It’s Too Bad We Can’t Fire More Governors (Reblog)

I dont adopt any candidate as an identity and I think goons like California’s Newsome are a great reason why.

Yes, most governors could get fired and I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

I wish my state had a Constitution that limited their power and forced its citizens to be responsible for themselves.



Facing a recall election sparked partly by his heavy-handed pandemic restrictions on what Californians can do in their beloved outdoors, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in March chose a symbolically appropriate if politically tone-deaf venue for his annual State of the State address: an empty Dodger Stadium.

Like the beaches Newsom ordered closed the previous Fourth of July—months after researchers had become confident that outdoor settings were contributing little to the spread of COVID-19—the place Angelenos call Chavez Ravine looked unnatural without the hum of humanity. The plasticine preening from an ostensibly humbled governor didn’t help either.

“Instead of fans in stands, we see nurses in [personal protective equipment], saving lives one injection at a time,” Newsom said, bragging about the “most robust vaccination program in America,” which nonetheless ranked in the bottom 10 based on per-capita doses administered at the time. “And look, we’ve made mistakes,” he added. “I’ve made mistakes. But we own them, learn from them, and never stop trying.”

If only.

One of Newsom’s most damaging edicts was padlocking playgrounds—not just in the pandemic’s scary early weeks, when scientists didn’t understand much about how the virus was spread, but for six excruciating months. Kids in sunny California were prohibited by law from attending school or playing organized sports, long after the world’s leading epidemiologists and pediatricians began preaching the benefits of outdoor play and the comparative safety of schools and day care centers.

Even after reopening the playgrounds, Newsom mandated masking there for 2-year-olds, 6 feet of separation between families, a 30-minute time limit, and no eating or drinking. Then, when COVID-19 cases started surging in December, the governor shuttered the sandboxes again, only to reverse himself after an outcry from exhausted parents.

With a brazenness only a politician or actor could summon, Newsom is defending his anti-scientific record on scientific grounds. “From the earliest days of the pandemic,” he said in his Dodger Stadium speech, eyes shining with pride, “California trusted in science and data.”

Sacramento placed so little trust in neutral analysis that the governor refused to share his formula for determining when counties could emerge from lockdown orders after cases spiked last Thanksgiving. (It had something to do with the state’s guesstimate of future intensive care unit capacity.) “These fluid, on-the-ground conditions cannot be boiled down to a single data point,” California Health and Human Services Agency spokeswoman Kate Folmar told the Associated Press in January, “and to do so would mislead and create greater uncertainty for Californians.”

The Golden State has been home to some of the pandemic’s most jarring visuals: the Malibu surfer pulled out of the water by cops, the Venice Beach skatepark buried in preventive sand, the furious restaurateur’s video tour of a bustling film-production dining tent next door to her forcibly shuttered business. And of course there was Newsom’s indoor meal at the schmancy restaurant The French Laundry, where he violated his own masking and social distancing rules. It’s no wonder that Californians, who suffered an employment decline of 8.3 percent from February 2020 through the end of the year, are hopping mad.

Did all those restrictions work? Newsom sure seems to think so. “People are alive today because of the public health decisions we made,” he said in his State of the State. But that is an article of faith, not science.

California as of mid-March had a cumulative COVID death rate of 144 per 100,000 residents, which is in the middle of the pack for the United States—substantially better than neighboring Nevada (167) and Arizona (228) but considerably worse than Oregon (56). The state’s best comparison in terms of mild year-round climate is its polar opposite in terms of policy: Florida. The Sunshine State has a similar death rate (153 per 100,000) despite adopting a far more permissive pandemic strategy—and despite having an older and therefore more vulnerable population. As an Associated Press headline put it in March, “Despite California and Florida governors’ drastically different approaches, the states saw almost identical outcomes in COVID-19 case rates.”

So the wonder is not that Gavin Newsom faces a recall election. It’s that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo does not.

Cuomo, a Democrat who in a neck-snappingly short period went from the national media’s “Love Gov” to its latest #MeToo whipping boy, had as of press time been urged to resign by basically every Democrat not named Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi. Unfortunately, the primary motivation for these appeals was not Cuomo’s disastrous handling of nursing homes during the first few months of the pandemic, nor his subsequent cover-up of the resulting death count, but rather his allegedly gross, sexualized interactions with multiple women, including some of his employees.

Cuomo, who at press time was still insisting he would not step down, can be removed from office only via impeachment, which would require elected officials to be brave, take on responsibility, and conduct a thorough and convincing investigation of all the relevant claims. As we saw from the two convictionless impeachments of Donald Trump, modern legislatures generally are not skilled at such tasks.

Which is why the recall is such an appropriate instrument for our times. New York is one of 31 states that do not allow voters to fire statewide officials at the ballot box. That is a shame. As the country accelerates its ideological sorting by geography, more and more people live in essentially one-party states, which is a recipe for political corruption, self-dealing, and incompetence.

As former CIA analyst Martin Gurri persuasively argues in The Revolt of the Public (Stripe Press), we are in the middle of an era in which citizens around the globe are taking a sledgehammer to elite institutions without much of an idea about what to build atop the rubble. The resulting populism is often no friend to liberal values. But the recall mechanism, which traces its roots to the Progressive Era, is a rare example of populism done right, without many of the messy side effects.

As citizens, we should be able to extraordinarily punish elected officials who have done an extraordinarily bad job, rather than counting on elected legislators to do the heavy lifting. “The nature of these things, the up-or-down question, the zero-sum nature of the question, is challenging, and it’s vexing,” Newsom said in mid-March on The View. Quite.

As a Californian transplanted to New York, I look on the Newsom recall campaign with envy. There is no vote I cherish more than the one I cast in 2003 to remove the odious Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, and I only wish I could do the same with Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, for starters.

In 30 of the 50 states, the same party that received the 2020 presidential vote also currently controls the governorship, the legislature, and the U.S. Senate delegation. Without effective political competition to keep the mono-party honest, both governance and its defenses will be increasingly hackish.

Newsom’s political action committee characterized the 2 million Californians who signed his recall petition as “a partisan, Republican coalition of national Republicans, anti-vaxxers, Q-Anon conspiracy theorists, and anti-immigrant Trump supporters.” To which we can hope to add the phrase who fired you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sunny Side Up Book Review of Jon Parker’s Mouth Breather

I find myself with a few sporadic minutes during my day and I often fill them with the consumption of books. These readings lead to the notes that often become the inspiration of my articles. I have had a few people I consider friends publish their own books. After this alarming fact, I decided to jump on the opportunity to be lazy.

I wanted to start reviewing these books the NY Times won’t do due to the lack of connections. Amazon doesn’t mind burying those that lack a PR backing. But I choose to read and “embrace” them. I present to you the “Sunny Side Up Book Review”.

This Sunny Side Up Book Review is of Jon Parker’s Mouth Breather: Death Requires Strength

I was able to find a digital copy of this book after I had misplaced the physical copy the other week. I was able to recover, finding another book to review. I had been looking forward to finally tackling this review. It had been a blessing.

Mr. Parker was a unique creature the first time I had ever spoke with him. I could tell that a mix of interesting experiences helped shape the characters in his book. The word “earnest” came to mind. I felt that he was an upfront person that did his best to not put on a veneer.

And this book lacked the veneer that many authors put on to their works of fiction. His main character was believable and relatable. He was not a super hero or some creature that completed checklists. I, like many others, could understand where he was getting to.

His struggles had mirrored many of ours, and for a few, continues to mirror. We watch him develop and come into certain revelations. He learns the beginning steps of adult communication and the ability to function in a field of his peers. Mr. Parker nails it with this book.

Mouth Breather serves as an example that normal human beings can write, as they should. The story is beyond the browbeating that the literati stooges meter out. Without repeating the label of “everyman”, this author serves as someone that transcends the literati. I see it as setting out seeds for others to plant.

It is just the beginning. The story is at a type of soft ending. Not as that it was ambiguous or abusing styles of literature, but giving an opportunity for others to light off their own work.

I am loathe to tell this book’s story when you should get a copy and read it yourself. You may do so at the link below.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Brickbat: Grand Theft Auto (Reblog)

Quick but painful. Government idiocy, no one would get off their asses to fix it. I wouldn’t have been surprised if they would have walked into the office and fix it themselves.


CHARLES OLIVER | 5.11.2021

It took six months and the intervention of a local TV station, but officials in Washington, D.C., finally dismissed $5,000 in speeding tickets and penalties issued to Doug and Nancy Nelson, tickets for violations that were actually committed by the people who carjacked Doug Nelson and stole their vehicle at gunpoint. “I got a police report,” said Nancy. “How simple is that to say, ‘Oh, these are victims, let us help them.'” Police recovered the vehicle pretty quickly, but the tag was missing, and the city refused to issue a new one until the tickets were paid. That meant the couple has been unable to drive their only vehicle for the past six months.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Matters w/ Matt: Pop Smoke and Ex-fil

Every Wednesday: I never fail to be disgusted with advice columns. I am unsure why they still get paid to do what they do. As always, I am in awe when it comes to awful examples like Ask Amy and Dear Prudence. The columnists seem to get rewarded for giving you bad advice. I think that people get terrible advice from them. I don’t blame anyone that calls advice column responses garbage. I use my postings to correct these responses and help society by being an utmost asshole, (as always, a hat tip to Aaron Clarey at Asshole Consulting).

Consider this piece from Dear Abby’s column (courtesy of ArcaMax) from May 12, 2021:

(Dear Matters):

I’ve been in an off-and-on marriage for eight years. My husband drinks every day. Once he’s reached a certain alcohol level, he curses me and talks trash about my family. He is no longer affectionate with me. Our marriage is toxic. We are living like roommates instead of husband and wife. He won’t go to AA and is very disrespectful, and I’m going to leave him. What do you think? —- Can’t Do It Anymore

(Dear CDIA):

The vast majority of military leaders have a level of trust in their people when it comes to operations on the ground. If someone on the team on the ground sees something that is continually going south, beyond what they can handle, the leader understands when they “pop smoke” or call for an exfiltration.

They leave and find an exit, heading for a safer place to regroup and note their condition. The group in the operation might be disappointed but it gives them an opportunity to find another approach at a later time. It also might show them a safer way to get to the objective.

In your situation, you are a one-person team. Your objective might have started as having a healthy marriage or a lifetime of mutual success. But you found yourself in an odd position.

The battle went south. The civilians (husband) went from non-combatants to belligerents. They are no longer an asset. You are receiving verbal threats and the local town is no longer hospitable. The new belligerents are not affected by your request for them to speak to a neutral party intermediary (counselor/organization).

Fast forward to current day, you find yourself on the cusp of things blowing over beyond what you can handle. Violence is seconds away. The best time to call for an ex-fil was yesterday. The second-best time is today.

You can hear the helicopter blades in the distance. You have support of people that care. As a leader, you have the option of throwing the smoke grenade in a clearing. Picking up what you can salvage of your material condition and landing further away. There is no crying over lost work.

It is up to you when it comes to making the decisions that affect your life’s objectives, but when they are no longer attenable in their current playing field, it may be necessary to find another.


I don’t imagine that I will have a shortage of emails to answer. I would love to start doing this for anyone that sends me an email. If this is you; email us at

If you hate advice columns; I don’t blame you. If it isn’t soft people giving advice; it is someone trying to justify acting like an insensitive asshole. Till next week.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Armed Self-Defense Is Essential in a Free Society (Reblog)

An American defenseless does not function as an American should. Without the opportunity to be free, we have no free society and no purpose.

Jokingly said, we would be a warmer Canada at best. But at least they have the semblance of one petty tyrant (the shadow of QE) where we have hundreds of petty tyrants (us representatives and senators).


 Richard M. Ebeling April 20, 2021

The recent string of multiple-victim incidents of gun violence and police shootings of black Americans has once again resulted in renewed calls for restrictions on gun ownership. President Biden has said that executive instructions to various branches of the Federal government will attempt to reduce the frequency and possibility of such violence.

Some of his proposals, however, are merely using the gun control argument as a cover for more government redistributive intervention within the society. Thus, when the White House released a statement on April 7, 2021 detailing its plans in this direction, one of them called for a $5 billion investment over eight years to support “community violence intervention programs” with a key part of it being “to help connect individuals to job training and job opportunities.” The Department of Health and Human Services will be also directed to “educate” state governments in better using Medicaid funding to better subsidize such interventionist projects.

In other words, if only we expand notoriously wasteful and ineffective government job training programs, gun violence magically will be reduced. If only “unemployed” gun-using criminals can be taught a nonviolent job skill, they will stop robbing convenience stores and stop killing people in gang-related drive-by shootings! Plus, once the national mandated minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour, there will be long lines, obviously, of prospective employers eagerly waiting to hire former street thugs with their newly certified government-provided entry-level employment “skills.” Who knew it could be so simple?

A Divided Country About Gun Control

But the meat of the Biden gun control policies all center on defining various types of firearms to categories that can rationalize greater prohibition of access and ownership. The fact is, however, that the number of Americans thinking the country needs stricter gun controls has been decreasing. According to a recent Gallup opinion survey, in 2018, 67 percent of survey respondents supported more stringent gun laws, but in 2020, that number had fallen to 57 percent, or a 15 percent decrease in those holding this opinion.

And in a survey in early 2021, Gallup reported that of those most concerned about current government gun policy, 42 percent said that current laws are sufficient, 41 percent replied they should be stricter, and 8 percent called for them to be less strict. So, 50 percent, think that gun regulations should be left as they are or actually reduced. Hardly a clamoring supermajority wanting the government to dramatically weaken a relatively wide right to bear arms. More like the same and usual vocal minority who think that “bad things” can be legislated away by political paternalists given enough governmental power over people’s lives.

Also, according to those queried by Gallup, 42 percent said that they had a gun in their home, 55 percent said they did not, and 3 percent had no opinion. It is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that many among the 3 percent who had no opinion in fact might be simply not wanting to admit that they do have one or more firearms in their home. Nor is it likely going very far out on a limb to presume that at least some of those who replied that they do not have a gun in their home probably were not being completely honest, particularly if they are suspicious of government or have a firearm that is not properly licensed in the state in which they live.

But, nonetheless, among those Americans wanting a heavier government hand over gun access and ownership, a good number probably view the Second Amendment and its guarantee of the right of the individual to bear arms as something practically anachronistic. It may seem to be a throwback to those earlier days of the Wild West, when many people, far from the law and order provided by the town sheriff and circuit judge, had to protect their families and land from cattle rustlers and outlaw bands. Such people are wrong.

The Tragedy of the Unarmed Victim

Locks, bars on windows, and alarm systems are all useful devices to prevent unwanted intruders from making entrance into our homes and places of work. But what happens if an innocent victim is confronted with an invader who succeeds in entering his home, for example, and the safety of his family and possessions is now threatened? What if the invader confronts these innocent occupants and threatens some form of violence, including life-threatening force? What are the victims to do?

Critics of the Second Amendment and private gun ownership never seem to have any reasonable answer. Silent prayer might be suggested, but if this were to be a formal recommendation by the government it might be accused of violating the separation of church and state. No, better to not get the anti-religion lobby on your back, especially if it’s in an election year.

Even in an era promoting “politically correct” notions of equality among the sexes and an infinite number of self-defining genders, it nonetheless remains a fact that on average an adult male tends to be physically stronger than an adult woman, and most especially if there is more than one man confronting a single woman. A good number of years ago, economist Morgan Reynolds wrote a book on the economics of crime. The following is from one of the criminal cases he discussed. It seems that four men broke into a house in Washington, D.C., looking for a man named “Slim.” When the occupant said that he didn’t know where Slim was, they decided to kill him, instead. One of the defendants later testified,

“I got a butcher knife out of the kitchen. We tied him up and led him to the bathroom. And we all stabbed him good. Then, as we started to leave, I heard somebody at the door. Lois [the dead man’s girlfriend] came in…. We took her back to the bathroom and showed her his body. She started to beg, ‘don’t kill me, I ain’t gonna tell nobody. Just don’t kill me.’ She said we all could have sex with her if we wouldn’t kill her. After we finished with her, Jack Bumps told her, ‘I ain’t takin’ no chances. I’m gonna kill you anyway.’ He put a pillow over her head, and we stabbed her till she stopped wiggling. Then we set fire to the sheets in the bedroom and went out to buy us some liquor.”

Would either of these two victims have been saved if the man had had a gun easily reachable by him in the house or if the woman had had a gun in her purse? There is no way of knowing. What is for certain is that neither was any match for the four men who attacked and killed them with a butcher knife. Even Lois’s begging and submitting to sexual violation did not save her. How many people might be saved from physical harm, psychological trauma, or death if they had the means to protect themselves with a firearm?

Equally important, how many people might never have to be confronted with an attack or murder if potential perpetrators were warded off from initiating violence because of the uncertainty that an intended victim might have the means to defend him- or herself from thieves, rapists, and murders? A gun can be a great equalizer for the weak and the defenseless, especially if an intended victim doesn’t have to waste precious seconds fumbling with the key to a mandatory trigger lock.

The Power of Armed Resistance

But what is an ordinary person to do when he finds out that it is the government that is the perpetrator of violence and aggression against him and his fellow citizens? How do you resist the power of the state? Tens of millions of people were murdered by governments in the 20th century. They were killed because of the language they spoke or the religion they practiced. Or because those in political control classified them as belonging to an “inferior race” or to a “social class” that marked them as an “enemy of the people.” Furthermore, the vast, vast majority of these tens of millions of victims were murdered while offering little or no resistance. Fear, terror, and a sense of complete powerlessness surely have been behind the ability of governments to treat their victims as unresisting lambs brought to the slaughter.

Part of the ability of government to commit these cruel and evil acts has been the inability of the victims to resist because they lacked arms for self-defense. However, when the intended victims have had even limited access to means of self-defense it has shocked governments and made them pay a price to continue with their brutal work.

Many have been surprised by the lack of resistance by the European Jews who were killed by the millions in the Nazi concentration and death camps during the Second World War. For the most part, with a seemingly peculiar fatalism, they calmly went to their deaths with bullets to the back of the head or in gas chambers. Yet when some of the people were able to gain access to weapons, they did resist, even when they knew the end was most likely to be the same. The following is from historian John Toland’s biography of Adolf Hitler (1992), in reference to the resistance of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943:

“Of the 380,000 Jews crowded into the Warsaw ghetto, all but 70,000 had been deported to the killing centers in an operation devoid of resistance. By this time, however, those left behind had come to the realization that deportation meant death. With this in mind, Jewish political parties within the ghetto finally resolved their differences and banded together to resist further shipments with force . . .

“At three in the morning of April 9, 1943, more than 2,000 Waffen SS infantryman – accompanied by tanks, flame throwers and dynamite squads – invaded the ghetto, expecting an easy conquest, only to be met by determined fire from 1,500 fighters armed with weapons smuggled into the ghetto over a long period: several light machine guns, hand grenades, a hundred or so rifles and carbines, several hundred pistols and revolvers, and Molotov cocktails. Himmler had expected the action to take three days but by nightfall his forces had to withdraw.

“The one-sided battle continued day after day to the bewilderment of the SS commander, General Jürgen Stroop, who could not understand why ‘this trash and sub-humanity’ refused to abandon a hopeless cause. He reported that, although his men had initially captured ‘considerable numbers of Jews, who are cowards by nature,’ it was becoming more and more difficult. ‘Over and over again new battle groups consisting of twenty or thirty Jewish men, accompanied by a corresponding number of women, kindled new resistance.’ The women, he noted, had the disconcerting habit of suddenly hurling grenades they had hidden in their bloomers . . .

“The Jews, he reported, remained in the burning buildings until the last possible moment before jumping from the upper stories to the street. ‘With their bones broken, they still tried to crawl across the street into buildings that had not yet been set on fire…. Despite the danger of being burned alive the Jews and bandits often preferred to return into the flames rather than risk being caught by us.’ … For exactly four weeks the little Jewish army had held off superior, well-armed forces until almost the last man was killed or wounded.”

In the end the Germans had to commit thousands of military personnel and in fact destroy an entire part of Warsaw to bring the Jewish ghetto resistance to an end.

What if not only the Jewish population but the majority of all the “undesirable” individuals and groups in Germany and the occupied countries of Europe had been armed, with the Nazi government unable to know who had weapons, what types, and with what quantity of ammunition? It would be an interesting study in World War II history to compare private gun ownership in various parts of Europe and the degree and intensity of resistance by the local population to German occupation.

Revolts Against Tyranny

In the early years of the Bolshevik takeover in Russia there were numerous revolts by the peasantry against Communist policies to collectivize the land or seize their crops as in-kind taxes. What made this resistance possible for several years was the fact that in the countryside the vast majority of the rural population owned and knew how to use hunting rifles and other weapons of various kinds. At the end of the day, in the face of armed resistance, Lenin had to reverse his 1918 policy of “war communism,” with its near total collectivization of the Russian economy and introduce his “New Economic Policy” (NEP), in 1922, restoring small- and medium-sized enterprises to private hands, and return nationalized land to the peasantry. In no other way could the countryside revolts be stopped that threatened the overthrow of the Marxist regime and to reestablish some kind of economic rationality to Russian society.

Acquisition of firearms during the Second World War as part of the partisan movement against the German invasion of the Soviet Union enabled active, armed resistance by Lithuanian and Ukrainian nationalist guerrillas against Soviet reoccupation of their countries to continue in the forests of Lithuania and western Ukraine well into the early 1950s. The Soviets also discovered what a determined and armed population could do when they invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and had to ignominiously withdraw ten years later in 1989 in de facto defeat at the hands of the mujahideen. About 15,000 Soviet military forces were killed in the conflict, along with an estimated 2 million Afghanis.

It is hard to imagine how the people of the 13 American colonies could have ever obtained their independence from Great Britain at the end of the 18th century if the local population had not been “armed and dangerous.” It is worth recalling Patrick Henry’s words in arguing for resistance against British control before the king’s armed forces could disarm the colonists:

“They tell us . . . that we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? . . . Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? … Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty . . . are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

Taking Up of Arms Against Government is a Last Resort

The taking up of arms is a last resort, not a first, against the intrusions and oppressions of government. Once started, revolutions and rebellions can have consequences no one can foretell, and final outcomes are sometimes worse than the grievance against which resistance was first offered. However, there are times, “in the course of human events,” when men must risk the final measure to preserve or restore the liberty that government threatens or has taken away. The likelihood that government will feel secure in undertaking infringements on the freedoms of Americans would be diminished if it knew that any systematic invasion of people’s life, liberty, and property might meet armed resistance by both the victim and those in the surrounding areas who came to his aid because of the concern that their own liberty might be the next to be violated.

Though it may seem harsh and insensitive, when I read the advocates of gun control pointing to incidents of private acts of violence against groups of innocent others, I think to myself:

How many more tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children were killed around the world in the last century by governments? And how many of those men, women and children, victims of government-armed violence, might have been saved if their families and neighbors had possessed the right to bear arms against political aggressors? How many men, women and children have been saved because their families have had weapons for self-defense against private violators of life and property? And how many could have been saved from private aggressors if more families had owned guns?

Guns and American Liberty

Nor should the argument that virtually all other “civilized” countries either prohibit or severely restrict the ownership and the use of firearms in general and handguns, in particular, intimidate Americans. America has been a free and prosperous land precisely because of the fact that as a nation we have chosen, for far longer, to follow political and economic avenues different from those followed by other countries around the world.

As a people, we have swum against the tide of collectivism, socialism, and welfare statism to a greater degree, for the most part, than have our Western European cousins. As a result, in many areas of life we have remained freer, especially in our market activities, than they. The fact that other peoples in other lands chose to follow foolish paths leading to disastrous outcomes does not mean that we should follow in their footsteps.

America was born in revolt against the ideas of the “Old World:” the politics of monarchy, the economics of mercantilism, and the culture of hereditary class and caste. America heralded the politics of representative, constitutional government, the economics of the free market, and the culture of individualism under equality before the law. It made America great.

If in more recent times there has been an “American disease,” it has been our all-too-willing receptivity to the European virus of political paternalism, welfare redistribution, economic regulation and planning, and the passive acceptance of government control over social affairs.

We need not and indeed should not fall victim to one more of the collectivist ailments practiced more intensely in other parts of the world: the disarming of the people under the dangerous notion that the private citizenry cannot be trusted and should not be allowed to have the means of self-defense against potential private and political aggressors in society.

Let us continue to stand apart and not fall prey to the false idea that somehow our European cousins are more enlightened or advanced than we on the matters of gun ownership and control. They are not. Terrorist attacks in a number of European countries over the last few years demonstrate that merely banning or restricting gun ownership does not deter those who are determined to undertake such violent acts by acquiring the needed firearms or finding ways to carry out mass murder with knives, axes, homemade bombs, or motor vehicles that run down dozens of people on crowded city streets.

Instead let us remember and stay loyal to the sentiment of James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution, who praised his fellow countrymen when he said, “Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed – unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Let us remain worthy of Madison’s confidence in the American people and defend the Second Amendment of the Constitution upon which part of that confidence was based.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Dangers of Poor Representation

Given the type of government that we have had put forth for us, we have supposedly found a way to redress grievances, find mediators for legal dealings, and have someone provide for our community’s common welfare.

We have read about the benevolent statesman that helped shape our country, the same was said about noble jurists of past times, among visionaries that made landmark programs that were said to have benefitted the public at large.

But for every Jim Webb, John Jay, and Charles Pell, we have plenty that have failed us. It is true that we voted for a few and some that found themselves appointed. Their failures helped inspire the worst in us, and in a way, I don’t blame many for their actions of desperation.

I wanted to show you a few examples of the dangers of poor representation.

  • Joe Stack, an arguably hard worker, faced with continuous dealings with the IRS, flew an airplane into the IRS field service office in Austin Texas.

The unelected body, when smelling blood in the proverbial water, seldom let go of their pray. They run their own court system and their legal weight hangs heavier than the court system that we are accustomed to. There was little chance that Stack would ever be able to recover fully from their clutches.

  • Sussette Kelo, who was done on many fronts. She was denied her right to her property by her local city. Then her other options for justice were f*cked by dress wearing lawyers of several different courts, including the top targets for the legal fetish, the US Supreme Court.

Kelo and her associates did not don masks or straddle backhoes to attack city hall as would be the understandable action. But many people took notice that it supposedly made perfect sense to screw someone out of their rights for a politically easy ploy to curry favor with big business. The morons of the City of New London town council costs their taxpayers millions of dollars fighting this, no word if the property ever served to create taxes to make up for their sacrifice. (Somewhat related, libertarian types of the ‘Shire attempted to seize Justice Souter’s house for eminent domain for the purposes of building a hotel).

  • Although of a local slant, Marvin Heemeyer was a victim of a big business with deep pockets and a political machine designed to screw their constituents.

Heemeyer’s struggle to get zoning and business fines that were piling up. To the best of my memory, he ran out of money to mount legal challenges with. (If you doubt his angle, feel free to watch a few of the documentaries made about his struggle and demise. His “ride or die” friends echoed a few of my sentiments). The neighboring business and their city cronies won out. Marvin did what he thought was right and he was ultimately successful when he observed his legal options ran out. Outside of calling for a duel, which would have been unanswered, Marvin handled it the best way he knew how. The heckler’s lawsuit of street justice was successful to the tune of near US $7 million. (The losing party lost in a huge way, but seemed smug when interviewed after Marvin’s death.)

The ultimate harm is when the American and western civilization’s denizens lose faith in the institutions that they hold dear. When deprived of pride restoring measures outside of these solutions, (try dueling and raising a private militia), we should not be surprised when the dangers of poor representation rear their ugly heads.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


H/T to HP McLovincraft for the link.

I didnt know about Hale’s leaking of the information to begin with.

Yes, I have brought up my head scratching over our governments use of drone strikes on Anwar Al-Awlaki, who was a US citizen.

I would like for us to rethink our “ethical drive” and look at how we use our assets, instead of hiding behind them.


Alex Emmons
May 5 2021

DANIEL HALE, a former Air Force intelligence analyst who pleaded guilty to sharing classified documents about drone strikes with a reporter, has been arrested ahead of his sentencing in July.

In March, Hale pleaded guilty to one charge under the Espionage Act, and he faces up to 10 years in prison. He is scheduled to be sentenced in July, but a federal judge has ordered him incarcerated until then for violating the terms of his pretrial release, according to court records.

It’s unclear precisely what Hale is accused of doing, and court documents show that his lawyers objected to his jailing. Minutes from a hearing last week indicated that the prosecution “seeks continued detention at this time” and that Hale’s lawyers argued that “there [are] no actual violations committed by the [defendant] as alleged.”Join Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.I’m in

An attorney for Hale, Cadence Mertz, declined to explain the reason for Hale’s arrest. “Unfortunately there isn’t any comment we can make,” Mertz told The Intercept by email.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jesselyn Radack, a whistleblower attorney who has assisted Hale in the past, said in a phone interview that Hale was seeing a court-appointed therapist and that his arrest came as a surprise. “We had goodbye, farewell activities that his friends and supporters wanted to have in this final, very tense time before July,” Radack said. “He didn’t even have time to find someone to take care of his cat.”

Last month, after Hale pleaded guilty, District Judge Liam O’Grady ordered that the conditions of his pre-sentencing release include submitting to “substance abuse testing and/or treatment as directed by Pretrial Services.”

According to his 2019 indictment, Hale enlisted in the Air Force in 2009 and was assigned to work for the National Security Agency. He deployed to Afghanistan in support of the Department of Defense’s Joint Special Operations Task Force in 2012, and was responsible for “identifying, tracking, and targeting” high-valued terror suspects.

As part of his plea agreement, Hale admitted to leaking 11 classified documents to a journalist. Other reporters have alleged that the documents were used in an eight-part series about drone strikes published by The Intercept. The series raises questions about the accuracy of strikes, targeting procedures, and special operations’ expanding footprint in Africa.

After the series ran, the Obama administration committed to further transparency for the drone program, including releasing an estimate of the number of “noncombatants” killed outside war zones like Afghanistan between 2009 and 2015. Civil liberties groups praised it as a step forward, though the administration’s figures were much lower than some independent groups had estimated.

The Intercept “does not comment on matters relating to the identity of anonymous sources,” Intercept Editor-in-Chief Betsy Reed said at the time of Hale’s indictment.

“These documents detailed a secret, unaccountable process for targeting and killing people around the world, including U.S. citizens, through drone strikes,” Reed noted. “They are of vital public importance, and activity related to their disclosure is protected by the First Amendment. … No one has ever been held accountable for killing civilians in drone strikes.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Folly of Attacking The Unguarded Castle: Understanding The Capital Siege

The US Capital on January 6, 2021 was shown to have been stormed by a group of supposed ardent patriots. Men and women that were full of zeal, standing up for a leader that was the most engrained with integrity. It was a strange sight in my lifetime.

I had seen pictures of the supposed victorious or jubilant masses. Often standing about with smiles and some with costumery of odd proportions, they seemed liked supposed victors, enjoying a new dawn. A common unlearned man would think that their beloved president would be ushered in after their dogged pursuits.

This is and was not to be true. The opposite is actually true. The siege of the US Capital was a strategic error at best. It was a flash in the pan of revolutionary balance.

It did not serve as a rallying cry. It did not serve as an opportunity for martyrdom. It was easily skewered by the enemies propaganda machine and open-minded independent thinkers. Tactically speaking, it was a castle defended by token measures only.

Do not swallow bait offered by the enemy”

There was no true struggle for the grounds. No one possessed the high ground and often the token enemy forces’ doors were opened for the supposed mob. There was even an immense disdain for the patriots, in that the law enforcement and capital police present would stop for a picture/kind word. Never in battle has this ever benefitted an insurgent force.

(A token force was left in many Revolutionary War forts to deceive the enemy and to give the idea that it was worth expending energy on. The reward was giving the colonists an opportunity to flee to fight again. In modern times, the token security given was to give the protestors enough time to hang themselves with petulant actions, captured by a lack of regard to OPSEC standards and astute propaganda gatherers).

(In battle, an undisciplined force given to foolishness over focus has never seen success and often finds itself routed).

Congress would be loathed to give in unless you actually had a quasi-organized group and an understandable set of demands. They can not understand you unless you are coherent. To be petulant in action begs for a petulant response.

Instead of some air of professionalism, you gave them LARPers at best and a few mentally off assholes searching for some sense of identity wearing nothing resembling anything close to polish. They were far from the “Washingtonesque” continentals they fancied themselves to be, pulling off Guy Fawkes on a bad day.

Move not unless you see an advantage, use not your troops unless there is something to be gained, fight not unless the position is critical.

This was a waste of time. People hungry for change and opened to the concept of revolution wrote themselves out of the picture. Out of anything resembling an actual movement

Knowledge of the enemy’s dispositions can be only obtained from other men

Everyone knew what your plans were. Technology is not impenetrable.  Your people didn’t hesitate to flap their gums. Just like hastily dropped battle plans, your idiots gave up everything.

Speaking of sources of intelligence, your non-partisan bureaucracies are no longer such. They serve as proving grounds and placement areas for the politically proven. The orders on high have implications and even the lowest level supervisor understands this. These government workers won’t hesitate to leak information to discredit someone who stands in their way, what makes you think that they wouldn’t openly do this to you?

               Of many errors and “crimes” I could list, they had all been apparent. The vast majority of these, (and some I didn’t list), were covered by Sun Tzu’s Art of War. Although this was in regards to statecraft, it was in contradiction to waging war successfully. These supposed warriors failed their sovereign.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

What I’m Reading, Listening to, And Concerned About


An acquaintance of great standing from years ago, Charles, speaks about men’s career paths that are viable and a few that don’t.

The 4 Most Viable Career Paths For Men (And 2 That Seem Good That Aren’t)


Tex @ Radio Free Texas speaks about moving on in the years and personal freedom.

Additional Listening:

Nathan @ Barbarian Rhetoric  joins up with a collection of motley men to test their Snowflake quotient.

Additional Reading:

Jon Parker at his eponymous website gives us some great tips about what makes a good book cover.


The Art of War remains true today. Those that fail to learn, learn to fail.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

9th Circuit Hears Contradictory Arguments on Whether People Aged 18 to 20 Have a Right To Buy Weapons (reblog)

I have made a non legal argument that we should stop infantilizing 18 year olds through our various notions and laws. When do they start on the path to adulthood? civic participation?

Why do we (US) expect men 18-20 to get drafted (or volunteer) for military service while they have no legal right to buy weapons in certain areas?


BRIAN DOHERTY | 5.5.2021 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, considering the case of Jones v. Bonta, asked each side to submit briefs addressing the “original public meaning” of aspects of the Second Amendment, as it considers whether California is violating that amendment by barring those ages 18 to 20 from legally purchasing guns.

The plaintiffs are a team of citizens under 21 and various gun rights lobbying groups, including the Firearms Policy Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation. A lower court back in November 2020 denied those challenging California’s age-based gun purchase ban their request for a preliminary injunction to stop California from enforcing the law, and the 9th Circuit is now considering an appeal of that decision.

The law in question, California Penal Code 27510(a), insists licensed firearms dealers “shall not sell, supply, deliver, or give possession or control of a firearm to any person who is under 21 years of age.” There are some exceptions for people like military or National Guard members or those with valid hunting licenses (though even they still can’t buy handguns or “semiautomatic centerfire rifles”).

This week each side submitted their briefs. Here are the arguments for and against the right of someone aged 18, 19, or 20 to buy a gun.

California insists that “Founding-era sources confirm that such individuals were considered infants without the full panoply of rights at the time, and consistent with that reality, jurisdictions have long restricted firearms access for individuals under the age of 21.”

Those suing California insist early Americans under age 21 were, in Founding times, part of organized militias, which are mentioned explicitly in the Second Amendment. California says that doesn’t matter, and confuses the duty of people in that age group to bear arms in an organized militia with a right to do so—that one can have the duty without having the right.

“The fact that the first Militia Act included persons below the age of 21 in the organized militia—and imposed an actual duty to keep and bear arms in militia service—does not dictate that those individuals had a corresponding right to keep and bear arms,” California’s brief insists, “much less to purchase them rather than procuring them through their parents or guardians” and insists that in those days, those under 21 “were generally understood to live under the authority of their parents.”

California further points out the ruling Heller decision does state that certain categories of Americans may be barred from legal gun ownership, such as felons and the mentally ill, so, hey, why not people aged 18 to 20? Furthermore, California insists, precedent is on its side: “Every federal court to have considered age restrictions on the ability of 18-20-year-olds to purchase, procure a license to carry, or even possess a firearm has answered that question by concluding that there is a longstanding history of regulating access to firearms by those under 21 that either places such regulations entirely outside Second Amendment protection, or permits them to survive intermediate scrutiny.”

The Supreme Court has never declared “intermediate scrutiny” as the proper standard for this core constitutional right, that standard roughly meaning that the government must prove a substantial fit between an important state interest and the law under challenge. Scrutiny analysis post-Heller has been a mess and one that usually redounds to the benefit of the restricting government, not the citizen seeking to have a right vindicated in court.

Also, since the law does not fully bar the “possession, use, inheritance, or acquisition of firearms”—merely the legal purchase from licensed dealers—California further argues it does not infringe Second Amendment rights meaningfully.

Those suing to overturn California’s law, on the contrary, made these arguments about the age restriction on legal gun purchase and the Second Amendment in their filing.

First, they fall back on reasserting the vital importance of what California wants to deny matters: “Because it is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds were part of this Militia, at the Founding, it necessarily follows that these adults are protected by the Second Amendment’s sweep.” This whole “well they may have had the duty to bear arms but not the right to” thing California tries to argue, the plaintiffs dismiss out of hand as

nonsense. Whatever the interpretive weight of “firearms-related duties when determining the scope of the Second Amendment right” in other contexts, we know from Heller that militia duties necessarily entailed Second Amendment “rights to perform those duties,” because the very “purpose for which the right was codified” was “to prevent elimination of the militia.”

Arguments on California’s part trying to re-litigate Heller by insisting that without state regulation of militias, the right cannot be assumed to apply to all citizens potentially part of a militia, are dismissed with this argument:

we know that the Founding generation had no linguistic difficulty referring to a “well regulated Militia” that was composed of the whole “body of the people” because both the Virginia ratifying convention and James Madison’s original draft of the Second Amendment did exactly that.

The plaintiffs also attack California’s assertion that in the Founding era anyone under 21 was essentially legally still an “infant” thusly: “California once again trots out the assertion that at the founding, ‘the age of majority was 21.’…As we have twice explained, however, it is simply not the case that 18-to-20-year-olds ‘were considered infants’ for all purposes in 1791—and one context where we know they were treated as adults was membership in the militia.”

As for California’s assertion that existing law and precedent mark this age ban as one of the presumptively still legal “longstanding” restrictions on Second Amendment rights, the plaintiffs assert California’s new argument “provides no answer to our briefing explaining, at length, that: (1) restrictions that appeared for the first time in the late nineteenth century can shed no light on the original meaning of the Second Amendment…and (2) anyway, the smattering of outlier historical restrictions cited by the State do not show any historical understanding that 18-to-20-year-olds could be barred from acquiring common firearms.”

Heller, while insisting it was applying original understanding to Second Amendment jurisprudence, created a new lens through which it insists the right should always have been viewed. Thus, it can’t be a simple winning argument to say, well, lots of states did this pre-Heller so these laws must be OK. New thinking through the implications of Heller needs to be applied to these laws, and now the 9th Circuit has seen arguments on both sides in this case. Which set of arguments the Court will find convincing remains to be seen, and a state full of 18-20-year olds awaits learning the extent to which California intends to infringe their right to armed self-defense.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment