Thursday, March 06, 2014

You Don’t Need No Doctor, Bill O’Reilly

The other day, Bill O’Reilly, an alleged bastion of conservatism and common sense, got all in a huff because an architect of the health care disaster known as ObamaCare, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, whom, coincidentally, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, the king of Chicago, stated the following.

‘You Don’t Need a Doctor for Every Part of Your Health Care’

O’Reilly was bent out of shape because this statement of Dr. Emanuel suggested that individuals could just go to a clinic and see a Physician Assistant, or a Nurse Practitioner, for a throat swab, or have their child checked for an ear infection, rather than visiting an emergency room or an actual pediatrician’s office.

While I have no love for Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, or ObamaCare, I would suggest that Bill O’Reilly put on some big boy pants, rather than being a pantywaist about minor medical problems.

“You know me, I’m afraid of everything,” O’Reilly said.

It is no secret that unnecessary emergency room and doctor visits are rampant in these United States, with people rushing off to the doctor or emergency room for superficial medical reasons, when a band-aid, ice pack, or rest will do.

You don’t need no doctor, Bill O’Reilly, you need to grow up and quit over-exciting yourself for teevee ratings.

Posted by John Venlet on 03/06 at 04:39 PM
(5) CommentsPermalink

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

What Ails America Juxtaposition

In a Roger L. Simon piece titled After Ukraine, We Need an American Spring, which does contain some sound advice, Simon makes the following statement.

The people aren’t the problem. It’s the state.

Now, contrast Simon’s view of the problem with Vaclav Klaus’.

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.  The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.  Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast conspiracy of fools that made him their prince.  The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, only a fool.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him president.

Roger L. Simon piece linked via InstaPundit.

Vaclav Klaus quote via Vanderleun’s KA-CHING!.

UPDATE - 02.25.20114:  It has been brought to my attention, by Linda in comments to this post, that the above quote may not be attributable to Vaclav Klaus (see my comment to Linda).  I am attempting to clarify this.  I have contacted the Cato Institute where Mr. Klaus is a distinguished senior fellow, and Mr. Klaus himself through his DeSmogBlog in my attempts for clarification on the quote.  If I receive a response, from either source, I will update this post once again.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/25 at 09:08 AM
(7) CommentsPermalink

Saturday, February 22, 2014

“The REAL State of the Union in just 889 Words…”

Obama’s State of the Union address was full of baloney.

At the Sovereign Man blog, The REAL State of the Union in just 889 words…

Via American Digest, via Zero Hedge.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/22 at 01:45 PM
(3) CommentsPermalink

Windsurfing to Freedom

No matter how eroded Americans’ liberties are, at this point in time, and no matter how socialist America’s policies and laws are, at this point in time, America is still consider the land of the free by those individuals who suffer under the tyrannies of explicit socialism, in this case in Cuba’s style of explicit socialism, and they will risk just about any hazard to reach America’s shores.

A Cuban migrant windsurfed from Cuba to Key West Tuesday, but two other windsurfers he was with were apparently lost in the Gulf Stream about 60 miles south of the Florida Keys, according to Key West police and the Coast Guard.

Henry Hugo Vergara Negrin, 24, came ashore at The Reach Resort, 1435 Simonton St., at 6:35 p.m. and told police he and the others left Jibacoa, Cuba, at 9 a.m. Tuesday bound for the U.S. on windsurfing boards.

Welcome to America, Vergara Negin.

Migrant windsurfs to U.S. from Cuba

Thanks to my Key West friend, Kwmateo, for the heads up.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/22 at 12:16 PM
(1) CommentsPermalink

Thursday, February 20, 2014

Aircraft Carriers on Lake Michigan

I’ve never seen an aircraft carrier on Lake Michigan, but I have taken a few girls to Lake Michigan, in the past, to watch the submarine races, even prior to becoming a submariner myself.  Anyway, if aircraft carriers were on Lake Michigan, today, I’m rather doubtful it would be because the ships were on a goodwill tour, or because they were hunting submarines.

Though currently there are not any aircraft carriers on Lake Michigan, they have been on the water in the past, though I was unaware of this until just recently.  Here’s a excellent series of photos and some of the story about when the aircraft carriers USS Sable (IX-81), and the USS Wolverine (IX-64) plyed the waters of Lake Michigan, as posted by the Warbird Information Xchange.  Pretty cool.

USS Sable (IX-81) and USS Wolverine (IX-64) on Lake Michigan

Thanks to my good friend Pfeif for the heads up.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/20 at 05:15 PM
(3) CommentsPermalink

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

30 Seconds to Impact

First impressions are an important aspect in many facets of life, sales especially, I would say.  Some say first impressions are formed in two minutes or less, some say 30 seconds, or even in the blink of an eye.

Having worked in sales for many years, I think this is quite true, though I wouldn’t go so far as to say that first impressions are made in the blink of an eye, at least not in the realm of sales.

I know I often make and arrive at first impressions within that 30 second time frame, and would state that often, ninety percent plus of the time, that first impression is correct.

Here’s another 30 second idea which I think is quite accurate, and well worth considering adopting as a habit.  I think I’ve been doing just this for years, even though I was unaware of it being a piece of advice.

Immediately after every lecture, meeting, or any significant experience, take 30 seconds — no more, no less — to write down the most important points. If you always do just this, said his grandfather, and even if you only do this, with no other revision, you will be okay.

Here’s the notepad I carry around to pen my notes.

The 30 second habit with a lifelong impact

Linked via Fred Lapides.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/19 at 04:26 PM
(2) CommentsPermalink

Monday, February 17, 2014

Revolt - Withhold Your Consent

These United States of ours, “we the people,” are allegedly founded upon the the consent of the governed.  These words, consent of the governed, are enshrined in The Declaration of Independence, on display for all to see, but, alas, the consent of the governed no longer has any real meaning in reality.  Americans are being governed without consent.

What are we to do?  And whose fault is it that Americans are being governed without their consent?

I’ve advocated not voting since 2004.  Perhaps I’ve been advocating the idea of not voting incorrectly.  Utilizing the wrong words.

Other individuals have advocated not voting as a possible means to restore liberty in America.  Going so far as to setup a website in 2012 advocating just that, which unfortunately appears to be defunct.  Perhaps the wrong words were utilized in that instance also.

There is no doubt that not voting is a revolutionary idea, but not voting does have the benefit of being a non-violent possible means of restoring liberty in America.

So what words should be utilized to encourage Americans to withhold their consent?  Personally, I favor the words, “Revolt - Withhold Your Consent,” but these may be too revolutionary, non-violent though they be, for some Americans.  Ol’ Remus suggests None of the above, and all his words follow.

The productive populace is abandoning many cities and some states, leaving behind reservations of net consumers skilled in grievance politics and efficiently sopping up unearned benefits. Growth in these places is reckoned in numbers of the demanding and civic-minded, meaning they’re professional voters rounded up and trotted to the polls, the trip-lever that releases goodies into the trough with promise of more to come. There’s a reason it works like this.

No longer allowed to make natural adjustments, even on common ground, the cities and states have self-segregated, partitioning themselves into fiefdoms whose first duty is to menace and loot the others. DC actually prefers to have spoon-fed inmates stumbling around in a fogbound maze, wasting their lives fighting each other. DC simply won’t allow the rest of us to make real changes in their cities and states. No, they’re not our cities and states. Ask ‘em. They’ll show you cities and states and courts are their wholly owned subsidiaries *. They tip their hand every time some Mother Jones-appointed federal judge nullifies a state referendum or DC withholds funds to kill a constitutional state law.

It doesn’t actually matter to a holding company which of their franchises a customer chooses. It only matters that it be important to us. Every few years well-rehearsed dimwits parachute in from the Emerald City and put on their Punch and Judy show, cheering and scolding and imploring us to elect this or that wizard and subwizard. They do this as if their seating arrangement should matter to us, which is all that’s being decided. Voting itself changes nothing because elections change nothing, just as a crew change doesn’t mean the train’s going somewhere the tracks don’t go. What really matters is the turnout. It matters to DC, not to the voters, it’s their sole remaining claim to legitimacy.

True legitimacy comes only from the consent of the governed. Bait and switch is not consent. Gerrymandering and vote-rigging is not consent. Imported electorates are not consent. But voluntary turnout at the polls is consent. We’ve seen this before. In the Soviet Union, where ordinary conversation was also a prosecutable offense—they invented political correctness—turnout was 99%. Simulated democracy was the first step in Marx’s communism. Contrary to Cold War propaganda there was some turnover in the Politburo, more turnover than in the US Congress it’s claimed, but the direction was just as pre-decided and nonnegotiable. High turnout was taken as consent, and consent legitimized their license as owner-operator.

Voters aren’t innocents, they know they’re co-conspirators in a criminal enterprise. There is but one legal strategy remaining to honest Americans. Withhold your vote. Withhold your vote and you withhold consent. Withhold your consent and you withhold legitimacy. The surest route to change is empty voting booths. Stay home on election day. Not only is it your civic duty, you aren’t really missing anything. Your vote counts for nothing and it changes nothing. If it did it would be illegal. How has voting worked for you so far? Abandoning their dog’n pony show is what really scares ‘em, they don’t know what you’re up to. Noncompliance worries DC. You may be using your time to prepare for the coming Troubles.

Link to Ol’ Remus post via Primordial Slack.

Revolt.  Withhold your consent.

UPDATE 02.20.2014: A COUNTER ARGUMENT OR NOT READY TO BE UNPLUGGED:

Og, The Neanderpundit takes issue with the suggestion to withdraw your consent, or none of the above as suggested by Ol’ Remus, in a post titled There’s a good deal off bullshit being flung around.

If I employ the 30 second rule as discussed in the post just above this titled “30 Seconds to Impact,” writing down the most important points articulated by Og in his post, these would be as follows:

1. Bullshit.
2. Fantasy.
3. You’re stupid.
4. You’re a collaborator (in the most insidious sense).
5. “We cannot, as I have said, vote our way out of this…”

Though I do not find Og’s critique useful, I do think his words should be read, if only to further one’s understanding.

I’ll utilize two quotes from the movie The Matrix in response.  Not as a specific criticism against Og, but as a potential means to increase our understanding as to why this idea of withdrawing your consent can be so divisive.  First, a quote of the character Morpheus.

...That system (in this instance the system is the government - ed.) is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. (bold by ed.)

And in response to these words of Og’s; “Not one person anywhere ever has been able to show me anything like a coherent plan…”;  the final quote of the character Neo from the movie.

“I know you’re out there. I can feel you now. I know that you’re afraid… you’re afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. I’m going to hang up this phone, and then I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.” (bold by ed.)

Posted by John Venlet on 02/17 at 03:47 PM
(14) CommentsPermalink

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Just A Man and His Dog

I’m still here.  Just laying low, for the time being.

Just A Man and His Dog

UPDATE:

My friend, D, took the above photo and created this image.  I like it.  Relaxed.

Relaxed

Posted by John Venlet on 02/12 at 12:31 PM
(8) CommentsPermalink

Friday, February 07, 2014

Carrying Guns Out of Uniform

The topic of open carry, of guns, can be divisive.  Some individuals are largely against it, others, not so much, though each side of the open carry debate will in large part agree that if one is going to open carry, they shouldn’t be a dick or a dork about it.

I’m thinking about the subject of open carry for a few of reasons.  First, because of the case of Johann Deffert, which my friend in Taiwan, Mike Fagan, mentioned in comments here, linking to a post titled Endangerment by Cop which discusses Deffert’s open carry experience, which Joel at The Ultimate Answer to Kings also comments on.

Another reason I am thinking about the subject of open carry is because Chicago area school officials are so “traumatized” by anything gun that this gun ban sign almost causes them to loose their bowels.

Gun Ban Sign

Which causes me to wonder just how Chicago area school officials would react to this sign, which is posted at a local welding shop in my neck of the woods.

Guns Welcome Sign

A further reason for my thinking on the subject of open carry is news that United States Postal Service is buying ammunition, not to mention the EPA, amongst other governmental agencies, which are purchasing ammunition for reasons which seem quite unrelated to their supposed jobs.

But back to the subject of openly carrying a gun, out of uniform.  It seems, nowadays, that individuals are so herd programmed to fear guns, that any individual not in a uniform, even of the most innocuous type of uniform, seen carrying a gun is automatically, though unjustifiably, considered a dangerous killer.  Just ask Johann Deffert.

Buck up people.

Posted by John Venlet on 02/07 at 01:32 PM
(4) CommentsPermalink

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Davy Crockett - A Lesson in Mis-appropriation and Charity

Who, as a young child, at least if you were born before 1970, did not admire Davy Crockett, the man in the coonskin cap?  He was the epitome of the rugged individualism upon which America was founded.

Crockett served two terms in the Congress of the United States, and from his time in office arose a story of the time when Crockett was up for re-election.  The story is titled Davy Crockett and One Week’s Pay: “Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity.”, and from this story, straightforwardly told, we can obtain a lesson in mis-appropriation and charity.  A short excerpt.

“‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve it’s suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to anything and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.

Read the full story, and consider also these thoughts on the subject, as they are quite pertinent to the matter.

Billy Beck and Gerard Vandeleun Stating the Exact Same Sentiments Regarding Compassion

Harden Your Hearts

Davy Crockett’s lesson in mis-appropriation and charity was originally posted in comments here.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/30 at 09:37 AM
(3) CommentsPermalink

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Stone Fish

Here’s a guy, Wolfgang Schwartz, messing around with stones and rocks, creating stone fish art.  Quite nice.  My personal favorite, just below, is titled “Eddy.”

Eddy

Hattip Moldy Chum.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/23 at 09:11 AM
(1) CommentsPermalink

Sunday, January 19, 2014

Mile High

With marijuana now being legal in Colorado, I’d bet that Mile High Stadium has never been higher.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/19 at 04:02 PM
(2) CommentsPermalink

Obama’s Favorite Chimeras

Barack Hussein Obama’s favorite chimeras.  1.  The son he does not have.

Obama on Trayvon Martin: ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon’

Obama: ‘I would not let my son play pro football’

2.  Haters because Obama is black.

“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black President,” Obama said.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/19 at 03:37 PM
(1) CommentsPermalink

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Wanderer in the Forest or Living Boldy Out in the Open?

Claire Wolfe has a very good essay posted titled Live Boldly, Part II: What does it mean?

Claire points out a number of things living boldly does not mean.

Living boldly is not being obedient while waving your arms and ranting about how bad everything’s getting. (Not even if you rant really, really forcefully and get lots of hits on your blog and have lots of followers on Twitter.)

Living boldly is not flipping off cops just to show you’re brave and defiant.

Living boldly is also not being forever strong and fearless. You can live boldly and still have weak moments, emotional meltdowns, failures, self-doubts and plenty of 3:00 a.m. fears for the future. (Ask me how I know.) Living boldly is what you do in spite of all that (bold by ed.).

Claire is unquestionably correct in these words on what living boldy is not.

Claire also quotes Ernst Jünger in support of living boldly.

[E]ven in the states in which the power of the police has become overwhelming, independence is by no means extinct. The armor of the new Leviathan has its chinks which must be constantly sought out, an activity requiring both caution and audacity of a kind hitherto unknown. … This becomes evident in periods of extreme danger, when the apparatus not only forsakes the individual but even turns against him. Then each individual must decide whether he wants to surrender or to persevere by relying on his own and innermost strength. In this case he may choose the retreat into the forest (Waldgäng).

Though I wander the forests, and am completely capable of retreating into the forest to maintain my personal, individual freedom, I will live my freedom boldy, out in the open, challenging though that may be.

Claire’s piece is well worth your time to read.

Link to Claire’s piece via Joel.

Freedom!

Posted by John Venlet on 01/15 at 11:47 AM
(4) CommentsPermalink

Monday, January 13, 2014

No Matter How You Spell Whiskey (Whisky), That’s Some Expensive Stuff

I’m a whiskey drinker, bourbon by choice, with my go to brown water being Woodford Reserve, and while I can appreciate paying for a higher end bourbon whiskey, say Pappy Van Winkle’s Family Reserve 23 Yr., I’d be hard pressed, even if I had deep enough pockets, to pay $3K plus for a bottle of whiskey (whisky), whether from the heart of American bourbon country, or the distilleries of Scotland.

Here’s six bottles of brown water going for $3K plus.  Don’t Spill: Five Whiskies That Cost More Than $3K.

In addition to not spilling, I’d emphatically state, don’t water these whiskies down with any type of mixer.

Hattip to my brother The Wizard.

Posted by John Venlet on 01/13 at 12:04 PM
(8) CommentsPermalink
Page 2 of 329 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›