymore government regulations and I firmly believe that there should be none at all. Yet we are stuck with them because people are willing to compromise with their political ideology because they hate the other guy all because that guy happens to be in the wrong party.

The truth is, there is no real difference between the policies implemented by Democrats than there is with Republicans. Both parties have grown the government into the beast we face today and both have benefited from the loyal support of people who compromise with their own beliefs.

The fact is, unless conservatives in mass pick Ron Paul as their nominee, they are doomed to face a choice between two Statists, not fiscally responsible administrators. It would make no difference if Barack Obama or Newt Romney won next year precisely because they all are the same jackass. Yes I know that they all say different things and espouse different ideas, but ultimately they will all have the same policies put in place. After all, despite what President Obama said in his 2008 campaign, he has only created more wars and implemented many of the same things that President Bush would have.

And the only reason I say that Ron Paul is different from all the rest of the yahoos who would presume to rule over us is because his long record speaks as to one of consistency and actions matching words. It would be a shame to ignore a politician who means what says and does just that.

Mainstream Conservatives Have Failed…Again

2011-12-13T16:21:00.000-05:00

These days, I wonder how a person can call themselves a conservative and support the Republican party. Such actions are paradoxical at best, given the past history of the relations between the conservative movement and the Republican party leaders.

I believe I have discussed this topic before, but I am still wondering how conservatives can seriously consider voting Republican now, especially since they do not consider the top three candidates to be conservative.

Newt Gringrich, the current media-anointed frontrunner, is anything but a conservative. He used conservatives to bring Republicans to power in the House and then demonstrated poor leadership with regard to budgetary matters. You will also notice that the Federal government did not have a budget surplus until after he resigned. He also has supported the bankster organization Freddie Mac (or was it Fannie Mae?), supported global warming initiatives, and supported Obamacare.

On top of that, his personal life has been nothing but a circus of wives and mistresses, the latest of whom managed to convert him to Catholicism. It’s funny because I don’t remember being taught that in order to be a missionary to others, you need to be in the missionary position with your target. In any case, this does not bother me too much, largely because I don’t care all that much, but I thought conservatives did care about such things. In any event, Gringrich has gotten to the head of the class largely because of the conservatives dissatisfaction with most other candidates and because of his articulate manner in the many debates.

Mitt Romney is just as bad as Newt Gringrich for conservatives since he believes in man-made global warming, supports TARP (not only when it happened but he still thinks it was a good idea not implemented properly), and at one time was pro-choice, which doesn’t make him a very good Mormon. He also laid the groundwork for Obamacare when he was governor of Massachusetts, which is not a popular issue among conservatives, although the supposed conservative think-tank known as the Heritage Foundation also supported Romneycare alongside Senator Ted Kennedy.

Then we have Ron Paul, or He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, who is never considered a conservative by mainstream conservatives. He is considered either a kook or libertarian (or both) in most conservative circles. I personally consider him to be a Constitutional Conservative, as he is always touting the Constitution when discussing the role of the Federal government.

In short, it seems to me that the Mainstream Conservatives have failed, yet again, to produce a solidly conservative candidate to their liking. The top tier candidates are not in line with Mainstream Conservatism and the ones who do are getting single digits in most polls. But hey, it’s OK, because as long as a Republican wins, then conservatism wins, right? Just don’t pay attention to the growing government and shrinking liberties, both personal and economic.

Man is not a Robot

2011-12-12T16:32:00.000-05:00

Yesterday my wife asked me whether I did not trust the government with the information they provide. I did not answer simply, because my skepticism of all things government is not a simple yes or no response. I also did not bother to highlight cases where I believed government was right. In other words, I did not go on the defensive.

Instead, I proceeded to explain why I do not trust the government anymore than I trust most other strangers with information. The fact of the matter is, everyone has their own preferences, biases, and beliefs. While you may be able to categorize people depending on certain limitations, by and large we are individuals with our own desires.

A government bureaucrat is not immune to his own prejudices. He will make reports based on his or her own preferences or the preferences of his or her superiors. Even if it was a truthful action or statement, it still is based on the preferences of the individual.

A journalist still injects his or her personal opinion when reporting the news. And it is not just in the words they use, but the way in which they report. For example, I watched CNN while the whole Bush-Gore debacle was going on. I noticed that when they reported favorable news about Bush, there were no reporters on the ground with the Bush supporters (but you could hear them in the background), however, they always had a person on the ground with Gore’s supporters. This may seem irrelevant, but consider that this was an intentional decision by the higher ups in CNN so they could not show the number of Bush supporters but at the same time show the number of Gore supporters, all in an attempt to influence their audience.

I am not condemning any actions of bias really. It is human nature to express that preference for Coke or Pepsi and it is part of what makes us unique. What I do condemn is when people lie about it and claim some moral high ground by claiming to be purely objective. The fact is, human beings are not objective and will always interject their biases, to varying degrees, into whatever they do.

One cannot look at a government, in any form, as a benevolent entity able to meet the appropriate needs of the people it governments. You need to look at the government as a collection of selfish individuals with the authority to use legal force in order to implement their programs. By legal force, I mean that they will kill you if you do not comply with their rules and regulations, however minor, because they are allowed to do so by the people the rule over.

As such, I always take a skeptical look at government studies because I know they are designed to make them look good. Propaganda is always the name of the game when it comes to the government. Why do you think they have several different standards of measurement for various economic indicators such as unemployment and inflation? It is because government officials will seek to report the one indicator that is most favorable to them.

I do not limit this skepticism to government or mainstream media outlets either. Talk radio show hosts, though a little more honest with their audience, tend to mask their biases as well. Rush Limbaugh is not a conservative first and a Republican second, he is a Republican first and a conservative second. Such abandonment of principle is one of the main reasons why I no longer listen to him.

Ultimately, I believe that we are entitled to our opinions, ideas, beliefs, and biases. However, I have little tolerance for people who claim to not have any bias at all, especially when they are in the position to influence people or enforce a policy. Clearly, we all need to take what we are told with a grain of salt. And then throw it up in order to more thoroughly analyze it….

Lovecraft Friday

2011-12-09T17:09:00.000-05:00

Today I am showcasing another video from Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. Here Jack Walters takes on two Flying Polyps with a Yithian directed energy gun:

He’s not a very good shot

Muppet Moocher?

2011-12-09T16:37:00.000-05:00

And now we have a muppet moocher:

A “food insecure” Muppet is helping to promote a national “Food for Thought” campaign that teaches poor families to seek out nutritious food and to eat on the taxpayers’ tab.

At the National Press Club on Thursday, Lily the Muppet – who worries about her family not having enough money to feed her properly -- pitched free food at school:

“Sometimes we can't always afford to buy all the food that we need,” Lily said. “I mean, but we've been finding lots of ways that we can get help...Yeah, for example, at school I get a free breakfast and a lunch...part of the meal plan."

Lily’s message is being circulated through schools, hospitals and food assistance programs as part of Sesame Street’s “Food for Thought” multi-media campaign, which includes DVDs and a booklet listing “services that can assist your family” as well as “referrals to social service agencies.”

Organizers say they have produced a million of the kits.

At the National Press Club on Thursday, the Rev. Douglas Greenaway of the National WIC (Women, Infants and Children) Association lauded Sesame Street’s ‘Food For Thought’ campaign – even linking it to federal deficit-reduction.

“What ‘Food For Thought’ does is remind people that eating healthy now gives them a good health outcome in the long term. So the folks you’re looking at up here, the programs that they represent, what ‘Food For Thought’ does is really a deficit reduction strategy, and we hope policymakers will take notice of that,” Greenaway said.

Greenaway didn't elaborate further on how this would work towards deficit reduction.

What happened to Cookie Monster? Apparently cookies are now a “sometimes” food. All I can say in response to that is: what the fuck?!?

Seriously, the primary market for Sesame Street has always been children under the age of five. And children that age should have zero control over what is put in front of them to eat because they are too stupid to get food for themselves, unless it is within reach. It is the parents’ job to tell the children “No, you only get two cookies” despite all the barrages of hysterical abuse. And if you are a parent and you have a toddler and you cannot endure their temper tantrums, you really need to take a class on spanking and time out.

Also, when dealing with children, why are we going to make their lives more complex by teaching them about poverty? Kids get freaked out when they can’t have what they want enough as it is and now you’re going to tell them about poverty? They are not developed enough to understand the very concept.

It gets better though as this was at the end of the article:

Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit educational organization behind the TV show, announced on Thursday that it plans to appoint a Poverty Advisory Board in 2012. The first meeting will be in Washington on Jan. 10.

I want PBS to be lose its Federal government money. They are a looter organization seeking to empower the moochers on behalf of the professional pimps in Congress.

Maybe then Sesame Street can focus on important things like counting:

Spiders on the wall, huh?

Another Murderous Moocher

2011-12-07T09:54:00.000-05:00

It didn’t take long for another moocher to strike:

A woman in the border city of Laredo, Texas who was angry because she had been denied food stamps killed herself and shot and critically wounded her two children late on Monday, authorities said on Tuesday.

The 38-year-old woman entered the Texas Health and Human Services Commission office in downtown Laredo on Monday afternoon and demanded to speak to a supervisor, said investigator Joe Baeza of the Laredo Police Department.

The woman, whom he declined to identify, pulled out a handgun and started walking through the office, threatening several employees, he said.

"She had issues and felt that she had been let down by social services in general," Baeza told Reuters on Tuesday. "She was making all sorts of outlandish claims."

She took an office supervisor hostage in a room in the office, he said, and a SWAT team managed to evacuate the other three dozen people in the office and clear the area.

After two hours of negotiations, the woman allowed the male supervisor to go free, but she remained in the office with her two children, a 10-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl.

"About 11:45 last night, she hung up the phone with negotiators, and a little bit later, negotiators heard three shots," Baeza said on Tuesday. "What had happened was that she had shot each of her children once and herself once."

The children were airlifted to a hospital in San Antonio in extremely critical condition, he said. The mother was dead at the scene, he said.

The sad fact about this story is that she was only denied because her application was incomplete.

Of course she was mentally ill. But you have to be a little bit crazy to be a moocher. And I fully expect more stories like this to appear as more and more welfare services get slashed.

On a side note, it is high time we start shunning women who are single moms. I am not talking about divorced women, as it depends on the nature of the divorce, but women who have never gotten married in the first place, have kids, and their fathers are nowhere to be seen. It is becoming a moral imperative that our society shun such sluts and treat them like the scum queens that they are (throw them in the mud).

Murderous Moocher

2011-12-06T15:51:00.000-05:00

It appears that no good deed goes unpunished:

Police say a York County woman admitted to killing a 67-year-old family friend in Florida and leaving the woman’s body underneath a pile of Christmas presents in her own home.

Patty White, 40, has been arrested for allegedly killing 67-year-old Michele O’Dowd in her Jacksonville home Friday. Jacksonville police indicated to CBS Charlotte that while no charges have been filed to this point, the case against White will be a homicide case.

Jacksonville police said White stole two of O’Dowd’s charge cards following her death, attempting to take money out of her account from at least two area ATMs. Police added that O’Dowd let White, a family friend, stay with her when she fell on difficult times.

WTEV reports that O’Dowd’s body was discovered by her twin brother that same day.

“There is nothing worse than when you walk inside and find your own sister brutally murdered over a stupid debit card,” the brother told WTEV.

On Saturday, York police pulled over a car driven by White’s mother that White was riding in. When White interviewed with detectives, White confessed to murdering O’Dowd, according to a police report and a release.

York Police Chief Andy Robinson told CBS Charlotte that it is unlikely White will fight extradition back to Florida, where she will be charged. Robinson said that White should be heading to Florida sometime this week.

White is currently being held at the York County Detention Center.

What we have here is a microcosm of what happens when you take away a moocher’s source of income. Patty White was probably a impulsive customer of many vices, such as alcohol, gambling, and recreational drug use. In her 20s, she probably rode the man carousel and found that when she reach her mid-thirties, she was no longer desirable. Subsequently, she began to just mooch off of friends rather than her various lovers.

Michele O’Dowd was probably just fulfilling what she perceived as her Christian duty to help those who are downtrodden. Unfortunately, she forgot the very important lesson of keeping boundaries with those kind of people and she paid the ultimate price for her mistake. I am not condemning Michele O’Dowd for her generosity or her heart, merely her foolish behavior with regards to Patty White.

While it does not say in the article, and most of what I have said so far can be taken for a grain of salt, I am guessing that Patty White asked Michele O’Dowd for money and that when she was refused what she believed was her due, she killed that women. Her actions following the murder seem to indicate as much.

When moochers are denied their source of income, they react with violence. Productive citizens usually go out and find another job. But moochers only understand the concept of money, not the concept of the proper way to get it. This is why you see the elderly believing such ridiculous lies as Republicans wanting to push them down the stairs. They actually are so afraid of losing their welfare benefits, which are awarded to them for being old, that they will believe anything the looters tell them.

With such an irrational mindset, it is not hard to see them engaging in murder in order to get money. It is unfortunate that this happened, but I won’t be surprised if it happens much more frequently in the future.

Manmade Limitations of Laws

2011-12-05T16:05:00.001-05:00

The misnamed field of study known as political science (because there is no scientific process involved in it) has a basic principle when it comes to laws that are passed or created. This principle is that all laws, whatever the source, must be enforceable in some way within the given constraints of government, both natural or manmade. If such a law is passed, it is usually either a dangerous law or a ridiculous law.

For example, let’s say that the Federal government passed a law that states 1 + 1 = 3. All textbooks in public schools and all government business must be changed in order to align with it. It does not matter that the accepted fact is that 1 + 1 = 2. Because the Federal government has mandated it and because they are well within their constitutional authority to do so (all weights and measures are set by the Federal government), this means that mathematics must be changed.

But that doesn’t mean that it is still true. You see, despite what the leaders within government think, there are fundamental laws of economics, mathematics, nature, and morality that they cannot override with a simple law. Even if they were to do so, they would end up causing huge damage to the very people they seek to rule over.

But let’s say that a law is created which flies in the face of manmade constraints imposed on the legislative body created by them. The defense bill passed last week is exactly this: it flies in the face of the 4th and 5th amendments to the United States Constitution.

The fact is, no person, regardless of citizenship, shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law when they are on US soil and not an invading foreign force. The actions taken by the Federal government fly in the face of this since terrorism is a broad term that can be used and applied to just about anyone.

The tools for the United States to become a totalitarian state are in place. All that stands in the way is this joke of an election process we are seeing now and a few brave souls at various positions of power who wield enough influence to stop them. But those people are becoming fewer and fewer as the years go by.

The problem is that while there are manmade constraints on the laws that can be passed and the powers of the President and the courts (both Inferior and Superior), ultimately it takes men of integrity to abide by those limitations. And how often do you find men of integrity in politics. The oft-repeated stereotype of the politician is not a favorable one by any stretch and it seems to me that stereotypes, however exaggerated they may appear, are often rooted in truth.

The fact is, the kind of men and women who seek high office are, by and large, opportunists. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, as you or I might find a better job with better pay and benefits in a very opportunistic fashion, but in this case it is about the opportunity is about power over us. And all the while they continually claim to have only our best interests at heart to the detriment of their own, which is an outright lie.

I believe that the United States, as it is today, will cease to be this century. I will be surprised if we make it to 2030 as an intact nation. As such, I think it is high time that our greatest minds start planning for a future Republic that has a failsafe in place which prevents legislatures, executives, and judges from stepping outside their authority. I’m guessing that it may involve some form of legitimate force to be employed by the citizenry based on an ultra-majority. Or term limits. Both might work out nicely.