Friday, July 02, 2010

“Just Like We Did Last Time?”

After reading this,

Meanwhile, a bunch of left wing hoodlums are burning stuff at the G-20, just like they do. Every. Single. Year. Why is it that the media is so deathly afraid of us right wingers being violent, though we hardly ever are, yet lefties and socialists shut down a city for a week every year and nobody notices because it’s so ho-hum.,

which was gleaned from here, TJICstan muses the following, in a post titled “deathly afraid”? sounds right to me.

You know, I think that there’s a little bit of rationality embedded in the leftist fear of right wingers.

We are competent, armed, have military experience, can execute a plan, can engage in self sacrifice more extreme than “sleeping on a futon arranged over Craigslist the night before the protest”.

When 2 leftists get peeved, they make a giant puppet.

When 4,000 leftists get peeved, they burn a few Mazdas.

When 2 rightists get peeved, they destroy a federal building.

When 4,000 rightists get peeved, they attack the standing army of a world-straddling super-power… and win.

For the last 75 years the right has indulged the left, whether from lack of attention, hopes that things will turn around, belief in the power of the ballot box, or just adult-like indulgence of children.

…but what would happen if 4,000 … or, God forbid, 400,000 American libertarians and conservatives decided that the electoral process was not legitimate, and was nothing but a rigged game for the ever-growing scope and budget of a destructive federal government?

Well, you know that old joke “Why is Texas that big? Because we’re Americans, and we wanted it that big!”.

4,000 competent and well-armed anti-government folks could make the earth rumble and change the course of history for centuries to come.

Just like we did last time.

Just like we did last time?  While I would like to believe that “4,000 competent and well-armed anti-government folks could make the earth rumble and change the course of history for centuries to come,” I think those on the left, in complicity with the statist right, would ruthlessly hunt down and kill the 4,000, with the MSM wildly cheering and propagandistically consolidating the left’s, and statist right’s, grip on power.

Until such time that conservative individuals, meaning the statist right, come to the full realization of their complicity in the destruction of America, and consciously withdrawl their approval of “democracy,” true freedom loving individuals will be subject to their well meaning, but perfidious, collusion.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/02 at 01:17 PM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

“Corpse in Armor” - Buy It, Read It, Understand It

I’ve read Martin McPhillips’ book Corpse in Armor, and reviewed it here.  If my take on McPhillips’ book does not pique your interest in purchasing Corpse in Armor, read Billy Beck’s review for another viewpoint.  Here’s a taste of Billy’s take on the book.

There is an elemental thesis to this book, which is that world socialism was happy to have Islamist terrorism as an ally against America. I heartily agree. This is the largest context of the book: the fact that all kinds of devils will league happily against us precisely because this country is the best thing the world ever saw. Within that context, the action runs fast and hard, but one can always find time for spots of philosophy, even during interrogation.

If the above two reviews do not impel you to consider McPhillips’ book for your Summer Reading, read Mike Soja’s review, of which here is snippet.

Corpse brings the themes laid down by the likes of John Le Carré, Ken Follet, and Robert Ludlum into the twenty first century, with a fresh look at the dangers facing the United States from old adversaries and new, featuring the concomitant upgrades in modern technological capabilities on both sides of the war.  Corpse is all about the latest in instant communications, sophisticated network infrastructures, high-tech weaponry and deployment, drugs, and psychological techniques, and, most importantly, human individual endeavor.  People have to do what is right.

My copy of Corpse in Armor has gone through my hands, to my sons’ hands, and from there into my neighbor’s hands (sorry I didn’t make them purchase it, Martin), and I’ll continue to recommend it, not simply for the pleasure of the read, but for the ideas presented in a thriller novel form.  Buy the book.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/02 at 10:19 AM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

A Friday Poem

Lay me on an anvil, O God.
Beat me and hammer me into a crowbar.
Let me pry loose old walls.
Let me lift and loosen old foundations.

Lay me on an anvil, O God.
Beat me and hammer me into a steel spike.
Drive me into the girders that hold a skyscraper together.
Take red-hot rivets and fasten me into the central girders.
Let me be the great nail holding a skyscraper through blue nights into white stars.

Prayers of Steel - Carl Sandburg

I admire the appeal to destroy the old, and then rebuild to something greater in this poem.  I’m doing what I can.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/02 at 07:23 AM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Week in Review - “Aggravation and Drinking”

Scooteroi sums up the week in review in a post titled Aggravation and Drinking.  A couple items Scooter reviewed.  First, a graduation story.

- I caught a little bit of a story about a school that graduated a class with 30 valedictorians and it wasn’t because the quality of education was so good that the class had 30 students with a 4.0 GPA. They just didn’t want to have kids feel bad, so they took the top 30, which sort of defeats the whole valedictory idea.

This goes along with the current (and idiotic) idea that we can’t have winners and losers in society…which is one of the stupidest things I have heard of. What’s next, not keeping score during the super bowl or having all the drivers in a NASCAR race go to the winners circle?

Second, the Elena Kagan hearings.

- Then there’s the whole Elena Kagan thing. Yes, she has a good sense of humor. No, she shouldn’t be allowed to choose her wardrobe. And no, she has no business whatsoever being anywhere near the Supreme Court, let alone on it.

I have an idea. I want to fly Boeing 777’s for American Airlines. I’ve read about flying. I know all about lift, drag, weight and all that. I have accrued a jillion miles as a passenger on jets. I even read an article on how to land a plane if the pilot dies. I’m all set.

So, how about that job?

That’s the equivalent to putting Kagan on the high court.

I know it’s early, but, bourbon anyone?

Posted by John Venlet on 07/02 at 06:05 AM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Are There Any Oathkeepers in the Corrupt Chicago Political Machine?

In a post titled The Face of Fascism, Ed Rasimus points us to this news out of Chicago.

With the city’s gun ban certain to be overturned, Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday introduced what city officials say is the strictest handgun ordinance in the United States.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun…

The ordinance, which Daley urged the City Council to pass, also would :
—Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.
—Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.
—Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.
—Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.
—Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

Ed notes the following, in response to this news.

This is government run amok. This is absolute power which was seized and not constitutionally established. This is destruction of the rights of a people and denial of the basic principles enshrined by the Founders of our republic.

America is Running Out of Options for a peaceful resolution to the issues noted by Ed, above.

Mayor Daley Lays Out Strict Gun Rules for Chicago

Posted by John Venlet on 07/01 at 03:52 PM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Huge Tent City in Hawaii, Big Deal

Drudge links to a story at StarAdvertiser.com with the headline Huge homeless tent city takes root in Hawaii… wherein readers can find this information, which is the sub-headline to the story.

Homeless camps cover 50 acres, from Waipio Point, around Middle Loch to Pearl City

Big deal.  There have been tent cities in Hawaii for years.  When I was stationed at Pearl, from 1980 through 1984, there were tent cities on every island I visited, and the individuals living within the tent cities were more free than almost every other individual living in Hawaii at that time.

The remainder of the “huge tent city” story is all fluff, mentioning Pastor Joe Hunkin’s pastoral work, Duane “Dog” Chapman’s bounty hunting island adventures, and an inane comment from some flunky from Oahu’s Affordable Housing and Homeless Alliance.

Huge tent city in Hawaii, big deal.

Posted by John Venlet on 07/01 at 01:47 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Patriotism Quotes

Dr. Samuel Johnson is credited with stating “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” and this is indeed correct, if one considers that the statement, as Boswell points out, is meant to denote false patriotism, as elucidated by Johnson in this statement.

“Let us take a patriot, where we can meet him; and, that we may not flatter ourselves by false appearances, distinguish those marks which are certain, from those which may deceive; for a man may have the external appearance of a patriot, without the constituent qualities; as false coins have often lustre, though they want weight.”

Johnson expanded on the definition of the false patriot in this statement.

“A patriot is necessarily and invariably a lover of the people. But even this mark may sometimes deceive us.  The people is a very heterogeneous and confused mass of the wealthy and the poor, the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad. Before we confer on a man, who caresses the people, the title of patriot, we must examine to what part of the people he directs his notice. It is proverbially said, that he who dissembles his own character, may be known by that of his companions. If the candidate of patriotism endeavours to infuse right opinions into the higher ranks, and, by their influence, to regulate the lower; if he consorts chiefly with the wise, the temperate, the regular, and the virtuous, his love of the people may be rational and honest. But if his first or principal application be to the indigent, who are always inflammable; to the weak, who are naturally suspicious; to the ignorant, who are easily misled; and to the prfligate, who have no hope but from mischief and confusion; let his love of the people be no longer boasted. No man can reasonably be thought a lover of his country, for roasting an ox, or burning a boot, or attending the meeting at Mile-end, or registering his name in the lumber troop. He may, among the drunkards, be a hearty fellow, and, among sober handicraftmen, a free-spoken gentleman; but he must have some better distinction, before he is a patriot.”

I consider myself a patriot, and proudly, but of the variety described thusly by Johnson.

In the first (1755) and fourth (1773) editions of his Dictionary, Johnson defines “patriot” as “One whose ruling passion is the love of his country.” In the fourth edition, Johnson adds: “It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government.”

I’d like to think that those individuals I am aware of whose ruling passion is the love of America, and who factiously disturb the government and rail against it, have a bit of the Scottish Highlander spirit of patriotism in them also.

It affords a generous and manly pleasure to conceive a little nation gathering its fruits and tending its herds with fearless confidence, though it lies open on every side to invasion, where, in contempt of walls and trenches, every man sleeps securely with his sword beside him; where all on the first approach of hostility come together at the call to battle, as at a summons to a festal show; and committing their cattle to the care of those whom age or nature has disabled, engage the enemy with that competition for hazard and for glory, which operate in men that fight under the eye of those, whose dislike or kindness they have always considered as the greatest evil or the greatest good.

This was, in the beginning of the present century, the state of the Highlands. Every man was a soldier, who partook of national confidence, and interested himself in national honour. To lose this spirit, is to lose what no small advantage will compensate.

What type of patriot are you?

Posted by John Venlet on 07/01 at 07:11 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 3 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3