FM Award

Today we have to give the FM (“F*#@ing Moron) Award to “THE COLD HARD TRUTH.”

F(*&ing Moron Award

F*#@ing Moron Award

He (she/it?) writes:


You know what? I don’t either (“live in fear that everyone one is …”). I own a gun because someone not very nice might decide to come to my home some night. It doesn’t cost me a lot to be prepared, and in the final analysis I had rather be the Boy Scout who was prepared than the victim who wasn’t.

I also own a fire extinguisher, not because I live daily in fear of my house burning down, but because it would sure be nice to have one if something in my house did catch on fire.

Simple really.

FM. What else can you say ?


Posted in 2nd Amendment, Concealed Carry, Gun Control, Guns, NRA, Politics, Self Defense, Violence | 2 Comments

A Lame Duck Country?


Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell is one of my favorite columnists. From Wikipedia:

Thomas Sowell (/soʊl/; born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author.

He is currently Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Sowell was born in North Carolina, but grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of high school and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a bachelor’s degree from Harvard University in 1958 and a master’s degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his Doctorate in Economics from the University of Chicago.

Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked for think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He writes from a conservative and libertarian perspective, advocating free market economics and has written more than thirty books. He is a National Humanities Medal winner.

I recommend checking out his articles on They are always worth a read and relevant to current events. Today’s article is:

A Lame Duck Country?


The Constitution cannot protect our rights if we do not protect the Constitution. Freedom is not free, and the Constitution is just some words on paper if we do not do anything to those who violate it.


The most important thing the voters can do is vote against anyone who violates the Constitution. When someone who has violated the Constitution repeatedly gets re-elected, then the voters are accomplices in the erosion of protection for their own freedom.

If you read this page, you really ought to read the whole article here.

Another great American once said:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. -President Ronald Reagan




Posted in 2nd Amendment, Blacks, Democrats, Libertarian, Obama, Politics, Republican Party, Republicans, Tea Party, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Idiots With Guns

Here is a graphic on Accidental Firearms Fatalities from 1974 to 2002:


Source is here at Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute, Inc. – data from National Safety Council. Quoting from the SAAMI article:

“Firearms ownership and use have increased significantly over the years, with an estimated 200-250 million firearms currently owned by some 75-85 million law-abiding Americans. Yet, accidental firearm fatalities have declined dramatically during this time and are at their lowest levels since statistics were first compiled a century ago.” — Decades of Success In Reducing Firearms Accidents

A lot of people seem to believe that accidents with guns and accidental firearms fatalities are on the rise. Replied to one such blog post the other day, a post called The Only Protection From Idiots with Guns is . . . More Idiots With Guns. The blog owner declined to approve it because, among other things,  it was too long. I also suspect that my comments did not align with the views of the blog owner.

So here it is.

Elect2Care wrote:

“I think every gun accident and death is unnecessary and horrible.”
And car accidents, and toddlers drowning in a swimming pool, or any of a plethora of much more likely ways people can die accidentally? Is there something more “unnecessary” about an accidental gun death?

If firearms served no useful purpose then yes, maybe we ought to do away with them. But it is a well established fact (and well ignored fact by many) that guns do save lives and prevent injury. How many lives is debatable but something like 13 major studies showed that they were significant.

Dr. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz document some of the many studies in their work on defensive uses of firearms:

Some will question the numbers Kleck came up with, but the fact is that many studies have shown the number is not trivial. In the past people would simply count the number of criminals killed with a gun as recorded by police reports. As it turned out that number was a pathetically low undercount because the vast majority of defensive gun uses never involve actually shooting anyone. The bad guy discovers the intended victim is capable of inflicting lethal force and goes somewhere else to victimize someone who is not as much of a threat to him.

So yes, it is a tragedy when someone is killed accidentally with a gun, especially younger children. But it is no more of a tragedy than many other accidental deaths.
One has to ask the question, why don’t we teach gun safety in our schools from kindergarten onwards? If a kid might pick up a gun and accidentally shoot herself or her playmate then why don’t we use something like the NRA Eddie Eagle program to teach young kids in schools that if they see a gun to leave the room and go tell an adult?

If people are concerned about these accidents why are so many so voraciously opposed to teaching kids enough about guns so that these accidents become less likely?

“I think the security around grammar and high schools is heart-breaking.”

I absolutely agree. The idea of declaring schools “Gun Free School Zones” and prohibiting responsible adults, including teachers and administrators, from having the means to protect kids is absurd and ridiculous. Does anyone in ther right mind believe that an Adam Lanza is going respect that law, or a ridiculous sign that says “Gun Free Zone”?

No, it is ridiculous and absurdly irresponsible to expect signs and laws to protect kids from crazy people. If there had been a locked cabinet in Newtown with a couple loaded AR-15s with 30 round magazines accessible to the principal and other office staff to protect kids then Adam Lanza most likely would have had his story told in a minor news item on the evening news, if it even made the news.

In Texas we have one (maybe two now?) school district where teachers can get a CHL (concealed handgun license) and if approved by the principal of the school, carry a concealed handgun in school to protect kids. They have been doing it for years with absolutely no problems (and no shootings).

We protect our money in banks with people with guns. Was in a jewelry store the other day with an armed guard protecting their diamonds and other valuables. I see Brinks trucks with armed people picking up money at big stores. Politicians are often protected with armed people. The President has Secret Service around him with fully automatic sub-machineguns under their coats.

But kids, they are not important enough to us to protect with guns? Makes no sense to me.

“I think people should be able to watch a movie without being gunned down.”

The most recent incident that I heard of was of a retired police officer who by law was still able to carry a concealed handgun.

All of us want to be safe and for our families to be safe. For that reason I have a CHL in Texas and habitually carry a loaded handgun (concealed) in public. If we want to deter violent criminals and crazies then we have to convince then that they are likely to be met with determined and deadly force if they attempt anything in public.

“I think being able to purchase guns and bullets at Walmart is absurd.”

I don’t think it is in the least bit absurd. I have proposed a scheme for universal background checks here.

The executive summary is that everyone should have a background check done on them when they get a driver’s license or state issued id and the results should be encoded on the back of their driver’s license. For example,  on my driver’s license there is a code that says I have to wear glasses when I drive in Texas. Why not a code that says I passed the background check when I got my driver’s license?

“The NRA is a huge money-making, money-churning lobby …”

On that I think you are perhaps a little deceived. The power of the NRA, and I have been a member for a very long time, comes from the large number of members, and an even larger number of people who are not members but believe the NRA’s position on many issues makes good sense. And they vote, ergo they have power. I call that democracy.

I wrote a post called Guns And Drugs that you might find interesting.

The executive summary is that the legal drug industry in this country has profits at least 100x the size of the firearms industry that supplies civilians (not the military). A very large number of our kids are prescribed psychoactive drugs for various diagnoses like ADHD and these drugs can lead to violent ideation and other issues that might contribute to the mental state of some of the school killers.

If any lobby has the money to buy Congress Critters it is the pharmaceutical industry, far more so than the NRA or firearms manufacturers.

“…as long as politicians can be bought.”

One way to lessen that is to take away their power to sell favors (i.e., smaller government with far less power). Politicians cannot sell power they do not possess. If politicians have a lot of power, and they stay in Congress long enough, they will sell it. Term limits would be a good start.

“I’m very tried of the 2nd amendment being brought up”

Me too. I am sick and tired of people who want to treat law abiding gun owners as if they were sex offenders that should have to wear an ankle bracelet monitored by the police. A little sarcasm there. :)

“… weapons into the hands of people who should not be handling weapons?”

I am in favor of that as long as those “reasonable” regulations do not impact the right of law abiding citizens to exercise their God-given right to self defense and to own weapons appropriate to that purpose (including a semi-automatic AR-15 with 30 round clips – own one made by Colt myself).

That is where I stand. I do not propose that anyone should be able to own or buy a gun. I support teaching kids about guns and especially about gun safety. I support keeping guns out the hands of criminals and crazies as much is practically possible without infringing on legitimate rights. But ulimately I have to agree with Wayne LaPierre that you need guns in good hands to stop bad guys with guns.

The following is a quote of unknown origin (often attributed falsely to George Orwell) that basically tells the story:

“We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


The simple fact is that many things in society can lead to both good and bad outcomes, depending on who is using them and how careful and responsible they are. That is I think the fact of reality the blogger I replied to above refuses to face.

You will often hear the phrase; “If it will only save one life!” spoken with great emotional force. But the people speaking that way are always speaking from their emotions and not their mind.

A rational person who looks at all the data must reach the conclusion that yes, “idiots with guns” (and criminals with guns) cause tragedies. But a whole lot more people who are not idiots and do have guns save a lot lives and prevent a lot of tragedies. We could have a lot of education in our schools to educate people about gun safety but the reality today is that a kid is likely to get expelled or reprimanded for even drawing a picture of a gun in school (or chewing a pop tart to resemble something that looks like a gun).

If you think about it, those folks who so oppose teaching gun safety in our schools might have a little culpability in some of those accidents with guns.


p.s. Note to Elect2Care:

I will more than likely approve your comments on this article. I am not averse to having dissenting opinions on my blog unless they are exceptionally rude and without actual content.



Posted in 2nd Amendment, Concealed Carry, Democrats, Gun Control, Guns, NRA, Obama, Politics, Self Defense, Violence | 13 Comments

Liberal White Guilt



George Zimmerman, a polarizing image for those afflicted with guilt.

Ran across this guy a couple days ago at a blog called “THE MANIACAL RANT OF A COMMUNITY COLLEGE “‘PROFESSOR’” in a post entitled “Time for Sanity to Stand Its Ground: A Call for Peace.”

I shall call him the Maniacal Professor (MP). He appears to be a classic prototype for the middle aged white academic liberal racked with guilt over being white. For example he wrote:

I am white. I sometimes wish I wasn’t. Because of days like July 13th, 2013. Because of shame and embarrassment of being white.

In case you wonder what happened on July 13th in 2013,  that was the day that a jury reached a “not guilty” verdict in the George Zimmerman trial in Florida.

On Saturday, July 13, 2013, the day after deliberations began, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty for both second-degree murder and the lesser included charge of manslaughter. -Wikipedia

The case involved George Zimmerman fatally shooting Trayvon Martin in self defense. The jury obviously accepted the physical evidence and testimony in the trial that backed up Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. Otherwise they would have had to have at least found him guilty of manslaughter.

Those are the facts. In a previous post Inside the Zimmerman Trial I provided a set of links to articles by Massad Ayoob, a highly respected firearms and self-defense expert who was retained by the Zimmerman defense team as an expert witness. I find it hard to understand how any rational and objective person could read those articles and not at least have their faith in the hysterical media coverage of the Zimmerman trial seriously shaken.

The Maniacal Professor still bitterly clings to every false accusation made against Zimmerman. For example one early one involved the claim that Zimmerman referred to Martin as a “coon,” a highly degrading racial epithet. In his original post he wrote of Zimmerman:

We seem to forget about the utterance of “coon” on the 911 tapes,

The fact is that CNN completely retracted that claim after the audio was enhanced and it was clear that Zimmerman was commenting on the weather, saying that it was “f**cking cold!” Nevertheless the MP in response still refuses to let that false accusation go:

I’ve heard the 911 tapes many times, and he could’ve uttered “coon” under his breath as easily as “cold” …

Clearly a bitter clinger to his prejudices. But not only bitter, but also spiteful. In his own words:

… Zimmerman was a screaming girlie man that had to shoot a legally-defined child in order to defend himself …

The real crux of the problem for MP, and many white liberals today is guilt, largely unearned guilt.

How are we supposed to address our neighbors after this verdict? I walked to the store the morning of jury deliberations and found myself having to wonder if a young black boy, who was helping a younger girl ride a bike with training wheels, thought I was dangerous. I was walking down his sidewalk, and I wondered if I should move elsewhere. I wondered if he thought I had a gun. … I felt bad because I understand what this stupid killing of Trayvon Martin means to my black community.

I have to wonder if the final words of “my black community” are an unintended admission by MP of how liberals seem to have a very deep and proprietary feeling about the black community? Does MP and other liberals secretly believe they somehow “own” the black community, that they are its only possible benefactors (for which munificence the blacks are obligated to deliver the votes to the Democratic Party)?

It is a fact some old time Democrats in the South before the Civil War did own blacks. Today modern Democrats seem to have a similar proprietary relation to blacks, but now instead of picking cotton they are expected to deliver the vote to Democrats. You have to wonder if a lot of blacks are still living on a plantation run by Democrats.

The one thing you can be absolutely sure is that white liberals like MP don’t believe blacks could ever advance themselves without their help. That folks is racism, real racism, regardless of the motives.

I would guess that MP is seething internally with what is largely unearned guilt for probably holding some fairly natural views. He wrote:

I have earned guilt because I once had some racist views.

The fact is just about everyone has held some racist views at some time ,and by everybody I mean everybody; white, black, red or yellow in complexion. I wrote about that in Differences a while back – quoting:

Racism is inherent in the human condition. Humans are wired to see differences and draw conclusions about the meaning of those differences based on experience. Humans are wired to identify “we” and “them” and differences of sex and color are two big and obvious differences.

There is nothing immoral or inhuman about naturally drawing such conclusions. The mechanisms are largely below the conscious threshold. This is as true of black, yellow, and red children as of white children. All are born natural racists and bigots.

The point of education is to bring the rational mind and the heart into the conversation and help it see the evidence that there is more that unites than divides, to see the humanity in all that underlies the differences. There is nothing inherently awful about starting out life as a racist and a bigot. It is the human condition. The tragedy is is not in how we start, but in how we end.

Modern progressives often like to ridicule conservatives over what they see as their old fashioned views on sex and nudity. They often see conservatives as having all these repressed sexual fantasies simmering below the consciousness and unable to deal with them. In other words they think conservatives are “hung up” over sex.

Well I am here to tell you that if MP is in any way typical of the liberal stereotype then Liberals are much more hung up on racism. They see it everywhere in everything (except themselves, believing they have exorcised their own demons).

But you can see their real racism in the guilt they especially want to put on all other whites, and the rage apparently they feel when a white person simply says “Not Guilty!” They have as much rage over that verdict as the verdict in the Zimmerman trial.

Here is my take on racism. Everyone has some inherent biases. White folks can have biases and so can black people. Many people work through them and do not let them affect how they actually treat other people, regardless of their color or whatever.

If you manage to not let whatever inherent biases you may have accumulated over time influence your behavior with other people and treat people fairly and rationally then you are not a racist, period, no matter what thoughts you may have had in the past before you had better information or insight.

Racism is a club that the Left tries to use to intimidate their opponents (and keep their own ranks in line). They use guilt over racism pretty much the way the Catholic Church used guilt over sex. They used it to control people. Guilty people are a lot more easy to intimidate than those who refuse to accept unearned guilt.

To understand the real venom in MP’s words you probably have to understand how it derives from his own unearned guilt and the deep inner hatred he probably holds for himself. I don’t think I am speculating too much there – go read his words for yourself (see link at beginning of this article).

Accepting unearned guilt, especially to this degree, is pathological and almost certainly detrimental to your mental health and happiness. Even if you actually have earned some guilt it is still unhealthy to hold on to it and punish yourself. Fix what you did wrong, or make amends, and go on with your life. Holding onto guilt helps no one and can make you sick, literally.

Guilt is a trap. Our Maniacal Professor is in a trap of his own making, and by the venom of his words, making him sick.

One last thought. MP accused me of thinking George Zimmerman is some sort of hero. Just for the record that is not the case. He is a human being and probably, like most of us, and imperfect one.

MP wrote:

If you’ve been paying such close attention to George Zimmerman, then you should know he’s not worth defending

In our system one of our most sacred principles is that everyone deserves justice and has a right to competent defense. In the end George Zimmerman got that and America got an example of reason and common sense winning over racial bigotry and an organized lynch mob (of which MP was a dedicated member).






Posted in Blacks, Democrats, Gun Control, Guns, Libertarian, NRA, Obama, Politics, Racism, Republican Party, Republicans, Self Defense, Sex, Tea Party, Uncategorized, Violence, Zimmerman | 19 Comments

You Are A Criminal

In the movie “Atlas Shrugged II, The Strike,” the screen adaptation of the book “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, one of the villains, Dr. Floyd Ferris, explains things to Hank Rearden who is one of the heroes of the movie:

Dr. Floyd Ferris

Dr. Floyd Ferris

Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

In non-fiction article “The Nature of Government” Ayn Rand describes where the United States is headed (and many would say, has arrived):

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

She of course was referring to one of the original concepts of the Founders of the United States, the idea that government could only do what it is permitted and an individual could do whatever he or she wanted as long as it was not not prohibited. Indeed that principle has been nearly inverted where government can find a justification for about any action it wants. The President can ignore the laws passed by the Congress or amend them by fiat Executive Order, as for example, as President Obama has repeatedly amended the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare“) for purely partisan political purposes.

Quoting from “How Many Federal Laws Are There?

In an example of a failed attempt to tally up the number of laws on a specific subject area, in 1982 the Justice Department tried to determine the total number of criminal laws. In a project that lasted two years, the Department compiled a list of approximately 3,000 criminal offenses. This effort, headed by Ronald Gainer, a Justice Department official, is considered the most exhaustive attempt to count the number of federal criminal laws. In aWall Street Journal article about this project, “this effort came as part of a long and ultimately failed campaign to persuade Congress to revise the criminal code, which by the 1980s was scattered among 50 titles and 23,000 pages of federal law.” Or as Mr. Gainer characterized this fruitless project: “[y]ou will have died and [been] resurrected three times,” and still not have an answer to this question.

According to the article How many pages are in the Affordable Care Act?:

So… how many “pages” are in the Affordable Care Act? In the actual legislation itself, there are just over 2,400. But the legislation is incomplete with the accompanying regulations, most of which have yet to be published.

Paul Bedard, a journalist with U.S. News, reported in April 2011 that the first set of HHS regulations covered six pages of the actual legislation—but resulted in 429 pages of regulations.

I was curious to see what that would mean for the totality of the health care legislation if I applied a ratio of 71.5:1 to the Affordable Care Act.

The result?

More than 170,000 pages.

No, that’s not a typo. It really is a six figure total. By comparison, the U.S. tax code by my calculations is approximately 13,000 pages.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):

…is the codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations (sometimes called administrative law) published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government of the United States. The CFR is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. … Under the delegation doctrine, federal agencies are authorized to promulgate regulations (rulemaking) by so-called enabling legislation. -Wikipedia

The CFR is comprised of 50 volumes. Under President Obama alone it has increased by over 11,000 pages. In 1975 it took 71,000 pages to publish the CFR. (see this article on

… there is a very high probably that you are a criminal.

It is not humanely possible in many instances to know if you are following the law or not.  Given the sheer volume of Federal law and Federal regulations there is a very high probably that you are a criminal.

See this article Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his propertyEven if Congress did nothing at all the sprawling bureaucracy will continue to create reams of pages that in effect become law and if you run afoul of any of those laws it will be the government that will have the masses of lawyers to prove you broke the law.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

In a world where the government aims to be your caretaker it will most certainly be  your master. The days of government “by and for the people” are quickly ending. Soon it will the “government by the government for the government.”

If we want something different we have to educate ourselves and put our allegiance to those political movements aimed at small and limited government. I leave it to you to figure out who those are. Just one clue – it is neither the mainline Republicans or Democrats.



Posted in Democrats, Libertarian, Obama, Obamacare, Politics, Republican Party, Republicans, Tea Party | Leave a comment

Is It Time To Blame The Victim?


It has become very bad form to blame the victim. Being a victim may give you complete immunity from criticism, especially if you belong to an officially sanctioned victim class. Any attempt to delve into how the victim may have contributed to, or encouraged an act of victimization is often resisted with violent protestations of “sexism,” or “racism,” or other hurtful accusations intended to silence politically incorrect views.

Ayn Rand described this kind of attack as a logical fallacy:

 …the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument.  –The Virtue of Selfishness, 143, Ayn Rand

 According to Rand there is only one antidote:

 How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.  –The Virtue of Selfishness, 143, Ayn Rand

If one is going to pull back the covers and look clearly at these issues one must have a strong conviction that truth matters more than political correctness.

One should never excuse the abuser. The fact that a victim allowed or facilitated the abuse should not be grounds to let the abuser off the hook. In the past a rapist might get off because a woman dressed seductively or did not shout “No!” at the first advance. Muslim scholars still defend this view and more often than not believe a woman is guilty of seduction because she is a woman.The civilized West has progressed beyond this.

Nevertheless victims often do contribute to their own victimization. Sometimes the victim unconsciously seeks to be victimized. Women may stay in an abusive relationship despite ample opportunity to leave, and even when they manage to leave they may immediately find an equally abusive partner to replace the one they left behind. The only partner that is attractive to them may be someone who is capable of abusing them. This is a common pattern that is well known in the field of psychiatry.

The essential premise presented here is that many blacks in America have contributed to and participated in their own victimization starting as far back as the Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and this greatly accelerated in the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act. They have, like the abused woman, returned to the Democratic Party – their serial abuser – over and over again despite clear evidence that the relationship was a sick and abusive one.

Today on average blacks vote for Democratic candidates at levels at or above 90%. How did blacks abandon the Party of Lincoln and come to embrace the party of the KKK?  That is a head scratcher for sure.

Some say that blacks shifted to the Democratic Party after Democratic President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Others blame Richard Nixon and his Southern Strategy that in reality was an attempt to give white Southerners an alternative to the blatant and vicious racism of the Democratic Party in the South. But the shift started a lot farther back than that. Blacks voted 71% for FDR in 1936 and except for 1956,  and the reelection of Dwight D. Eisenhower,  the trend has hardly ever reversed. [Factcheck, Blacks and the Democratic Party]

The real problem is that too many blacks have come to see Big Government as their savior. That took hold in the Great Depression and has become a major factor in how many blacks have seen politics ever since. Blacks collectively have been able to ignore or dismiss the most egregious racism of the Democratic Party; the party of the KKK, Jim Crow, and institutional segregation just so long as the Democrats grew government and came to promise them a larger share in it in exchange for their votes.

Many younger blacks today even believe that it was Republicans wearing those white sheets and burning crosses in the front yards of their grandparents and great grandparents. In the black community the Democrats won the argument a long time ago. The Democrats will keep winning the argument in the black community as long as blacks are wedded to the belief that government will somehow save them.

For this reason Conservatives should not try to craft a political strategy that requires the support or approval of Democratic blacks. There is no reason to even to pretend to care for the concerns of Democratic blacks looking for more entitlements. There is however a lot to be gained by telling everyone else who might be susceptible to reason that we won’t pander to big government programs that breed dependency.

On the other hand everything possible should be done to welcome blacks who support Conservative, small government principles. Contrary to popular media enflamed perception, Conservative and Tea Party types have welcomed like minded blacks into the fold with open arms.

Conservatives need to clearly identify who they can win with, and whom they cannot. Then they need to put 100% of their assets and effort into the battle of winning those who are not yet addicted to the crack cocaine of government dependency, and by that we are not only speaking of blacks, but the myriad of people and corporations who depend on government and not themselves.

The lesson should be obvious. Conservatives are not supposed to be about taking from some to give “benefits” or special favors to some at the cost of others. In any case Conservatives (or Libertarians for that matter) can’t out-promise the Democrats. The Democrats have a patent on stealing from some to buy the votes of others.

Something has gone very wrong for the black community in America. Dr. Walter E. Williams spoke very powerfully when he wrote:

Disgustingly, black politicians, civil rights leaders, liberals and the president are talking nonsense about “having a conversation about race.” That’s beyond useless. Tell me how a conversation with white people is going to stop black predators from preying on blacks. How is such a conversation going to eliminate the 75 percent illegitimacy rate? What will such a conversation do about the breakdown of the black family (though “breakdown” is not the correct word, as the family doesn’t form in the first place)? Only black people can solve our problems.  –Black Self Sabotage, July 31, 2013, Walter E. Williams 

As much as we may sympathize with the plight of many blacks caught in poverty, we can’t help them by competing with Democrats. Remember they have the patent on buying votes with other people’s money. If there is any chance whatsoever, we have to appeal to those who want to free people from poverty and dependency, not those who wish to institutionalize dependency for political power.


Posted in Democrats, Libertarian, Obama, Obamacare, Politics, Racism, Republican Party, Republicans | 8 Comments

The Eye of God

Federal Premium Law Enforcement Ammo – 9mm LUGER 124 GRAIN HST HP TACTICAL from the business end of a Glock G26.


Was able to take this pic looking down the barrel of a Glock G26 with my iPhone camera using flash. Silly, but found it amusing (and please, no safety lectures …).



Posted in Gun Control, Guns | Leave a comment