This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Poetrooper

  • We Hold These Truths…

    When in the course of human events
    We must sever ourselves from the other,
    Because of our mounting, essential dissents
    We must seek out some way or another;
    To return to the state which Nature entitles
    Our freedom from federal oppression,
    We must seek to restore our natural vitals
    Even should that require mass aggression.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident,
    That all men are created equal;
    With inalienable rights eternally meant
    To endow the least of the people.
    To seize these rights is our natural due,
    To hold them our natural task;
    To preserve them depends solely on who
    Will offer his life when it’s asked.

    Government’s created solely by men,
    And exists by consent of those ruled.
    Its durance depending solely on when
    Those governed are no longer fooled.
    It is then our right, our duty no less,
    To throw off the yoke of oppression;
    Bloodless we hope, but blood need it be,
    Determined by federal aggression.

    We declared these rights in centuries past,
    Our hope they would last through the ages.
    The present would leave Founding Fathers aghast
    With the current result of their wages.
    The answer is simple, we must stand up tall
    When we face national disintegration;
    Stand up for your country and answer the call,
    Lock and load for your nation’s salvation.

    Hold every hard weapon close to your chest,
    Let it feed from your patriot’s heart;
    Your right to bear it let no one contest
    A right granted from our very start:
    To preserve and protect all life you hold dear
    To save this nation you cherish;
    To forego all qualms and all natural fear,
    Fighting free until you shall perish.

  • The Hard Black Line of the 2d Amendment

    Crass, heartless liberals, heeding Rahm Emmanuel’s admonition to let no crisis go to waste, have seized upon the Sandy Hook killings to ram through as much gun-restricting legislation as they can. Doing their very best to channel public emotions into pressuring legislators across the country, and in Washington, to quickly, emotionally and unthinkingly enact restrictive measures against gun ownership and possession, they are shameless in their exploitation of the deaths of those children and their teachers.

    No doubt, should their efforts prove successful, they will someday erect a monument on the front lawn of that tragic school, celebrating the death of the 2d Amendment and proclaiming the murdered children as liberal martyrs to the cause.

    But not so fast there all you gloating liberal gun haters; for there is growing evidence that your shameless exploitation of those children’s deaths has provoked a rapidly expanding counter-outrage among that far larger cohort of Americans who own guns, wisely for protection of what they hold dear. It is a concept that only blooms in the minds of parents as they become responsible for lives other than their own.

    How many young American couples have come to realize, upon the birth of their first child, that they now bear the responsibility to protect something more precious to them than life itself? And do you suppose that as a family grows to include more children that sense of needing to protect those little ones doesn’t grow as well?

    There is ample evidence to show that the original intent of our Founding Fathers, in guaranteeing our right to bear arms, was for the purpose of the people being able to oppose the tyranny of a standing federal army. In our present circumstances, can we believe those stalwart men would take issue with the reality that the crucial right they gave us to bear arms now serves to protect us from criminal tyranny in our homes?

    Although the Castle Doctrine was not yet a promulgated legal standard in their time, there should be little doubt that those brave men who stood against the British Army with weapons they had stored in their homes, would approve whole-heartedly of our keeping and bearing arms to protect all which we hold dear.

    In the spirit of fighting fire with fire, a concept which the Founding Fathers likely grasped in its entirety, do you suppose they would now deny us the ability to be at least as well armed as those who would criminally abuse us? When a home invader can knock down your door and point an illegally obtained, fully automatic machine pistol at your face, do you really believe your Founding Fathers wouldn’t want you to have, at the minimum, a 17 round semi-automatic handgun to abort that planned home invasion in the entryway? Something you really need to think about, America, is just where that dubiously interpreted 2d Amendment draws the hard, black line of reality:

    Do you doubt that it’s at the front door of the sanctuary you have created for your children?

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • Was Liberal Idiocy Legal Insanity?

    One can only wonder if the fool at The Westchester Journal News who made the decision to publish the names and addresses of New York gun owners has ever heard the legal term, proximate cause? I’m sure the newspaper’s legal counsel has as well as the risk management people at their corporate headquarters, but the fool who actually pulled the plug? Here’s the Wikipedia definition:

    In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the “but for” test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred. For an act to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

    May I submit that if a criminal seeking to steal guns breaks into any one of those homes whose address was published by the Journal News, any legal gunsel worth his salt will do his very best to tie the crime to the publication by the newspaper of the victim’s address. So, no big deal you say? Well picture this scenario: highly-paid, business executive type husband at home with three daughters while much lower paid wife is away on job-related travel; gun-seeking burglar breaks in, kills husband and one daughter before shooting other two daughters in the face, leaving them alive but permanently brain-damaged.

    To a personal injury lawyer, that scenario is the sound of a big dollar slot machine that just keeps going and going. The damages to be demanded in a civil suit with such facts of the case are in the tens if not hundreds of millions. And guess who made it possible? BUT FOR those high-minded liberal folk at the Journal News who saw fit to put very private and personal information in their newspaper, nothing else could have led that murdering burglar directly to the targeted residence where he inflicted all that pain and suffering on folks who most likely would have lived out their lives peacefully, fruitfully and happily. Can the nosy newsies claim a defense that the information is all a matter of public record? Well, sure, they can and will try, but then you come back to that but for principle: would the lazy, murderous thug have been intelligent enough or resourceful enough to have uncovered that address, but for its publication in the newspaper?

    So, was there proximate cause? Oh yeah, and you can bet there are lawyers combing that article for potential clients just to get them on retainer so that if any such, any such, unfortunate incident occurs, the legal beagle’s nose knows exactly which trail to follow to the very deep pockets of the multi-billion dollar corporate parent, Gannett Company, to seek justice and new-found wealth for his clients and fame and fortune for himself. That idiot editor at the Journal News may have just painted himself and his corporate masters right into the hottest liability corner in the history of newspaper publishing.

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • A Ready Reserve to Keep Our Kids Alive

    I get weekly emails from old Army buddies about jobs available to former military personnel, primarily in the Middle East, jobs offering excellent salaries. Most ads are seeking the crème de la crème, the special operators, or at least those with the advanced combat skills that would be in the resume of any former or retired Ranger or Airborne/Marine infantry NCO. Playing down the potential downsides of these contracts, such as living in Muslim countries under Sharia law, these ads tend to emphasize the outsized recompense rather than the discomforts.

    I look at those salaries and wonder why is it we have federal contractors who are willing to pay these lucrative compensation packages for former warriors to assume huge risk and minimal conditions of daily living while, simultaneously, we have school districts throughout this nation that could be employing them and their skills to even greater effect. These experienced tough guys, who devoted their younger lives to protecting this nation and its principles, could well apply all that training and experience protecting the nation’s most sacred resource, our children.

    May I be so radical as to suggest that school boards all across this country take a hard look at their administrative trees and lop off a few of those really questionable deputy superintendents for this, and assistant deputy superintendents for that? Just what contribution do all these highly paid, administrative dead branches make to the education of the children these boards are responsible for? Do a little math and you’ll see that some judicious trimming of these bloated school district administrations could free up some funds to hire teams of those veterans I described above, the millions of potential applicants out there who possess the requisite firearms and security skills to walk the halls of our educational institutions from kindergarten through college, armed and prepared to neutralize any threat to our children. Celebrities hire these people all the time. Are celebrities more essential to America than her children?

    A school district wouldn’t even need to have highly trained and lethal security teams in every school at all times. Multiple teams could be rotated through all the district schools on a totally irregular and unpredictable schedule. That very unpredictability would give pause to many of the deranged when considering mayhem on a helpless schoolroom. It might drive these crazies to the mall food courts or theaters, true, but I believe right now, in view of last week’s horror, that’s a better option than an elementary school or a kindergarten, because there is likely someone in those places who is armed. Think about it, mall killing events don’t produce the high numbers of victims that campus events do. There’s a clear and simple reason for that: the schools are stupidly but publicly announced gun-free zones and the killers, well aware of that, know where they can inflict the most horror before they are brought down.

    We are a nation with schools with construction budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, managed by administrations with similar budgets. With all this tax money being spent to provide our young ones with such excellent learning environments under such expensive tutelage, are there no funds to do this one essential thing: hire, tough, seasoned, knowledgeable professional warriors to keep our children alive? All you liberal parents out there so afraid of guns should weigh this: who is more essential, some totally helpless, multi-degreed, deputy assistant doofus for dietetic planning or some hard-nosed, bad-ass, old pistol-packin’ Ranger who, when it all hits the fan, will, by his training and his core beliefs, give his own life to keep your kid alive?

    Crossposted at American Thinker

  • Good Guns can Kill Bad People

    The liberals hadn’t let the blood dry on the classroom floor in Newton, CT before they were using the deaths of all those children to leverage their cause of gun control. Had conservative broadcasters done such a thing they’d be roundly denounced as soulless ghouls and rightly so. When I first read online of the killings, I just shook my head in sadness then immediately steeled myself for what I knew was coming from the hysterical lefties. They did not disappoint although I must confess to a certain despair that Mayor Bloomberg has become such a predictable old scold. Can we not somehow sue this turkey for calling himself a Republican?

    Another horrific mass murder and if we could not predict its timing we could predict its site within certain parameters. With predictable regularity, the most lethal of these types of attacks take place in public venues such as shopping malls, restaurants, theaters, with the deadliest frequently being institutions of learning. We are all familiar with the Columbine high school killings in which 12 students and a single teacher died or the Virginia Tech massacre where 32 people died. Fewer remember the 2006 killing of five Amish schoolgirls by a milk truck driver or the Jonesboro, AR school shooting in which five died, gunned down by fellow students. How many remember the memorable name of Kip Kinkel, an Oregon high school student who murdered his parents and two students in 1998? Or what about that Red Lake, MN mass killing where nine died in 2005? Of course all of you remember the recent Aurora, CO theater shooting but what about the 2007 Arvada, CO school shooting that left five dead?

    The point I’m attempting to make here is that these tragedies recur with an irregular chronological predictability but with an altogether predictable targeted area, school campuses, be they elementary as with this latest tragedy, or high school as at Columbine, or university as with Virginia Tech. Other than their educational bond, they all share another commonality, the one which most likely leads to their selection by the perpetrators as the scenes for their slaughters: they are all sites where the presence of firearms is strictly prohibited and enforced with zero tolerance. There is no one to shoot back and thus deter the shooter from his maddened mission. Think about it, most of these mass shootings end with the suicide of the killer after he has accomplished his goal. Few are ever killed by authorities or captured.

    These killers control the events because they have picked the setting where that is most easily accomplished, where they can inflict the most pain and death in a very brief period of time before an armed response can be mounted. We hear them called cowards for killing the helpless. I believe they are more viciously cunning than cowardly, picking a target so vulnerable as to permit them to accomplish their goal of creating as much mayhem and death as possible in the shortest period of time.

    It’s a cliché to say there’s never been one of these mass shootings at a gun show, but it’s a cliché birthed in truth. How about at a shooting range where a madman could walk in fully armed with total impunity, unquestioned, with multiple lethal weapons and begin firing? His entrée would be easy. Problem is, so would his predictably rapid departure. How about gun shops or sporting goods stores where guns and ammunition are sold and in plentiful supply, filled with shoppers who have a much likelier chance of carrying concealed, unlike a mall theater or food court? Ask yourselves, when was the last mass shooting at a rodeo or a NASCAR race?

    Ponder that for a while, those of you liberals who equate the presence and availability of guns with criminal shootings. The truth operates in the obverse: it is precisely where there are the most guns and people who know how to use them where the massacres do not occur. And it is precisely where guns are not present where these slaughters do take place. That is no accident; rather it is a demonstration of the awareness of mass killers as to where it will be most expedient for them to attack, where they will have the most time to conduct their slaughter.

    Some may try to prove me wrong by pointing out the Fort Hood shooting but that argument is easily refuted. That horrible event, once again, was carefully planned to be carried out in the general midst of a heavily armed military force in a precise location within that force where it was least likely that any armed soldiers would be present to intervene: the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, a medical processing facility. Like all these other shooters, the cowardly physician who forsook his medical oath knew quite well he was targeting one of the least-protected sites on that huge base.

    Those who are so angry, frustrated and fed up with the futility of their lives that they have no desire to continue living have multiple ways of dealing with their problems. Fortunately, most finally accept that they must have external help and seek it, continuing to live. Others refuse that option and take their lives themselves. A few, perhaps more angry than most, go out in in flash of angry defiance, what we call death by cop. Tragically, we always have the few whose warped reasoning and boiling anger leads them to believe they must go out of this world on a stream of innocent blood from a place where the very lack of guns guarantees the fulfillment of their horrific madness.

    If you liberals want to assign morality to firearms, consider: As any combat infantryman, and I am one, can tell you, guns don’t kill people; good people with good guns do kill bad people. Unfortunately, bad people with bad guns kill good people unless they are stopped by those good people with good guns. When defensive guns are known to be in the target area, such as schools, the massacre-minded madman will have second thoughts about his target selection, perhaps sending him to a gun range or a gun show to perpetrate his madness.

    We can only hope…

    Edited version crossposted at American Thinker

  • The Bourne Stupidity

    We hear that this, that, or the other Hollywood actor is supposedly quite intelligent, situationally and socially aware, and we are forced to wonder, based on some of a particular actor’s questionable on and off screen activities and behaviors, if that could possibly be true. Such is the current case of Matt Damon who is purportedly one of the smartest actors in Hollywood. Agreed, the intelligence bar is necessarily low there so expectations cannot be too much; which might explain why the cinematic genius of Good Will Hunting has allowed himself to become a useful idiot for foreign interests.

    Matt Damon’s latest film, Promised Land, isn’t just your latest Hollywood flick attempting to demonize American oil companies, but perhaps the first one to do so being financed by foreign oil interests who stand to lose big if the geometric progression of American oil production continues. If Damon’s treacherous, even treasonous, message is rejected in this country, his film’s Persian Gulf money-men stand to lose big. Call it a matter of them putting their money where their trough bleeds. Damon, of course, will have his tremendous payday regardless, at the very real expense of his fellow citizens and all his disappointed Persian Gulf pals .

    As the government announced in the past few days, America, for the first time in decades, is looking at being energy independent due to the hugely increased, North American oil and gas production resulting from the technological breakthrough known as fracking. I won’t go into the details here, but fracking involves the forced injection of water and chemicals into deep geological formations that causes those heretofore impenetrable reservoirs of fossil fuels to give up their petrochemical treasures and allow them to be harvested into the fuel tanks of our vehicles and the giant engines of industry which drive the commerce of this nation.

    The ill-informed but supposedly brilliant Matt Damon is not able to factor those truths into his Big-Hollywood, liberal mindset. He is apparently incapable of grasping these basic physics of oil and gas production which lead to huge changes in the geo-commercial and thus geo-political realities of this world. At a time when America finds herself engaged in a very real battle for her economic survival, Matt Damon has freely chosen to be the spokesman for her enemies. So be it. I have freely chosen to never again spend a single dime on anything with which this liberal zealot is associated. National charities, keep this in mind as there are millions like me.

    Hollywood needs to produce just one more film in the Bourne series, chronicling the inept moves of their misguided, useful idiot of a hero. Call it The Bourne Stupidity.

    Now that one I might watch…

    Crossposted from American Thinker

  • PSY-Wars

    Quick now, what do you get when you cross a potty-mouthed, semi-talented, little weasel with an Asian lounge lizard? Ah, correcto, amigo, such a mixto (just trying to maintain my diversity bonafides here, brothers and sisters) yields an opportunistic entertainer from the mysterious East who is rising atop a few, fleeting moments of fame. I speak, of course of PSY, the latest bit of superfluous foam and flotsam on the dying curl of the wave of his fifteen minutes of celebrity which is about to carry him over the normal cultural breakwaters and into the Inner Lagoon of the White House where anything remotely redolent of Hawaiian good times becomes instantly well received. He could only enhance his welcome by showing up in a 1980’s vintage van emitting that unique aroma of Choom, Choom, Baby, Choom, Choom.

    So what’s the beef with some second-rate Korean entertainer, sort of a Wayne Newton east, really east, being invited to the White House by our reality TV prez? What? You don’t think Gangnam Style has a place at the top levels and inner reaches of American government? Well, while you’re mulling that over, you déclassé flyover rubes, try these quoted lyrics from PSY’s musical repertoire back when he was just a tad unhappy with America’s role in the disestablishment of Al Qaeda in Southwest Asia:

    “Kill those f–ing Yankees who have been torturing Iraqi captives.”
    “Kill those f–ing Yankees who ordered them to torture.”
    “Kill their daughters, mothers, daughters-in-law and fathers”
    “Kill them all slowly and painfully.”

    Ah, well, certainly, as PSY now reminds us, those lyrics have to be subject to interpretation If you think they mean what they clearly state, then you are no doubt some knuckle-dragging conservative Neanderthal with no appreciation for liberal nuance. Good grief, you probably live in Kansas or one of those other nameless states of little consequence because of your lack of minority voters. And one thing is certain; as long as you continue to maintain that irrational, conservative, bull-headed tendency to believe your lyin’ eyes:
    You are absolutely nevah, evah gonna get invited to the White House, Bubba.

    Crossposted at American Thinker.

    Jonn adds: Our buddy and Gold Star Mother Debby Lee, was on Fox & Friends this morning discussing the PSY thing;

  • Costas: The Worm Squirms

    Bob Costas, is demonstrating more feints and jukes than the NFL’s best running backs and probably wishing he could have a replay of his Sunday night miss-step. In commenting on the murder/suicide of Kansas City player, Jovan Belcher, Costas, who appeared to call for stricter gun control measures in his half-time editorial, got sacked in his own backfield last night by Bill O’Reilly. Costas, whose fearful demeanor in his appearance on O’Reilly’s show, indicated that he was most likely on a corporate-called play of penance, dictated and demanded by his network masters, was far too easily trapped in his own end zone by former quarterback, O’Reilly, with a quite simple play.

    Costas had earlier opinionated to another news source that the presence of a gun in the hands of any legally licensed carrier during the recent Colorado theater shooting would have made no difference in outcomes. O’Reilly then asked Costas, eyeball to eyeball, as across a third down and very short line, that if he had been in that Colorado theater, would he have preferred to drop to the floor seeking shelter from the gunfire or would he rather have been legally armed and able to stand and respond to the threat. After a few seconds of verbal ducking and weaving like the best of those NFL running backs he covers, Costas finally realized that O’Reilly had him cornered in his own end zone and admitted that had he been in that theater in Colorado, he would have gone to the floor.

    What an admission from someone who feels free to pontificate to the rest of us about the evils of gun ownership. And there are many of us with whom Costas, who self-admittedly would grovel on the floor hoping someone else with more manhood and courage would save his sorry, shaking, little liberal butt, shares no cultural identity. We are the ones who would have sorted through the panic, identified the threat, and then quickly directed counter-fire upon that threat while Costas was peeing all over himself on that gosh-awful sticky theater floor.

    I’m not often a fan of Bill O’Reilly but this time he scored beautifully, making this little liberal worm, Costas, squirm as he was held over the searing fires of real life truth in every-day America. What Costas must live with is that a very large percentage of the millions of Americans who watch his broadcasts will now do so with the knowledge that he’s a sniveling, diminutive coward, always dependent on better men to protect him. He must forever wonder with what contempt he is being viewed when he interviews those brave, fierce warriors who comprise the National Football League.

    Edited version crossposted at American Thinker