LETTER TO A TALK HOST April 27, 2010
A few minutes ago, I wrote e-mail to a Denver talk show host. Peter
Boyles, of KHOW, is a former liberal, and a protege of assassinated
radio personality Alan Berg, whose perpetual rudeness — especially to
people who agreed with him — was the reason I _stopped_ listening to
talk radio in the 80s. Over the years, Boyles has gradually drifted to
the right until today he’s sort of an amiable populist conservative
who says things that are almost libertarian occasionally.
He’s managed to run Colorado’s governor out of office by investigating
a scandal when no other media wanted to touch on it, and will probably
prevent the current mayor of Denver from running for governor next
time.
The topic today was illegal immigration (he’s against it), Arizona’s
new legislation on the subject (he’s for it), the 16,000 drug war
related deaths, so far, that have occurred on the U.S./Mexican border,
the likelihood that this war will spill over (in fact, it already has)
onto U.S. soil, and the federal government’s complete lack of concern
that it might happen.
I wrote:
“Your reference this morning to former DHS head Michael Chertoff as
“Skeletor” made me laugh out loud, and reminded me of the unsettling
resemblance between Janet Napolitano and Dolores Umbridge, the
fascistic villain of _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_. You
owe it to yourself to see the movie, if you haven’t already. It’s a
monumental defense of individual liberty.
“You and your caller are wrong about one thing: no amount of force
applied at the border will stop the war raging there. The one thing
that can is repeal of all drug laws, none of which were constitutional
to begin with. They knew that in 1919 when they passed an amendment to
make alcohol Prohibition legal.”
I didn’t add that if this were a truly free country — without drug
laws, welfare, economic regulations, public schooling, or taxes —
then immigration, illegal or otherwise, would continue unabated
(nobody can stop human mass migrations, ask the Chinese, the Romans,
or the ancient Britons) but it would no longer threaten American
civilization.
It would enhance it.
As it always has.
- Posted in : Politics
- Author :Administrator
Comments»
–
I would observe that any kind of “if only” mention of what this nation would almost certainly be like were the past century and a half of statist centralization reversed must certainly be received by persons who consider themselves “mainstream” (and I’ll betcha that this talk show host sure as hell sees himself so) as fantastic and impossible.
The frog being slowly boiled to death in the soup kettle thinks the water’s just fine.
–
Actually, Peter Boyles has always seen himself as a square peg in a round hole. He’s a biker and has a CCW permit. His show’s sponsors include a gunshop/range where people receive training for their own CCWs. And yet he’s a big supporter of unions, and the Republican Party disgusts him.
I don’t really expect to get a reply, but I could be wrong. Another thing about him, he’s a “birther” (as am I) and doesn’t care who calls him crazy. He also had Joe Farah on this morning and they were speculating what might happen if Obama’s finally run to earth on this issue.
Farah (no hero of mine, by the way) says he thinks Obama won’t run for reelection no matter which way things go. I was happy about that — for about thirty seconds — until I realized that it means Hillary will run, and the GOP won’t have the huevos to run Palin against her.
In sum, Boyles is interesting, but I have to turn him off in disgust sometimes.
–
The prospect of Barry Soetoro not running for re-election in the next presidential whack-the-pinata contest is reasonable. There’s a concept known as “shit-scraping,” which refers to getting off one’s boots the feculent residue of a malodorous misstep, and even now it looks like the present administration in Mordor-on-the-Potomac is just about the most horrible mistake of which the nation has ever fallen afoul.
Scott Adams, the creator of the _Dilbert_ cartoons, has made multiple references over the years to the practice of corporate reorganizations and cynically notes that they’re almost invariably undertaken to enable incompetent and corrupt senior management clowns to slough responsibility for the toxic outcomes into which they’ve steered their companies.
I would think that the National Socialist Party (they’re a national party, aren’t they? and they stopped being “Democratic” the year Grover Cleveland left the White House) in 2012 will be swamped by the catastrophic economic decompensation that the inevitable collapse of the commercial mortgage market will impose sometime beginning in 2011, and they are planning to let our Marxist Messiah take the fall for them.
Think “corporate reorganization” in the _Dilbert_ sense.
Might even be useful for the Blue Faction of the Boot-On-Your-Neck machine to “discover” that Ms. Dunham’s little bastard really had been born in (gasp!) Mombasa instead of Honolulu.
If, in fact, Barry has never been lawfully qualified to occupy that plush chair behind the Resolute desk into which he’s been farting since January of 2009, it may be that every enactment to which he has left-handedly signed his birth name (as opposed to his legal name) can be characterized as null and void.
The federal government can claim the most massive “do-over” in recorded history.
Wouldn’t THAT be strange?
–
What is strange about a possible do over, is that it is not all that strange.
If the manufactured Soetoro (who paid for his Harvard education?) is found out to be a charlatan, his task masters and cohorts can step aside and hook a thumb in his direction while crying “do over”. The nature of a weasel is only strange if it is capable of coherent speech.
Strangely enough Arizona’s Illegal pick on whoever looks like an undocumented alien law doesn’t worry me too much.
About the time the law goes into effect another law will go into effect putting Arizona on Vermont Carry.
There will indeed bring about profiling as opponents of the law complain… of people who choose to go about disarmed.
Voluntarilt give up r refrain fromexercising a vital righy and all others are at risk.
[...] If you want to defend American civilization, you have to ask yourself: What would El Neil do? [...]
Corrected copy of comment 5
Strangely enough Arizona’s Illegal pick on whoever looks like an undocumented alien law doesn’t worry me too much.
About the time the law goes into effect another law will go into effect putting Arizona on Vermont Carry.
This will indeed bring about profiling as opponents of the law complain… of people who choose to go about disarmed.
Voluntarily give up or refrain from exercising a vital right and all others are at risk.
Friends, we do NOT want Barry to successfully retire from office un-exposed as a Kenyan. Does the phrase “Legal Precedent” strike up a familiar note?? Just suppose Barry loses re-election (or chooses not to run), leaves office in January, 2013, THEN announces that he was really born in Kenya and we have set a legal precedent to allow foreign-born presidents in direct contravention of trhe Constitution. I would expect literally years of legal battles to overturn everything he signed, court battles about the entry under Obama, Barack Hussein, Politician in the encyclopedias, and more (EXPENSIVE) fun like this for decades. “If Obama wasn’t really legally entitled to be president, America is still racist. Let’s have a riot about that.” Color me paranoid, but I can see it coming, and possibly even have been the plan from the start.
Next- the oil rig explosion- yet another coincidental windfall for a liberal agenda??? Just as Congress theoretically prepares to approve new offshore drilling permits an oil rig blows up and spreads an oil slick. Am I crazy??
Neale asked, “Am I crazy??”
Yes, you are. But in this case, you’re also right.
Crazy just means you don’t subscribe to the same delusions as everyone else. Refusing to be deluded meets the definition.
If Obama’s mom was a citizen that makes him a natural born citizen. Now if there is a document somewhere that his parents disavowed his American Citizenship acting as his agent(s) we got us an issue.
–
Neale, I doubt that “legal precedent” based upon action that can only be characterized as criminal fraud might possibly set anything in place that could be passed off as trumping Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the U.S. Constitution, particularly in a matter as egregious as the “natural born” status of a person - whatever in hell his name really is - whose qualification to hold the office of President had been brought loudly, repeatedly, and angrily into question from the moment he began to be considered as the National Socialist Party’s candidate for the 2008 advance auction of stolen goods.
And no matter how “EXPENSIVE” might be the “years of legal battles to overturn everything he signed,” wouldn’t you much rather see the myrmidons of of the Permanent Institutional Incumbent Party ripping and tearing at each other in this fashion than extending their predations upon those of us in the ever-shrinking private sector?
As it stands, we simply don’t get enough in the way of value for what these creatures thieve away from us. I’m willing to see something entertaining, if nothing else.
And doesn’t the thought of Demopublicans and Republicrats tearing at each others’ entrails for the next decade or so (busying themselves so thoroughly that they can’t do anything else) just warm the cockles of your heart?
–
Al said: “If Obama’s mom was a citizen that makes him a natural born citizen.”
This is absolutely false, Al. She had to have been of the correct age, and to have lived inside the States for a recent enough amount of stated time to confer citizenship on her offspring, and she fails of all these criteria.
But you’re right, in that, apparently, Lolo Soetoro entered him as a citizen of Indonesia, and a Muslim, in order to get him into public school in that country. Don’t know if that erases any claim he might have had to American citizenship, since he was probably born in Kenya (the only place where there are any witnesses to his birth) and never had any claim to begin with.
What a lovely mess we find ourselves in.
Good enough for me. For years Americans hiring out as mercenary soldiers have had to be careful to swear to obey their superiors’ lawful orders to avoid forswearing their American citizenship by taking oaths of loyalty to their employers. Stepdad swearing you are an Indonesian citizen while you are a minor is enough to count as a renunciation of citizenship if people have to use this kind of care.
Interpretation cited in previous post is statist and legalistic. These are BO and company’s rules.
he deserves to be judged by them.
–
The “birther” line is worth pursuing if only because I have literally never seen anything that gets the “Liberal” buttsniffers as severely and instantly frothing rabid as does this issue.
I am willing to accept that there is a high clinical index of suspicion - probability as near unity as makes no difference whatsoever - that those who screech in the greatest anguish at any entertainment of their Mahdi’s criminality in this regard are the ones who are themselves most thoroughly convinced that their Mocha Messiah took his first breath of life on a continent other than this one.
Any thoughts on that?
–
In spite of noises made by his supporters in favor of victim disarmament BO has:
Slapped down argument that Us needs stricter gun laws to support Mexican war against drug cartel made by Holder and Clinton.
Signed law containing amendment pernitting holders of CCL’s to take handguns into national parks in states where their licenses are valid,
Signed order ending the scrapping of spent cases and that called selling them for reloading instead. (Congress had to pass follow up law when way was found around order by scrap dealers,)
Did not file Amicus Curia brief supporting Defendant in MacDonald v. Chicago. Please note that W’s administration filed supporting DC in Heller case.
so far Obama has been progun or at least neutral on bun rights as President. His record is better than either of the Bushes, Nixon and McCain.
his record as Senator contradicts his record as President and he will likely revert to form but the fact is on the issue of gun rights he’s the best we’ve had in a while.
As a single issue voter until he makes that reversion I have to cut the man a little slack,
but not too much!!
“Boyles is interesting, but I have to turn him off in disgust sometimes.”
You sound almost like an addict that keeps coming back to something clearly worthless.
Why have it, or any broadcast media, on at all? When I’m driving or working I usually have educational courses playing. That way, I have something to show for it.
Concerning the discussion of legality, whether of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings, and why the sea is boiling hot, and whether pigs have wings. (apologies to The Walrus)..
1. They have ignored the rest of The US Constitution so why not that part as well.
2. I don’t see how one bastard is more of a bastard than the other bastard or the bastard before that.
Show Prep Added…
Your story was featured in Free Talk Live! Here is the link to vote it up and promote it: http://freetalklive.com/node/4808...
The bastard who is stepping on your toes or stepdancing in their near vicinity is always the bigger bastard. /the closer to your toes or the more toes they step on the bigger they are. Whether you are barefoot and how much influence nd knowledge they have on this affects their size and bastardliness.
Please keep in mind that unless a child is born to TWO American citizens overseas on vacation, to an American serviceman/woman on active duty overseas (McCain, in Panama), or to US Diplomats stationed overseas, THAT CHILD IS NOT A NATIVE BORN CITIZEN UNDER U.S. LAW!! That is how I read the law, that is how a Constitutional attorney explained it to me, and that is the way the US Supreme Court has rules several times in sticky cases in the past, though, admittedly, none involved the presidency.
–
Al observes that “…so far Obama has been progun or at least neutral on gun rights as President. His record is better than either of the Bushes, Nixon and McCain.”
I would offer yet another observation.
Ms. Dunham’s little bastard entered the Oval Office in full appreciation of the fact that he is a hateful person with hideous intentions, and his aims have been - from the beginning of his political career - the achievement of objectives that would cause the average American citizen to shoot him down like the rabid mongrel he truly is.
Above all else, Barry Soetoro must be accorded enough sense of himself to realize that he is utterly odious to most of the people he’s spent his life screwing, and that’s most of the people in this nation.
So why should he borrow trouble by inflaming the RTKBA people in direct confrontation? He plans to do things far more vicious than the direct violation of the Second Amendment. He has done such things, and has more of such things in train right now.
When a thief has broken into your home, murdered you, has raped your wife, and is sodomizing your children, the fact that he hasn’t yet broken into your gun safe and made off with your weapons doesn’t mean that it isn’t on his “to do” list.
–
Well put.
And the answers are:
A.that’s what being a single issue voter gets you.
B. you keep all your guns in the safe and don’t have one ready for self defense?
C. With the exception of Ron Paul all the others who were running in ‘08 would have gotten the same laws through Congress only they would have inflicted a bunch of gun control laws on us in the process. If you will, they also would have murdered raped and sodomized, and they would have used our own guns on us to do it.
Notice also the phrase cut the man a little slack, but not too much. I’ve had company that I felt better with the house gun in my waist band instead of the night stand before and I’ll have such guests again.
You just have to be honest with yourself about who you are entertaining.
Living right where the drug war has been going on and where there was an earlier one in the Nineties I need to point out there is a limit to what the US can do about the War between the Sinaloa Cartel, the Juarez cartel, and the Mexican Government. If nothing else, Mexico is a sovereign nation. As long as cheap agricultural products and chemicals are illegal in the US and thus command black market prices Mexico will be a conduit for these products.
so we can conquer Mexico, legalize recreational drugs, or actually get the American to go sober.
Hey if we annex Mexico that would make her citizens US citizens, thus ending a big chunk of th illegal alien problem.
Pee Ar Ee Tee Ee Ex Tee spells..
BAD PLAN, AL!!! If we annex Mexico, Obama would promptly;
A) Blame gun ownership for the drug violence that is now TOTALLY within our border, and use it to ban even more guns.
B) put’em ALL on welfare, in public housing, and on food stamps.
C) Tell’em all “See what I’ve done for you?? Now, remember, vote DEmocrat in all elections.
So, therefore, let’s not annex Mexico. Instead, let’s just pick 4 or 5 states, and secede from this dis-union and form a Libertarian land of liberty.
a horrible plan indeed. Any bets on whether that’s why certain people are getting a bandwagon rolling iboth)n favor of doing it.
It’s not that I’m paranoid, it’s just that whenever I say “no one could be that stupid (or crazy, or both),” someone goes out of their way to prove I’m wrong.
–
Bear in mind that the proper phrasing is not “legalize recreational drugs” but rather “DECRIMINALIZE recreational drugs.”
The former casting implies that the individual’s use of psychoactive substances for any purpose (recreational, therapeutic, religious, what-have-you) requires the sanction of civil government before it can be permitted.
Pardon the expression, but WHAT THE FUCK?
Pulling from Jefferson’s *Autobiography* (1821), we get that wonderful observation:
“Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.”
Even on purely pragmatic grounds, it is impossible for the private citizen to rely upon the officers of civil government for guidance in matters of personal conduct not pertinent to possible violations of the rights of other people. There is above all the “knowledge problem” which renders these public sector functionaries incapable of efficient control.
The politician and the bureaucrat have no more efficacious knowledge of whether you should or should not consume a potentially psychoactive substance then they do about what color your underpants should be.
Or if you should, in fact, wear such a garment in the first place.
As with skivvies, so with dried ditchweed.
–
You are right in correction of phrasing.
Actually the bill to implement should state that Congress had no authority to ban recrtational drugs in first place, and that convictions for selling drugs (except for any kind of fraud or otherwise cheating customers), possessing or transporting drugs are automatically null and void. Murder, assault, and bribe accepting charges and other criminal acts trying to eliminate comretition stand.
–
Whenever inoffensive conduct - and by this is NOT meant conduct which raises the hackles of people witness to but not themselves participant in said conduct, but rather conduct which does not do violence to the lives, liberties, or property of other real human beings - is criminalized in any way, such conduct inevitably presents opportunities for violent criminals to cash in.
The classic example is the prohibition of alcoholic beverages back in the early years of the “progressive” insanity.
There have always been people who climb outside ethanol solutions to excess, and to the detriment of their personal well-being. It was the “progressive” conceit that they, the enlightened, knew what was best for these incontinently blotto’d bozos, and that among the ever-expanding “progressive” purposes for civil government was the protection of these fools from the consequences of such actions.
So they criminalized said actions.
Proving that the “progressive” is either ineducable or utterly evil, we’ve gotten the rest of their litany of crimes against individual rights, good civil order, and common decency, up to and including what Mr. Smith correctly characterizes as “medical Marxism.”
Certain Americans elect not to shoulder the expense of health “insurance” - which has never been real insurance of any kind, but instead one scheme or another of pre-paid medical care. Others - a smaller minority - simply cannot afford it. As with so many other services and goods, government subsidizations and restrictions of various sorts have pushed the prices of such “insurance” to levels that no free market in such a service could or would possibly support.
Reminds me altogether too damned much of a bit on one of Martin Mull’s comedy albums from the ’70s, the one in which he’s taking on the character of Christopher Columbus, who is informed by a frantic subordinate officer:
“Captain, the men have not eaten in days!”
“Hm?”
“Sir, I don’t think you understand. The men have not eaten in DAYS!”
A pause.
“Well, FORCE them!”
Thus with Barry Soetoro’s megalomaniac scheme to see that everybody gets health insurance. Point the Internal Revenue Service at them, and FORCE them to pay for it.
Everybody into the risk pool, America! Or your good “civil servants” will shoot you down like the bitter, clinging, reactionary dogs you are.
All of this - smoking bans, the war on (some) drugs, victim disarmament laws, the criminalization of trans-fats, health “insurance” at government gunpoint - is part of the drive to dominance of the American “progressive,” a metastatic disease that shows the same malignant cytology wherever and whenever you biopsy it.
The only thing that any government can really do to anyone is to impose criminal sanctions upon them. Recall at all times that one good paragraph from *Atlas Shrugged*, which reads:
“Did you really think we _want_ those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one _makes_ them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
It is the objective of the “progressives” to achieve and increase their POWER over other human beings, and no matter what justification they mendaciously offer for the vicious things they do, it is never appropriate - not EVER appropriate - either to take them at their word or let anybody out there on their “to-do” list think that they should ever be credited with even the illusion of moral legitimacy.
–
It is worth noting that among the reasons so many “good Americans” supported Prohibition of alcoholic beverages were the belief that this would deny machine politicians the use of pubs to meet with people, hear what their supporters wanted, and organize them to vote and otherwise get the first and second generation of new citizens to participate in the system. It was also intended as a fuck you to immigrants from uisghe beagh, schnapps, and grappa drinking cultures,
The ban on cocaine was originally aimed at Black people and there are rumors that the one against cannabis was aimed at blacks and latinos.
Surprised they forgot to outlaw kosher food, then they could have been busting the chops of everyone whose votes they court nowadays.
Richard, you’ve given me another brilliant idea. We have all these “progressives” running around causing trouble for everybody, and up there in Iceland, they’ve got this absolutely peachy volcano.
Why couldn’t we get rid of all the pests and at the same time reduce Iceland’s rather nasty carbon (and silicon and magnesium) footprint by throwing several boatloads of left wing politicos into the volcano?
I did not say this.
I was not here.
@al You can get high on Kosher food? Wow. I learn something every day.
Getting back to original topic: To the extent that I take in any “news” it tends to be Al Jazeera English and Russia Today, videos and podcasts. You get a bit more prespective on the imperial, killing machine currently occupying North America.
When the goal is busting immigrants they’d find something to outlaw about Kosher.
As to killing machines, the drug war in Juarez has topped the US Body count for Iraq. This is what the US caused by supporting a corrupt gov’t and having unjust drug laws. Mexico deserves blame for its own corruption of course, but if you insist on asking what the US could do to help Mexico you have to ask what the US did to help create the mess.
President Calderon says that 90% of those killed in the drug violence are involved in the drug trade. that means that 500 i Juarez were innocent bystanders, 1600+ in all of Mexico (including J-Town.)
–
On the one tentacle, the goons of government will insist that Mexico’s massacres associated with los narcotrafficantes are hunky-dory because “90% of those killed in the drug violence are involved in the drug trade” (and be damned to them).
On the other, the suckers on the underside leave a pattern on the corpse reading: “gun violence takes the lives of children!” (and we’re supposed to submit to victim disarmament statutes for the sake of people who will take their milk teeth into the grave with them as the result of firearms which autonomously target these innocent critters) when, in fact, the majority of the so-called “minors” being killed or wounded in exchanges of gunfire on our streets are predominantly brawny adolescent males of wholly adult stature most of whom have already sired children of their own, and who are shooting at each other in order to work out marketing territory disputes over who will sell what psychoactive substance where.
I’m reminded of an episode in one of those extermination camps being run by the German equivalent of our National Socialist (nee “Democrat”) Party back in the 1940s.
One inmate asked desperately of a guard who was slowly killing him: “Why?”
The response he got was: “Hier ist kein Warum!”
“Here there IS no ‘why’!”
Thus is it always with government. There is no “why” to explain the reason for which they say something, or do anything.
–
Supporters of statism have always asked if one would rather live under anarchy (defined as a state too weak to protect people’s rights) or tyranny ( a state powerful enough to protect your life and property but with constraints on your liberty). Recent events in Mexico demonstrate that there is no difference between the two.
Liberty cannot be traded for security, those who offer this choice are trading in counterfeit.
Al, I beg to differ with your take on Mexico. There is anarchy LOCALLY, true, but the tyranny is country wide. Since the tyranny restricts (and indeed nearly eliminates) the RTKBA, there is NO chance for a healthy anarchy to flourish. Just because local governments are fearful of enforcing the laws, does not mean that there isn’t ALSO, in addition to the federal tyranny and tyhe local anarchy, a second criminal tyranny, from the drug cartels. By restoring the legality of the so-called “Illegal” drugs, we could, at the very least, remove one form of tyranny from Mexico, and help them move into a free society.
–
Neale, the purely practical reason for decriminalizing the psychoactive substances against which the “war on (some) drugs” is putatively being waged - not a reason grounded in individual human rights, which is a moral argument for ceasing this insanity, but a purely pragmatic approach to the bloodshed, corruption, and general waste involved in situations such as those obtaining in the northern tier of Mexican states - is that this criminalization has created what is really nothing more than a government price support program for the traffic in these chemical compounds.
That’s worth maintaining focus upon. Every cold-blooded economic analysis of this “black” sector of the international economy has resulted in the observation that criminalization does not really reduce the availability of these demonized substances, but rather increases the profitability of getting them to their end-consumers.
This is what makes the drug production facilities, the routes of carriage, even the street corners on which they’re sold to “recreational” users, worth fighting and killing to exploit.
Decriminalize the creation, vending, and consumption of these simple substances and this artificial profit margin goes *PFFFT!* as the price of each drug’s dose drops to market-clearing levels - Say’s law - which is in reality not much more than what it genuinely costs to create the stuff and convey it to the final purchaser.
About as much for the average Heroin junkie as the price of a loaf of bread per day. A loaf of the cheap bread.
This would effectively de-fund los narcotrafficantes as well as the streetcorner pushers infesting our metropolitan area, do away with their incentive to go bangety-bangety-bang at each other (these guys are exceeded in their incompetence with handguns only by the police who are putatively opposing them), and eliminate the corruption of these police agencies imposed by this idiot “war on (some) drugs.”
In all, decriminalization is an across-the-board economic “win,” even when health care costs are spuriously imposed upon the general body poliic. The use of the current supplies of illicitly-conveyed psychoactive substances is known to be far more pathogenic than could ever be the “recreational” diversion of drugs created and purchased at known standards of purity and strength.
So we’re moral people on this forum. We’re libertarians. We’re also a helluva lot more intelligent people than are the drug warriors on either side of the nave in the U.S. Congress. The clear solution - the pragmatic one, the effective one - is in this case the moral route of action.
Decriminalize the drugs and end the Drug War.
Do it…for the CHILDREN!
–
Rich- that has been my take on ALL forms of prohibition since Neil first beat the idea into my head (When I first read _The Probability Broach_ years before I actually met him. Although I never approved of the entire concept of making more taxable items for the government coffers, the cutting back of entire groups of law enforcement people appeals to the anarchist in me.
The way I see the issue of Arizona and the illegal alien problem is that it is one of desperation on the part of the Arizona State government.
How?
Fact is we are looking at a Human Behavior 101 situation.
The residents of Southern Arizona have been dismissed and ignored in their plight against a human wave that behaves like a plague of biblical locusts.
Basic human behavior, when an entity claiming authority refuses to defend those it claims to be there to defend, people will ignore that authority and defend themselves.
Nothing wrong with that of course, except from the point of view of a government.
The Arizona state gubbermint knows that people will start defending themselves. In fact to a limited extent, they already have.
This means a two-sided horror for that state government. ONe is population that demonstrates that they don’t need the state government. The other, worse, is the strong likelyhood of the feds coming in and forcing Arizona to just submit to the depradations of the illegals and the drug gangs.
The definition of anarchy I was referring to is the false one used by our enemies
–
Neale writes about “…the entire concept of making more taxable items for the government coffers.”
Be it understood that I am no more interested in making the chemicals listed on Schedule 1 a source of taxable revenue for the goons of Mordor-on-the-Potomac than I am in surrendering my grandchildren to an Aztec priest for ceremonial cardiectomy.
The reasons to keep revenue out of the hands of the Malevolent Jobholder go beyond the cold-blooded economic consideration of the difference between spending power in the private sector - where it is always valuable - and in the public sector, where it is commonly misdirected into uselessness.
There’s the inescapable fact that actors in the public sector use tax revenues to work unarguable evil upon their victims, both within and outside their jurisdictions. In the words of P.J. O’Rourke, “Giving money to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”
The ideal resolution to the “war on (some) drugs” is decriminalization, not legalization, and not to facilitate any increase in the amount of predation to be perpetrated by civil government upon the productive population.
Indeed, as the still-flourishing trade in moonshine demonstrates, taxation itself is a species of price-support program for criminal enterprises. Excises levied upon commodities have throughout recorded history created the margins upon which the “informal sector” of the economy - smuggling - has always flourished.
We don’t want that, either, do we? I mean, we’re moral, law-abiding folk, us libertarians.
–
–
Al, the definition of anarchy by which I prefer to go is the one that keeps showing up on Nancy’s buttons at SF conventions:
“Anarchy - It’s not the law. It’s just a good idea.”
–
The chances of the Dems allowing Obama to be exposed as not a natural born citizen without a fight are nil. The chance of the Republican leadership allowing it without a fight are not significantly better.
If that was ever admitted / proven, every single executive order he issued and every law he signed would be challanged. On top of that, there would be two sitting supreme court justices whos appointments would be questionable - as well as a host of lower federal judges. Niether the dems nor the repubs want that. Both have pet laws, appointments, rulings and projects they want to protect. Niether major party will support overturning the cart (so to say).
What is really sad is that virtually no minor party would be willing to either. The longer he is in office, the more things are done that some individual will want to stay. It eventually reaches critical mass (in the form of votes) that will prevent any real investigation / disclosure until enough time has passed to make the issue moot.
Personally, I think that critical mass point already passed. What is done from now on moving forward will make the difference wether his potential non-legal status is viewed as a precedent or as a failing never to be allowed again. I view Arizonas new law requiring documentation of being a natural born citizen as a step in the right direction.
–
Charles E. Fuller, Jr., writes with regard to the controversial Arizona state statute requiring their law enforcement officers to actively identify persons within their jurisdictions as to whether these individuals can provide satisfactory proofs of either American citizenship or otherwise lawful permission to be present in these United States.
Setting aside the consideration of “lawful” presence in any particular government’s jurisdiction - as if it were possible to require a government officer’s approval for human beings to engage in interactions of any kind, including not only commercial exchanges but also social and sexual intercourse - there is the fact that the growth of the “progressive” welfare state over the past century and more has burdened the agencies of local and state governments with requirements for the provision of services to the citizenry as “entitlements,” and this is not without real material cost.
Under obtaining federal law, these requirements impose upon these local and state governments a mort of classic “unfunded mandates” which in effect violate constitutional restraints upon that federal government, effectively writing a blank check upon the accounts of these lesser governments which these cities, counties, and states are required to honor - and very much to their detriment and to the real material cost of their constituents.
In those states bordering Mexico, the costs are especially high. Most proximal to the entry of such informal immigrants, states like Arizona suffer higher relative costs than do the other states under our federal government, and quite correctly voice greater resentment at what they perceive to be an inordinate imposition rammed down upon them by our “entitlement”-minded central government.
In addition, there are real (as opposed to purely status-based) criminal offenses perpetrated by the informal immigrants entering Arizona and the other border states from Mexico, and to these the citizens of these border states are correctly sensitized.
Pisses ‘em off, doesn’t it?
What presently operates under the fiction of lawful government in the District of Columbia puts both the citizens and the governments of the several states in a situation that really can’t be described as tenable. The desire of the federal politicians and bureaucrats is to create a large voting population reliably dependent upon that federal government for their material well-being and survival.
I recommend reading F. Paul Wilson’s early novel, *An Enemy of the State* (1980), which was his response to the currency inflation of the Carter Administration, and which warrants particular attention during our present affliction. The means by which Wilson’s interstellar empire was striving to keep control of humanity was by getting the greatest part of it, in one way or another, dependent upon imperial governmental largesse.
To do this, our real-world crop of imperialists must use cost-shifting to evade the unsupportable expense of the welfare state, and thus do these “unfunded mandates” become inevitable.
The risk, of course, is that the several states may actually take such steps as Arizona has just taken, asserting a tattered fragment of sovereignty in both a practical and a legal sense.
The federal government takes upon itself the power to define American citizenship and a foreign person’s legal status in entering the national jurisdiction of these United States, and in so doing takes on the responsibility for enforcing exclusionary measures designed to restrict the entry and other activities of such persons.
And then - as the present situation obtains - that federal government “entitles” such foreign persons to all sorts of goods and services AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LOCAL POLITIES AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE SEVERAL STATES.
Emphasis is intentional, as in “What the FUCK!?”
Were there ever a recipe to foster nullification - indeed, secession - I would have to consider such an action by the central government to be right up there on page one of the cookbook.
I have always favored open immigration, but given the “progressive” (or are they back to calling themselves “Liberals” this week?) welfare state, there is no viability to this position. The “We Do It All For You” concept of civil government is impossible under the very best of circumstances. Under the onslaught of alien millions with chickenshit economic value “entitled” to pate de foie gras government hand-outs, however….
Ouch. The words “catastrophic decompensation” come immediately to mind.
I’m actually delighted by this action of the Arizona state government, and would point out to other observers that it comes in train with that same government’s enactment of “Vermont carry,” meaning that the local and state law enforcement officers must not only ask for proof of lawful presence on U.S. soil but they had - by God - better do it POLITELY, as the persons being confronted have state recognition of their right to proceed about their affairs armed with deadly force.
Anybody yet given thought to that?
–
I agree with your definition. I was referring to that definition to discuss the statist question “Would you rather live under an anarchy or a tyranny?” to point out that eventually all they do is violate our rights, steal or even simply destroy to no one’s benefit all our wealth, and cause us to be murdered.
To tell the truth when they think they are offering us a choice between no viable rights and some rights at the expense of other rights all they are offering us is a choice of resisting bullies in uniforms (tyranny) and out of uniform ( faux anarchy).
–
Al, the recognition of rights at the whim of any government employee of any kind, in any circumstances, has nothing whatsoever to do with rights in any way at all.
I recognize no “choice between,” and I suspect you don’t, either. The happy chore facing us rests entirely in helping our fellow citizens to that same appreciation, and it’s not a burden I’m at all reluctant to shoulder.
As for any choice between living “…under an anarchy or a tyranny,” let us keep in mind the logical fallacy of the suppressed alternative (also known as the “false dilemma” or the “either-or” fallacy) and shove that back down the throat of the person articulating said fallacy.
Briskly.
–
BRAVO, RD and Al!!!!!
re comment # 44, see comment # 7.
It has offered me much amusement.
R.D. Bartucci
While you examine the Arizona situation in considerably greater depth and sophistication, I do believe that we are in concurance.
–
Al, your comment (#7) is reviewed and appreciated. Shoulda done so more acutely and sensibly. I plead diminished mental capacity, to some degree organic, to an even greater degree induced by too damned much Web browsing on this and other subjects.
–
?? ????? ??? ????? ?????????? ????. ????????? ??? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ? PM….
people who agreed with him — was the reason I _stopped_ listening to
talk radio in the 80s. Over the years, Boyles has […….
Seems complicated. Very complicated.
I have a simpler view that anyone can grok:
Learn Español.
Hasta luego!
learn how to hablar grammatical spanglish como un real American!
–
Al, parlo io un po’ d’italiano, e l’espagnol non è una lingua difficile.
Aber Deutsch, heute…. Umglaublich!
–
RD- es ist UNglaublich, NICHT UMglaublich. Sie sind nicht deutsch, nicht wahr?
–
Ach, ich hatt’ ein typograficalerror gefahrt mitt dem keyboardenklickety-klackety-spillenkaffeeamderverschtunkenspeilenplatz. Mein vershtunkt. Zu veil sorree dere, Sharlie.
–
Sehr gut, Herr Bartucci. And now, back to English, or my 27 year old high-school German classes will fail me!! Wakarimas?
There are Germans invading the Empire? Wow. Now that’s an alternate history.
But anyway, back in the present time line: I read somewhere that a large proportion of illegal immigrants invading the Empire’s southern border are from countries further south than Mexico. They are merely transiting through Mexico to get into the Empire (poor fools).
So even if the Empire were to annex Mexico (La Conquista, Part II) there would STILL be a problem (or “problem”) on its southern border.
Actually there are more Americans of German descent than of English descent. There are more Americans of British descent counting English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish as one group.
Mexico is very harsh with people crossing its southern border.
By the way, notice that Obama and his Congress have decided to wimp out on fixing America’s unjust laws. As much as I despise Arizona’s law, an irrational reaction similar to the effect of dropping sodium in water, the failure of the current and previous Administrations and their Congresses to create and implement a just immigration policy invites such atrocities.
–
Al, every time you salt your soup, you’re “dropping sodium in water.”
Dropping METALLIC sodium in water isn’t even remotely “irrational” if you do it properly, and the statute enacted by the government goons in Arizona isn’t really irrational at all.
It’s damned nasty, no doubt of that. But, then, the “illegal immigration” situation is pretty nasty, too, and until some sort of workable solution is proposed, is inaction really an option?
My personal take on the matter of devising “a just immigration policy” is simply to open the borders and accept anybody who wants to come in - but….
We are faced today with a “do-it-all-for-you” policy of civil government in broad, which means not only that many of the people entering these United States with dorsal sogginess are seeking not just remunerative economic activity but also goodies from the profligate politicians, and these politicians are currying favor with the Hispanic Horde not out of the goodness of their cindered and shriveled hearts but in order to gain votes by which said politicians can “legitimately” impose violent force upon recalcitrant Americans whom the politicians are seeking to outnumber into helplessness.
Is this not so?
And as this is an accurate take on the situation, your concept of a “just immigration policy” going without definition, what do you suggest as a viable alternative for the officers of civil government in the several states as they are confronted with the many problems being posed by furriners flocking promiscuously into the Land of the Big PX?
–
A) dump free goody welfare system.
B) open border to everyone who wants to come to the US for peaceful honest reason.
C) Dump asshole politicians who incite xenophobia and racism and create self fulfilling prophecies that keep honest folk angry at eachother so said assholes can retain power.
D) treat furriners who enter this country for criminal purposes (or on criminal porpoises) and cops who enjoy enforcing racist policies a little too much the same.
–
Ah, the dreaded “Dr. Blowhole” conundrum - those criminal porpoises.
But before we can get to that point in our all-or-nothing solutions set, we are faced with that ancient recipe for rabbit stew.
“First, catch your rabbit.”
Getting rid of the “goody welfare system” is a bit too much like getting a Congressional staffer off his cocaine, isn’t it?
And until that is accomplished, none of the subsequent steps can be essayed,
–
Talking about problems about how to keep immigrants off sugar teat welfare gets us away from point that American citizens can now be hassled to show piece of paper proving they have permission to be in their own country.
@RD Surely an ideal world can be attained by huffing and puffing and getting really angry - really REALLY angry, grrrrr [sound of carpet being chewed] and contemptuous about government actions? No?
–
Robert - Back when he was in medical school, F. Paul Wilson was writing science fiction instead of horror, and he was assembling a novel called *An Enemy of the State*.
That’s the story that should’ve been made into a movie under that title, but what the hell. I recall that he used as chapter headings quotations he’d pulled from Andrew Dickson White’s *Fiat Money Inflation in France* (1933)*,
Basically, he was telling in science fiction allegory the story of what he was seeing during Jimmy Carter’s time in the White House, when we were watching the Federal Reserve System dumping valueless currency into the American economy and that currency inflation was being reflected in price inflation that was causing great dislocation and despair.
I look back on the late ’70s now, of course, and wonder what the hell was so bad. It’s a HELLUVA lot worse right now, and it’s going to get even worse before it’s over.
But in *An Enemy of the State*, Wilson - using third-person omniscient - had his bad guys (the government, natch) conniving together and one of ‘em said something like: “Look, we’ve got X percent of the population totally dependent on our hand-outs for everything. They CAN’T revolt!”
Well, yeah. Wilson’s novel kept pushing the currency inflation into Weimar Republic levels, in which the fiat lucre you got at 9:00 AM (and had to haul away in a sack) was, by noon, no longer worth enough to purchase the sack.
And that’s where those bifurcate hookworms-in-human-form infesting the District of Columbia are taking us. They will literally “elasticize” the money supply until we stop measuring the value of the dollar in terms of purchasing power and begin tracking it’s worth in the negative Torricelli figures we use to measure the hardness of vacuum.
Let’s see… Governments get spending power three ways: (1) armed robbery (we call this “taxation”), (2) borrowing (and for this purpose their IOUs are rated by the same private sector market whizz kids who Madoff with us in the most recent financial melt-down), (3) counterfeiting.
Okay. So when does it no longer become possible for your public servants to send Officer Friendly to rob you at gunpoint?
Like I said, we’ve seen worse even than what we saw during the Carter Administration. But we haven’t seen the WORST yet, and I don’t think that even a novelist as talented as our Mr. Smith has been able to figure out a fictional way to portray how bad it’s going to need to get before the governing class goes up against the wall as they deserve.
=====
* http://mises.org/books/inflationinfrance.pdf
–
Mr. Smith’s unindicted co-conspirator Mr. Schulman did a fair job of presenting Weimar America in his early novel _Alongside Night_.
@RD, @Ward,
So would you agree then that all the fictional dramatising, philosophical discussion and rhetorical ranting over the last forty years in favor reducing government has made not an iota of difference?
–
Robert writes to the effect “…that all the fictional dramatising, philosophical discussion and rhetorical ranting over the last forty years in favor reducing government has made not an iota of difference,” and I’m not in much disagreement.
Of course, speculative fiction writer Hector C. Bywater, in 1925, published a work entitled *The Great Pacific War* which directly inspired the Imperial Japanese Navy to essay the strategic and tactical steps initiated in December 1941.
SF does impact the mundanes now and again.
And we don’t yet know to what effect the early novels of Tom Clancy - who was just an unpublished insurance salesman when I bumped into him at a wargaming convention back in the early ’80s and sank the gator freighter he was “commanding” in a tabletop gaming system demonstration being run by Larry Bond - had on strategic decision-making during the years immediately preceding the implosion of the Soviet Empire.
And when it comes to the effects of idea-oriented fiction in general, have we not seen a resurgence of interest in the impossibly turgid *Atlas Shrugged* since Barry Soetoro slimed into the presidency?
Such efforts may be worthwhile. How are we to know unless they’re made?
–
The greatest tool of tyranny is ultimately the acquiesence of the ruled. “…experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” All the ranting and raving do accomplish one thing, they keep us from getting ccustomed to the form of tyranny, they keep us from accepting certain evils (like having to show your papers to prove you have permission to live in your own country) as sufferable.
You cannot enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him. A slave MUST co-operate in his enslavement, or he is not profitable to own.
So, the question is- WHY THE FUCK IS IT PROFITABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT TO ENSLAVE US??? The answer is, the majority of us CO-OPERATE in our enslavement. Food for thought.
–
Neale, in answer to your question, it is profitable (in the sense of material gain for effort “invested”) for the officers of civil government and their co-conspirators to enslave us because the institution of civil government is non-productive.
It performs few, if any, services that people view as economically valuable in that they genuinely prefer what government does or creates to what they could get from any other source. Example: the U.S. Postal Service, which “competes” with FedEx and UPS only on the basis of taxpayer subsidization and enormous already-sunk capital. Others examples are freely available.
As for cooperation of the populace, I would refer you to that bit in the Declaration of Independence about how “…all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Successful politicians are rather like abusive alcoholic husbands who manage to get through their lives with their marriages intact all the while avoiding indictment and conviction for their violent criminal trespass against the persons of the women to whom they are married.
And I suppose the proper analogy for the average American private citizen is not “slave” but rather “cowering, repeatedly brutalized, and utterly fucked woman.”
Not, of course, “fucked” in the sense of copulative satisfaction but rather as the subject of humiliating pain inflicted by a callous and unarguably evil person satisfying his or her lust for the imposition of suffering upon another.
If only we could persuade these creatures to restrict their intercourse (social and political as well as sexual) to consenting partners of their own species….
–
Rich- Read it, laugh, correct, or support it. Your (and anyone elses’s) opinions are welcome. It is rather poorly written (I was in physical pain and emotionally drained after 8 hours of intense physical and mental testing during an exam for the lawsuit), but it is from the heart.
http://nealebooks.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/07/4256326-slavery-is-involuntary-labor-slavery-is-illegal-taxation-is-involuntary-surrender-of-labor-does-it-not-follow-that-taxation-is-illegal-as-a-form-of-slavery
Enjoy it if you want.
@Neale: As I said, the evidence is that no amount of heart-felt screeds will change anything.
Robert- for once, we totally agree. But until I can convince enough people to even consider the chains that are in place, they will never even acknowledge the possibility they could contemplate removing them.
It’s a waste of time, of ones precious life. I’ve come around to the view that the most important thing is to work and save and keeps ones powder dry.
So basically we’ve convinced you to defend your liberty.
A line in a book, a scene in a movie, a comment on TV or conversation, a letter to the editor.
somewhere in all the dozens of scribblings, rantings, and even dumb jokes we got you to realize being free is a good thing, and unfree a very bad thing.
Not just on this blog or related ones, but by making a fuss all over the place.
That’s what good it does.
Robert- what if (two powerful words) Obama were to read one of my articles, comments, rants or what-have-yous, and it opened his eyes? I’m using him as an example (an unlikely one at that), but it can happen. You’ve kind of mellowed over the last few months! Maybe someone in the government could change their minds, and it could work a miracle.
–
Neale - even if your words do not reach that remarkably unconstitutional supposed constitutional law expert currently squatting in the Oval Office, they should be written for those who WILL be open to the sense thereof.
John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon spent the years between 1720 and 1723 publishing anonymously (under the pen name of “Cato”) 144 *Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious* which we know today under the rubric of *Cato’s Letters*.
Do you think they had much impact on current events back then?
Nah.
However, even the flaming socialists over at Wiki-bloody-pedia have to admit that before the American Revolution got started on that April day in Lexington, “…it is estimated that half the private libraries in the American colonies held bound volumes of *Cato’s Letters* on their shelves.”
Let’s see; Trenchard and Gordon started writing in 1720. The bullets started flying across Lexington green in 1775.
Neale, neither you nor Robert has one goddam idea of where and how far your angry screeds may yet go.
–
Rich- thanks for the encouragement. I look forward to the day when bound copies of TLE are studied in PRIVATE schools as “The seminal steps in the re-awakenning of the American Spirit.”
“You might say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day, you will join us
And the world will live as one”
John Lennon
Robert- care to join me in a pleasant dream?? (NOT Lennon’s, but the one of a Libertarian country, then continent, and world)
It looks like I created the wrong impression. I’m actually an anarcho-capitalist all my adult life but I tend to examine ideas unmercifully and the idea of persuading the world to abandon the statist religion just doesn’t stand up very well in the light of the last forty years or so.
Yeah, but what convinced you to embrace anarcho-capitalism.
–
Neale, you may “…to the day when bound copies of TLE are studied in PRIVATE schools as ‘The seminal steps in the re-awakening of the American Spirit,’” but step back and realize that *The Libertarian Enterprise* is already even more persistent in the archives of human thought than if it had been translated into dead-tree format.
On the Internet, it’s not only true that “nobody knows you’re a dog” but also that what goes up NEVER comes down.
It’s one of the reasons why one must ever be damned certain of the quality of what gets posted over one’s name. It’s gonna be “find-able” out there in virtual space forever.
As for the embrace of anarcho-capitalism…. Hm. Al, why should anybody formally “embrace” (as in the sense of moral and intellectual commitment) what is nothing more than yet another acknowledgment of the nature of humanity?
I tend to hold that anarcho-capitalism makes too much of a much regarding the simple fact that most of human life is spent in the blessed ABSENCE of civil government, and that government is not only unnecessary for the most important aspects of our lives but actually detrimental to the living thereof.
This requires some formal doctrine or dogma to appreciate?
–
–
–
And, of course, I commit an un-editable typo, for I should have written:
“…you may LOOK TO ‘…to the day when bound copies of TLE…’”
Oh, yeah. Mr. Smith?
“torpediatrics,” eh?
How childish….
–
Quite right. RD. If government was reduced to early 19th century levels (as in the USA or even the UK) then I’d be content enough, anarchist though I be.
Incidentally, check out a movie entitled “Primer” (2004). It doesn’t have anything to do with libertarianism. I mention it because it is (to my mind) quite delightful, and also a “micro budget” movie.
@Al I was born this way, independent from my earliest memories, but it took the first twenty years to shrug off my acceptance of my parents (”working class,” social democrat) politics because I loved them dearly.
The amount of stuff we pick up from literature and art (including tv and movies), people popping off and so much that we take in a s “background noise” is amazing. you may think you were born a certain way, yet you received thousands of messages that said “Freedom good, excessive government bad.” You learned this lesson subconsciously as well as others that were intended to convince you to surrender your liberty to the state, church, peer group, whatever. Eventually you chose which way to go and it seemed as if you were “born that way.” Perhaps you were born inclined to prefer liberty to even the most comfortable slavery. But you needed these messages to know the choice was there. Pity the person who can not choose a message, reconcile the different messages he is hearing,or never hears the message that best fits his genetic inclination.
It’s impossible to settle the argument without a “control”: a me (or you) that was in a different environment. Without that it’s just opinions.
Did you have an epiphany: an identifiable moment when you saw the truth?
call it a growing conviction.
Robert- I was never content to “rub blue mud into my bellybutton” from a young age, but I never put it into words until I read “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress” by Heinlein. I never had a name for it, but Prof’s assertion that he’d live with whatever rules others needed didn’t cut it for me. Later, I read a novel by some clown in Colorado. It was “THe Probability Broach” By our esteemed host. That put a name to it. Over the past twenty years, I have refined my thoughts to where they are now.
Getting back to original point of this discussion:
to some degree I do in fact sympathize with the people of arizona responsible for the check your papers law. I grew up along the border (as in thirty thirty range of the the order) and there was trouble in my neighborhood with thieves crossing over to urglarize when no one was home. not all mojados are hard working economic refugees, some are not only breaking the law when they come over, they are coming over to break the law. “check your papers” is not the answer. it is a predictable consequence of failure by the feds to pass just immigration laws and policy. At this time I am not advocating any policy, but rather pointing out how unjust acts lead to even more unjust acts (both meanings of phrase.).
also, i am not so much worried about the “illegal aliens” being asked to show their papers, i’m worried about american citizens and legal resident aliens being harassed for their papers. i do not subscribe to the “i’m proud to prove i’m an american theory.” i subscribe to the “i’m proud to be a citizen of a country that rarely if hassles you for for your papers.” theory.
–
Al, even were the Boot-On-Your-Neck Party functionaries to pass statutes which would meet your definition of “just immigration laws and policy” (and I’d like you to expound on that a bit, please), how could these laws address the transgressions of people who enter upon these United States with the intention of pillaging and raping?
I’m delighted to see the “hard working economic refugees” come aboard, but over the same rather low gunwales are swarming folks with cutlasses in hand, bent upon thievery, slaughter, and worse.
I do not mind people who ASK to come into my home, but when I’m not in my house - and when my family is sleeping - I lock the doors with the expectation that anyone trying to come in will take that as a hint that I expect to be asked, and without my permission he is NOT to come in.
–
my complaint is that this law is going to work out like gun control laws do, hassle the innocent (foreign looking Americans and legal residents) while doing nothing effective about the murderers, rapists, kidnappers and crime cartel muscle.
The “Vermont Carry” law (as mentioned by LNS in his latest article at http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle570-20100516-02.html) that they also passed is both the necessary and SUFFICIENT legislative means of dealing fully with “the murderers, rapists, kidnappers and crime cartel muscle.”
Geez, I’m sounding like a minarchist, but when in Rome as they say..
So why give the bulls one more reason to hassle people for ID’s ?
the jerks have enough excuses, the ones still dedicated to protecting people’s rights (there are some) have too much else to do.
@ Robert, even with the “Vermont Carry” coming online in Arizona, I have to observe that the situation in the Grand Canyon State - where the border between these United States and Mexico is arguably the most porous of any stretch of similar size - leaves the tactical initiative to foreign intruders of criminal intent.
Yes, the “non-aggression principle” is morally correct. It does not by any means rule out the *retaliatory* use of violent and even lethal force.
But for retaliation to be a reasonable deterrent (much less an effective way of protecting life and property), the people of Arizona must be expected to sustain a level of vigilance and a readiness to kill throughout every minute of every day.
This may not be distasteful or sound unreasonable to Neil, Al, Neale, and others who are merry hoplophiles and would welcome the opportunity to experiment with wound ballistics on suitable human targets.
Hell, I’m not philosophically opposed to that attitude, and I’ve spent a fair amount of time treating gunshot wounds over the past three decades and a bit. Being Sicilian, I prefer knives, blunt objects, and tubs filled with concrete aggregate, but that’s a matter of personal taste and respect for tradition.
But let us look into the lives of people living in Arizona.
I mean people who are not like Leslie Fish, who has recently grumbled about how she’s going to need a gunsmith to repair her recovered .357 Magnum revolver, stolen from her in 2003 and returned to her by the kindly Phoenix police some weeks ago. Seems it got dinged somewhere along the course of its life in criminal hands.
For Leslie I fear not. But how many other Arizonans are prepared to confront home invaders when roused from sleep, dressed in nothing but underwear and a firearm?
There is a definite tactical disadvantage to being on the defensive in such circumstances. Moreover, as the genuinely criminous critters cross from Sonora into Arizona with knowledge that they are likely to confront locals who are armed and dangerous, these informal border-crossers are entirely likely to kill upon confrontation, most likely by ambush.
Again, that’s the Sicilian genes speaking. As I recall the wise and respected Curly Howard once recommending: “Let’s shoot ‘em in the back!”
I think I can understand these dorsally damp folks. After all, I’m only two generations removed from the sunny slopes of Mt. Etna myself. Were I over there today, I’d sure as hell prefer to be over here, our Mulignane Messiah notwithstanding.
Let us say that “Vermont Carry” better enables the people of Arizona to defend themselves. After all, the most severely afflicted areas of that state - Cochise County, Santa Cruz County, Pima County, the Tohono O’odham Nation - are “gun culture” areas where even National Socialist Party congresscritter Gabrielle Giffords states in an NPR interview that *she* owns a gun, everybody in her family owns guns, and the people in her district can probably get together to put enough lead downrange to sink a missile frigate.
But who the hell wants to live in a free-fire zone?
It’s more than just the imposition (decried by Al) of giving “the bulls one more reason to hassle people for ID’s.”
It’s not unreasonable for the average schmuck in Arizona to desire a state of affairs in which those officers of civil government who are entrusted with the delegation of their right to self-defense (and both trained and paid for this purpose) to do their job and run some kind of interference to reduce the risk to which the citizenry in general must be exposed.
Look, if you hired a rent-a-cop company to protect your real estate and the people and portable property thereupon, what the hell else would you expect of those “security” servitors?
The people of Arizona have pretty much made it plain that such service is expected of their governmental goons. Is that not appreciable?
–
–
Addendum. See http://tinyurl.com/37ew3ol to audit that NPR interview with congresscritter Giffords.
Like all National Socialists, she’s organizationally committed to supporting the hoplophobes’ desire to reinstate the ugly gun ban, but she’s surprisingly realistic about how the people in her district ain’t gonna buy that crap.
She wants (and you’re gonna love this, Al) units of the U.S. Army and Army National Guard deployed to close the border.
Hm. She’s on the House Armed Services Committee, and she has no friggin’ idea of the force levels required for that task, does she?
–
After listening to Calderon’s denunciation of a law I don’t like I am questioning my values. It is one thing to support the right of migrants to enter the US. It is another to listen to the likes of that hijo de puto (fils de putain) proclaim the right of his people to come into the US so that that his cronies (or puppet masters) can keep fucking the Mexican people up and over secure in the knowledge there is a safety valve to the North.
I’m from El Paso, we like knives and blunt objects better than guns also. More reliable and personal.
–
Al, I always thought that the feminine noun in Spanish normally ended in “a,” the way it does in Italian.
So shouldn’t that be “hijo de puta” instead?
Unless, that is, you’re attributing to Calteron a parent who was a MALE prostitute.
Jeez, I just thunka something. In Italian, the word “putto” defines one of them little bare-butt wingetty critters one finds painted in odd corners on Renaissance ceilings, though the term “puttana” is in common usage for a wife-you-rent-by-the-hour.
In my childhood usage of the Sicilian dialect, the exclamation of “Puttan’!” was commonplace as a cry of exasperation before we really knew the significance of the word.
Gawd, after all those decades, the scars of a liberal arts education still run deep and grievous….
–
puto implies male homosexual hooker. I was feeling particularly and creatively insulting.
In another place I refer to Senor Calderon as cabron. Literally old or bog goat, as a vulgarity it means a man who pimps for his own wife or mom. In my lifetime this was still considered a killing fight insult.
Then again I remember when calling a man a pimp in English could lead to an exchange of blows.
–
Male HOMOSEXUAL hooker? I was kinda thinking that “puto” conveyed a meaning something more along the lines of “gigolo.”
After all, “puta” (Italian “puttana”) denotes a female who engages in heterosexual congress for pecuniary purposes.
Hm. I wouldn’t think that “pimp” is politically correct these days.
Perhaps “social facilitator” or “copulatory connections specialist” would prove more pleasing to those who demand emollient phrases instead of the older, more pungent Anglo-Saxonisms….
By the bye, I didn’t have to look to online sources for translations of your Spanish in that e-mail you’d composed. I found that there’s a helluva lot of congruency between your Texican and the Sicilian with which i grew up.
Jeez, you REALLY don’t like that miserable bastich, do ya?
–
not so much him as the social class he represented in this trip and thje policies he espoused,
for a Mexican President he personally is OK. However, when you riding for the brand you get judged by the brand not your personal characteristics.
“But who the hell wants to live in a free-fire zone? ”
I do.
The peaceful, productive people survive to add to their new homeland. The vermin are filtered out.
It makes the world a better place.
@al Obviously his remarks are actually intended for the audience back home. As a politician he has to say what his constituents expect to hear, then turn around and DO what his masters expect.
Hi Y’all- I’ve been gone a few days, and missed the hullaballoo. So a few comments, in no particular order.
First, for an asshole whose own government hands out flyers on how and where to cross the border safely, reputedly has a “Practice Park” to get ready for it, and who imprisons for 2 years then deports anyone doing it to HIS southern border, Calderone should shut his fucking trap.
Second, in response to his demand for US to re-implement the “ugly gun” ban- FUCK YOU, SCUMBAG!!
Third- I speak neither Spanish NOR Sicillian, nor do I have any particular skill at on-line translations, Al, so be so kind as to translate for this Gringo, Please. German, English, and greetings and cusses in Chinese, Japanese, Russian, and a smattering of Gaelic is the limit of my languages. Apparently you were quite artistic, and I would appreciate the opportunity to enjoy you artwork translated by the author.
Robert-Same here as to a free-fire zone, BUT you forgot that the vermin are not only filtered out, they make EXCELLENT fertilizer, hog feed, or coyote bait.
Last, but certainly not least, with apologies to El Neil, until the social programs I am currently being forced at gunpoint to support are either eliminated or denied to ALL immigrants for a period of 5 years post taxpaying status, I cannot totally support open borders. I need every fucking penny I can accumulate, and the more of them come and use these “services”, the more Mordor-on-the-Potomac WILL continue to steal.
And finally, really last, did anyone notice the immigration status of Sotero’s Auntie was finally settled?? 10 years of illegally living in PUBLIC FINANCED HOUSING never mentioned, nor her welfare embezzlement, nor her mooching of the medical system. They just granted her asylum, and legalized her. OF COURSE it had nothing to do with the job her nephew holds.
gelow is translation of terms used in open lettet not commonly known to Anglophones.
pocho= slangy street spanish w/american english loan words, street people who speak the same.
Metiche= busybody, buttinski
Campestre= Country Club, rich politically connected folks neighborhood.
oyeme cabron. Los que mandan en Mexico han chingado el pueblo por siglos esperando que los mas bravos y desesperados para ganar las riquesas y libertad que putos como tu robadon de ellos escapavan a los Estados Unidos Norteamericanos y no crean problemas por vosotros=
hear me pimp for thy mother. Those who run Mexico have fucked the people (nation, community) expecting that the most valiant and desperate for the wealth and freedom homosexual man whores like thee have stolen from them would escape to the United States of America and not create problems for thee and thine.
mordida=bribe (literally a bite)
Chingate y el caballo en que llegastes= Literally: Fuck thee and the horse on which thou arrived. More insulting than the colloquial American English original in my opinion but only because we don’t use the familiar second person form.
And it’s especially shameful that given his family situation BO has done so little to fix the immigration law mess.
oh yeah,
Chucoztlan is a gang slang name for El Paso, Texas. Y que is a challenge. Literally and what, the sentiment is, you want to make something of it?
My response to Calderon’s statements:
Si acaso que pegarla en el culo.
(He should stick it up his arse.)
–
Hm. With all this talk about Mexico….
Has anybody been paying attention to the value of the Mexican peso relative to that of the U.S. dollar?
Especially now that the Euro is descending to its intrinsic value (i.e., the smelter price of the base metal tokens into which a one-Euro note can be broken) and our Mombasa Messiah is channeling Rudolf E. A. Havenstein (look up “Weimar Republic” and “hyperinflation”) to make the U.S. dollar worth precisely as much as that JPG computer graphic image he’s been passing off as a legitimate Certification of Live Birth.
–
about 13 to the dollar
Damn!! My peso IRA just took a knife to the bottom line!! Guess it’s time to invest in Greek drachmae.
I’d rather invest in Metaxa. or Mescal.
or Bushmill’s 1608.
Going back to original post by El Neil; I always thought that Chertoff looked like Hannibal, the leader of the Commandos in Meerkat Manor. the Commandos were supposed to be evil.
“The immigration law mess” will be resolved by the collapse of the state, the bypassing of all that shit, and the eugenic massacring in a free-fire zone of all the dishonest and predatory.
I can hardly wait!
When you come right down to it, it’s an informational problem: how to sort out the good from the bad. If we can solve that then we’re free.
Robert, I too anxiously await the collapse of the state. I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime. (If I last another year, I get the longevity record for anybody with my Y-chromosome — I just turned 55 Wednesday, no male in my father’s family has ever turned 56).
Sorting out the good from the bad can be tricky — I use the ZAP. Problem is, the bad guys get the first shot and some of us die before we put them in the ground. Yet that’s an ethic I will not give up, even though my hat is not white — it’s a dark brown leather thing, and I really want a duster to match it, but I can’t afford the $500 or so for that big a sheet of dead cow).
If an armed Moslem looks me in the eye and states it is his firm religious conviction that American infidel dogs must die I will kill him where he stands if I can, no warning no wind up. He has made a credible declaration of his intent to murder me and I will assume he intends to back it up on the spot. This applies to people announcing their intent to kill me for being left handed, green eyed (actually they’re more hazel) libertarian, male, Mexican or whatever reason they give.
I would appreciate comments on whether this violates the ZAP.
@Al C’mon, that’s a strawman. There are no Moslems (or anything else) looking you in the eye and yadda yadda. It doesn’t work that way.
Indeed, the nearest thing to someone actually threatening to kill you (if you don’t pay them) is the revenue department.
Perhaps, but does not answer question, when does threat become credible enough to cross line where forcible response is not violation of ZAP?
Surely it depends on who is judging? If no-one else is present then just kill the threatener and later say whatever to whomever that is a sufficient justification in their frame of reference.
Real life example:
There was a report in the news not long ago about a female US soldier, driving a truck in Saudi Arabia. She was confronted by a muslim cleric with a knife who intended to rape her. (evidently it’s sanctioned by the religion to slash and rape women who are alone and not covered up). She drew out her service pistol and held him at bay. I forget the outcome, but when I read it I thought, she should have just calmly shot him dead while he stood there and later said that he jumped her with the knife. Make the world a better place.
Always 1 witness, self (+Deity{s} if believer). This (these) also court(s) always in session.
Yes, one witness: someone who hates bullies and predators and wants nothing more than to live in a world that is rid of them.
Disressingly, there is no “comment” function at http://ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle572-20100530-02.html (A Saucy Proposal) so I’ll comment here, in a closely related timeline.
LNS mentions that barbecue dining may cause coronaries. But it turns out that that theory was all wrong. In fact, animal protein and animal fats are good for your heart and that the dietary components that produce heart disease and obesity are carbohydrates. Let me know if you want references.
I do not know if barbecue shortens life. I do know life without barbecue is too damn long.
Robert, I think Neil refers to the carbohydrates loaded into the sauces. Speaking of Barbecue, has anyone tried TGI Fridays Jack Daniels ribs? Until my wife forced me to try them I opposed ANY barbecue (finicky eater). Now, I’m hooked, make my own, try nearly any bbq offered, and have become a smoke snob (I built my own hot and cold smokehouse for the pigs I raise). But I still use sauce, too. If anyone cares, I finely dice one vidalia onion, 5-6 garlic cloves, and a little fresh parsley, then do a hard sautee (nearly blackened) in butter. Then I add 2 bottles of Jack Daniels Original No. 7 sauce, 1/2 cup Jack Daniels black label whiskey, and a tablespoon or two of dark brown sugar, and simmer it until reduced by 1/3. Many people have told me that’s the best damned sauce they’ve ever tasted. Of course, when the ribs are from pigs you raised from 8 weeks and slaughtered at 8 months, it just makes them better. I hot smoke them in a mixture of hickory and apple, 3-4 hours, adding sauce once an hour until done. SHIT, now I’m hungry. Gotta go!
y’ forgot the jalepeno, tomato and fireant.
Texas style.
The fireant (and the tomato) are optional. And the jalapeno can be replaced with several other varieties of chiles, either milder, such as poblano or hotter such as habanero, or just slightly modified as in chipotle. But chiles _are_ necessary.
Yeah, I love barbecue, partial to a sour (and hot) sauce separately cooked rather than a charred formerly sweet sauce spread on meat being grilled. I also love grilling (a totally separate style, mistakenly called barbecue in most of the US, but grilling is just broiling from beneath, barbecue is a long process to dissolve collagen, turning meat into a tender mouthful).
Of course, the best way to treat any species of mammal larger than a squirrel and honor its memory is chili. When I die, I want to be the star of a chili cook-off. I’m not a christian and I’d rather be enjoyed than buried or incinerated. It’s a long slow cooking process — unlike the usual cook-offs that have a two hour time limit, I’d prefer four hours (I have differences with most cook-off organizations, their time limits prevent me from doing my best), so you know I won’t be left harboring any serious pathogens.
This is not totally in jest. I just turned 55. No person on record with my Y-chromosome has ever reached 56.
–
i am married to a wife I’ve been treating for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) for some three decades, and my culinary options as to secretogogues has been effectively foreclosed.
Kind of a pity, really. I came up on Arthur Bryant’s barbecue in Kansas City (the original - and only place at the time - on Brooklyn Avenue, back in the ’70s), and have yet to find sauce or brisket better suited to my tastes anywhere else.
The dormitory in which all bachelor male first- and second-year med students were housed by requirement was on Brooklyn Avenue not far north of Arthur Bryant’s, and I was introduced to “Kansas City style” by the upperclassmen.
Lesser mortals talk of KC as a steak town. These creatures know nothing of the town’s heritage as a home of barbecue.
Alas, I will die before I again savor anything as good.
My wife will kill me if I bring barbecue home.
–
While not in the same class as proper barbacoa, let us not forget fajitas. Fajitas are cuts of beef skirt meat (the diaphragm), hence their name, which means little skirt. Poor Mexican ranch hands would get them from their bosses as they were extremely tough. At home they would be marinaded with papaya juice based concoctions (papaya juice breaks down the meat and softens it) containing a variety of chiles, spices, and other ingredients. Quite savory.
They were discovered and the price of skirt steak went up, then it was discovered that that the marinades went well with chicken, shrimp and other foods (the idea that there may be vegan fajitas out there both horrifies my carnivores soul and makes me wonder if someone has finally developed decent vegan cuisine, Comes under try anything once). Should be served on hot skillet.
Goes good with tortillas (wheat flour or corn), frijoles, pico de gallo, salsa, sour cream, shredded cheese, tomato slices and shredded lettuce. While I do not get along with avocado and guacamole, that’s me.
Wash down with coda, ice tea, beer or shots.
Flan and coffee for desert and maybe some Presidente brandy and cigars.
and people wonder how I keep my weight down to 210 lb.
Trust me, R.D., I’m familiar with reflux. Been taking Prilosec ever since that ulcer appeared the day after my 41st birthday (putting in me in one of the worst hospitals in Jersey a quart and a half low on blood — no, I hadn’t known what “tarry stools” meant, but I always look before I flush ever since [I apologize to anyone who has a problem with food and medical details mentioned in the same post]).
I have never been a medical professional (though my maternal grandmother said I had the [bad] handwriting to qualify). She was an RN from the ’20s till her death in ‘73, her older daughter was an RN, her younger daughter (Mom) was never degreed, so was just an LPN or equivalent (title varies from state to state). Nobody in my generation became a nurse, so I had to marry one.
KC does damned good steak, but yeah, the barbecue is what puts the town on the map (along with Robert Heinlein). I just prefer Carolina-style tart sauces to KC-style sweet sauces. Never had much of a sweet tooth.
La Esposa will eat almost anything I cook (though not menudo, she won’t touch tripe in any form). She’s had steak in KC and says I do it better (I do OK). She’s had burritos from the trucks in downtown Los Angeles and claims I make better (utter nonsense, I roll my own burritos out of desperation, and can’t come close to the hometown product — my hometown, she was born here in New Jersey).
Yeah, Al, fajitas are what got done to what was considered one of the worst and toughest cuts from a cow (so might as well pay off the Mexicans with it). Now skirt steak costs as much or more than tenderloin (a much over-rated cut, IMAO, no marbling and so almost no taste).
You can use fajita marinade on anything and if you rescue the stuff in time (before it dissolves) it will cook up fine. So a marinade that will work with skirt steak for 3-4 hours can be used with chicken for maybe an hour or so and with shrimp for maybe 10-15 minutes. I think if you gave it 8-10 hours, it would render pressure-treated redwood edible (though not necessarily palatable — there are limits to miracles).
“You can use fajita marinade on anything and if you rescue the stuff in time (before it dissolves) it will cook up fine.”
You realize you’ve just suggested the base for several new meat based BBQ sauces.