Will… not… blog… about… economics! Must… RESIST!

I’m trying, folks!  I’m trying really hard!  I will say this:  some Congressleeches finally listened to their constituents, and despite sanctimonious blathering by Barney Frank (D-umbass, MA) and shrill screeching by Darth Skeletor Pelosi (D-imwit, CA) about how the current “emergency” is all the fault of the BushCoHalliburton Evil Rethugnican Machine, the bailout bill rewarding irresponsible behavior on the part of certain financial firms and homeowners FAILED.

And somehow the world goes on. And while credit is tight, there’s no freeze. Qualified borrowers – read that QUALIFIED borrowers – can still get money.

That’s all I’m going to say about the economy.  I’m not going to reiterate that this “crisis” is partially manufactured by the politicians and ardently supported by the media conspicuously in time for Election 2008.  I’m not going to point out that only a small percentage of mortages are actually in trouble, and that overall, our economy isn’t crashing around our nipples.

I’m just going to sit back and watch the mad scramble for yet another compromise, and then ensure that I pull the lever against every single incumbent that voted for this bailout on Election Day.

Meanwhile, across the pond…

Police confiscate a walking stick from a 78-year-old man, because they claim it’s an “<A href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1064338/Police-confiscate-walking-stick-retired-teacher-7ffensive-weapon.html”>offensive weapon.”

With his white hair, wax jacket and glasses, 78-year-old Philip Clarkson Webb clearly ticked all the boxes any eagle-eyed policemen would mark as ‘danger’.

And as he shuffled along the pavement towards them there was one thing above all they deemed to pose a threat – his walking stick.

The officers surrounded the retired classics teacher and informed him the 3ft wooden cane was an ‘offensive weapon’ and had to be confiscated.

Yeah, this guy looks ridiculously dangerous.  After all, he was spotted by the authoritarian swine near a *GASP!* protest rally!!  Never mind that Mr. Clarkson was not one of the activists at the climate camp but was there to attend a seminar on trade energy quotas!  I would not just disarm him, I’d wrestle him to the ground, boys!  After all, you can’t possibly take any chances with the safety and security of the British sheep, can you?

OK, seriously… is this REALLY the birthplace of the Magna Carta?  The Great Charter of Freedoms?

One commenter on the story said it best:

They are pathetic and out of control. And that’s just the police!! What on earth is happening in this country? As much as I’d like to, can/should this all be laid at the feet of this useless government?

- Bob Baillie, Southampton, 30/9/2008 11:04

This is what happens when you infringe upon the people’s right to self defense and prevent them from taking responsibility for their own lives and property.  Said lives and property become meaningless.  People lose respect for themselves and their rights, and the few who dare challenge and resist the state and who dare defy the edicts that endanger themselves and their families are promptly prosecuted.  And what they’re left with is a bunch of statist pigs who are so afraid of dissent and resistance, that they attack an innocent old man on the street in fear that he might use whatever is available to him as a weapon.

Britain surrendered a long time ago.  The time to wave “Goodbye” is long past due.

THR Update

I noticed this weekend that a number of comments on both Xavier’s and Peter’s blogs regarding the THR situation center on the perception of a bitter, clueless few that the THR situation we’ve been writing about is somehow about banning sour grapes.  It isn’t. 

It’s about theft – pure and simple.  It’s about a betrayal of trust.  And it’s about a criminal act.  Somehow people are missing this.

Peter has an update that pretty much puts the irrelevant to rest.  I encourage you to go over there and read it.

That central issue is this: the domain name and ownership of THR have been stolen. The rightful owner has now instituted civil legal action to retrieve his property. All of us should support that action, because if someone can steal another’s property with impunity, it affects all of us, as it makes a mockery of the rule of law.

There’s also a criminal law aspect to this, of course. Since the domain name was “hijacked” by a person in one state, while being transferred from the former owner in a second state to the new owner in a third state, it unquestionably becomes a matter of interstate commerce. This is reinforced by THR’s “For Sale” sub-forums, where much interstate buying and selling takes place. That makes this a matter for federal law. As one formerly employed in (and now medically retired from) a law enforcement position with the US Department of Justice, I’ve made a few phone calls to former colleagues, who’ve expressed considerable interest in what’s going on. I daresay we may see some action on that front in due course, over and above any civil litigation.

It’s critically important that the right be upheld in this situation. If that doesn’t happen, or if some form of “settlement” is reached whereby the guilty party receives any type of compensation for returning what has been stolen, it will make a mockery of justice and the rule of law. All of us should surely be in agreement that any such thing would be intolerable.

It’s amazing how so many gun rights advocates are willing to allow simple theft to slide merely because they happen to like to play with the item that was stolen or because they happen to like the thief!  Stunning hypocrisy, people!  Just stunning!  Recognize this for what it is:  a crime.  The previous owner of the domain name is on record as having stated to whom he intended to transfer the domain name.  So why is it so many Second Amendment advocates like to tout the rule of law, while arbitrarily ignoring that law when it doesn’t suit them?

Libtards 2008: Stayin’ Classy as Always

The Intertubez are really a funny thing.  I doubt that when The Goreon invented it, he envisioned the kind of impact it would have on society and on global communications.  For all the lightning-fast information and the opening of numerous societies that the webz facilitates, there’s a downside too…

One big one that I see is the false bravado it enables in many cowards who inhabit the web.  After all — it’s relatively anonymous, inexpensive and easy to manipulate.  You can post attacks, gang up on individuals and ruin reputations and lives in one fell swoop without leaving your mother’s basement or taking that ho-ho out of your maw.  You can ridicule, mock, needle and harass with impunity.  After all, no one knows who you are, and you never have to face your victim in person…

I’ve seen this too many times.  The anonymity the Internet provides breeds this kind of false courage – a willingness to attack an individual or a family, knowing that you don’t have to face your victim, see how much you’ve hurt them, or be pummeled into a fine powder in response to your assault.  It also gives the attacker the attention they so desire and breeds a mob mentality that allows a number of such cowards to band together and make themselves feel superior to their victim.

Such are the people who create websites such as

Another homeowner acquitted in Texas

Some may be appalled that this Texas homeowner used deadly force when a bunch of teenagers broke into his home.

Yes, they were looking for drinks and snacks… supposedly.  But consider this:  when you’re an elderly homeowner and a bunch of individuals break into your home, is your first thought, “Oh!  They must just be hungry!” or “Someone’s in my house, and I need to protect myself!”

Luckily, the jury in this case thought the latter was a logical rationale, so they acquitted Jose Luis Gonzalez, 63, of murdering Francisco Anguiano, who was 13 when he and three friends
broke into Gonzalez’s trailer in July 2007.

However, Assistant District Attorney Uriel Druker maintained during
his closing arguments that the case was not about homeowners’ right to
protect their property, but about when a person is justified in using
deadly force to do so.

“What really took place here was a case of
vigilantism,” he said after the verdict. “A 13-year-old boy was killed
because a man was enraged.”

No, a 13-year-old boy was killed because he invaded someone’s home.  It’s called breaking and entering, and it’s a crime.  Why is it that his age needs to absolve him of dealing with the consequences of his actions?

Respectful, my ASS!

David has an update on the Meleanie Hain situation.  He also has posted a copy of the letter sent to Ms. Hain by the statist pig who saw it fit to trample her rights because some panty-shitting assholes in a park were “upset” at her lawful exercise of her Second Amendment rights. 

David also reports that a fund has been established to help Ms. Hain slap the authoritarian swine on the pee pee in court.  Please help if you can.

Note this particular pig impugns her character and reputation because some individuals were upset.  And then he has the unmitigated GALL to feign courtesy??  Respectfully???  What is it you actually respect, you statist piece of festering crap?  You certainly don’t respect constitutionally-protected rights.  You certainly don’t respect a woman’s right to self defense.  The only thing you DO respect is the whining of ignorant sheep and you gladly trample one woman’s rights because a couple of them bleated in gutless surrender to tyranny.

Bastard.