Keep the Change

During the Bush administration, liberals (rightly) claimed that Bush was waging an illegal war in Iraq.  In 2008, Obama campaigned on the promise of bringing change to Washington.  Gullible white liberals and moderates bought it up and sent him to the White House, where he is now waging a war in a foreign country and claiming he doesn't need the authorization of Congress.  So much for change.

A Primer on Gun Terms for Liberals and Reporters

Whenever there is a mass shooting, the media, the gun control lobby, and liberals in general howl about our nation's "lax gun laws."  In doing so, they usually reveal themselves to be ignorant of basic gun terms.  For example, they might whine about the fact that semi-automatic handguns are freely available, without realizing that most handguns today are semi-automatic, or they might claim that AK-47s are legally available for purchase in America, failing to note that the version available is not the one that most people think of when they hear "AK-47."

So, I've created a helpful little primer for liberals and reporters (or do I repeat myself) who don't know anything about guns except that they are used by creepy tea bagging racist rednecks in flyover country.

Automatic firearm: A gun that fires and reloads automatically as long as the trigger is held down.  Purchasing or transferring one in the United States is a highly regulated, difficult, and long process.

Semi-automatic firearm: A gun in that reloads automatically, but requires the trigger to be pulled to fire one bullet.  Semi-automatic handguns and rifles are extremely common today.  Most handguns are semi-automatic, although non-semi-automatic bolt-action rifles are still popular amongst snipers and hunters.

Assault rifle: A rifle with switch allowing it to fire either automatically, semi-automatically, or in bursts (2 or 3 bullets per one pull of the trigger).

Assault weapon: A word used by politicians to refer to "scary" looking semi-automatic weapons with "scary" looking features including bayonet mounts, pistol grips, large magazines, and barrel shrouds (which are not, as Carolyn McCarthy claimed, "a shoulder thing that goes up").

AK-47: A Soviet-designed assault rifle used for over sixty years by dozens of militaries, police forces, paramilitaries, and terrorists.  AK-47s capable of automatic fire are very difficult to purchase in the US.  Buying one or any other fully automatic weapon requires a tax stamp and much paperwork.  Semi-automatic versions, which have less power than the typical hunting rifle, are as legal as any other semi-automatic rifle.

Everything is Discrimination

When I read liberals/feminists complaining about "appearance discrimination" and supporting laws banning its practice in employment, I really should not have been surprised.  Anything liberals dislike is discriminatory in some way.

This article from Feministing is an excellent example.  Under US law, foreign organizations that the federal government provides anti-AIDS funding must oppose prostitution and sex-work.  Now, feminists and sex worker advocates are complaining that this is discriminatory against prostitutes.

On Tuesday, July 20th, NSWP organized sex workers and allies to disrupt a speech by United States Global AIDS Coordinator Dr. Eric Goosby to demand justice for sex workers harmed by PEPFAR’s discriminatory anti-prostitution loyalty oath.

To be fair, it's not just liberals who are at fault for their incessant use of "discrimination."  Conservatives who care more about ending racism and sexism than limiting government are the prime reason that liberals get away with this.

White Men Are Responsible For America's Gun Problems

Predictably, liberal bloggers have reacted to McDonald v. Chicago with an array of ignorant, poorly written screeds. There are good reasons to be skeptical of McDonald, but the liberal reaction generally involves bashing white men and gun culture. The article below is a good example. It was written by Mark Karlin, the editor of BuzzFlash, a socialist progressive website.

If you think the 5-4 partisan hack decision denying the City of Chicago the right to ban handguns is about guns, you're wrong.

Governments do not have rights. They exist to protect rights that people have.

(It's the same 5-4 GOP block -- with some face changes -- that put Bush in the White House and bestowed Corporate Personhood in the Citizens United Case, in short a radical right activist majority of judges.)

True, there have been a few decisions such as Bush v. Gore that appear to be conservative judicial activism, but the number of liberal judicial activist cases dwarfs the number of conservative ones by a couple orders of magnitude.

It's about white males in America feeling threatened by becoming a minority and the gun is their last psychological reassurance of entitlement power against an encroaching demographic change in our democracy.

Two paragraphs in, Mark Karlin reveals himself to be a self-hating mangina. That's pretty awful, considering that most liberal white men are capable of doing so in the first paragraph.

Liberals love to psychoanalyze everything and accuse conservatives of being mentally ill. Has it ever occurred to them that maybe they are the ones who are mentally ill?

Also, why would white males be threatened by becoming a minority? We already are only about 33% of the population of the United States.

After all, the City of Chicago allows citizens to own rifles, so there never was a ban on guns in Chicago; there was a ban on a certain type of gun, which didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was written.

Chicago banned handguns, which were invented long before any of the Founding Fathers were even born. Pistols were used by cavalry since at least the 1500s. Gun grabbers are generally ignorant of guns and Ms. Karlin proves herself to be no exception.

But it is the handgun that makes so many white males feel impregnable, as if they were riding around with a turret gun in a Hummer.

I don't think she knows what the word "impregnable" means. Guns don't make you impregnable, body armor does (not against all rounds, though).

It's a vestige of the Confederacy; "I'm a white man and that allows me to do whatever I want and get away with it, so don't mess with me."

In addition to being ignorant of firearm history, she is also ignorant of American history. Gun ownership is not a vestige of the Confederacy. The Confederacy existed roughly seventy years after the Second Amendment was put into effect.

It's not about the Constitution; it's about a hormonal psychology under siege.

No, "hormonal psychology under siege" is when a forty-year old woman decides to stop chasing alphas and get married, only to discover that the men her age who would make good husbands are sleeping with 20-year olds. Gun ownership is about self-defense, freedom from tyranny, and just having fun.

Meanwhile, the presence of handguns in America causes more deaths than our wars -- and few politicians or corporate media will do anything but giving passing note to the carnage.

The reason why American cities are violent is not due to guns, it is due to the fact that they are filled with blacks and Mexicans, who commit disproportionate amounts of crime compared to whites and Asians.

Why? Because the white male is still too big of a voter block to psychologically "mess with." Even Harry Reid, the Democractic Majority Leader in the Senate, sent out a news release applauding the Supreme Court for overturning the ban on handguns in Chicago and "upholding the 2nd Amendment."

In 1993, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Brady Bill. In September 1994, the Democrats passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The next month, in part due to their enthusiastic support for gun control, the Republicans took control of the House, the Senate, and a majority of state legislatures. Harry Reid, despite his flaws, is not stupid. He realizes that if the Democrats go on the offensive against guns in an election year, they will suffer losses at the ballot box as a result. And it's not just white men who would vote against the Democrats. While unmarried women vote Democratic, married white women tend to vote Republican.

As America becomes more diverse in race and religion, the white male psyche becomes more frantic in need of "firearms reassurance."

Despite her anti-white misandry, Ms. Karlin does have a point. As America becomes blacker and browner, crime will increase and there is the real possibility that eventually some blacks and mestizos might decide to "cut down the tall trees." Widespread gun ownership among whites would deter that.

And the death toll mounts as a result.

She is correct again. As America diversifies, the death toll will indeed mount. "Diversity + proximity = war." Not to mention the fact that the people who are diversifying America have a higher propensity for crime and violence than the people of pre-diverse America.

BuzzFlash doesn't think Jesus would walk around shoulder holstered and locked and loaded. The Supreme Court has just changed one of our nation's mottos from "In God We Trust" to "In Guns We Trust."

It's perfectly sensible to trust in guns more than God. As Napoleon noted, "God fights on the side with the best artillery."

Also, I think it's hilarious that liberals disdainfully bash Christianity and refer to Christian conservatives as "Christofascists," yet they have no problem using Jesus to promote liberalism.

My First Banning!

I got banned from a political website for the first time thanks to my political views as posted here on this blog. The blog in question, Alas, a Blog, belongs to the cartoonist Barry Deutsch aka Ampersand, the fine gentleman pictured below. It's the typical liberal blog, albeit much more radically feminist, ironic since Barry is apparently a man.

It started on a thread regarding libertarianism and gay marriage, which I responded:

The problem with Rand Paul is that he is not very good at explaining his views, which is lethal to any libertarian politician. Also, he tries to pander to everyone.

If you want to read a coherent libertarian view of same-sex marriage, I would suggest reading this article by Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

Another poster on the blog responded with:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?

—Myca

However, the "omg ur a racist" comments soon started coming at me. A pleasant fellow named joe wrote:

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

Try http://www.theagitator.com as a ‘good’ representation of libertarianism.

At least he plugged Radley Balko. Then a gentleman named Chris responded:

I would agree with Joe. Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities. The first kind of libertarian can be debated against, the second kind is only worthy or scorn and mockery.

To which I replied:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?

Perhaps. I’m far more politically incorrect than most libertarians. Also, I’m not a corporation-worshiper like the Beltway libertarians, since I recognize that most corporate power comes from government-granted privileges, pro-corporate laws (i.e. DMCA), and corporate welfare.

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

I’m hold views that most would consider to be “sexist,” yes, but that’s not the same as misogyny.

Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities.

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

Also, I’ve been a libertarian for several years and I did adopt my opposition to civil rights laws because they infringed on property rights. My views on race didn’t evolve until much a few years later.

Chris responded, complete with a request for my banning. Liberals realize they can't win against HBDers - the statistical evidence is just too strongly against them - so they seek to silence us"

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

TAS, some of the post titles on your blog are “Screw Single Mothers,” “Obama Nominates Jewish Dyke to Supreme Court,” and “Blacks Ruin Everything.”

That is called hate.

This bigot should not even be allowed to post here.

I cordially invited him to comment on my blog if he felt offended:

If you have a problem with something I wrote on my blog, then feel free to comment on the relevant posts there. I have a very open moderation policy - the only comments I generally delete are spam.

He declined and decided to stop talking to me. Liberals are basically overgrown children. Also, he claims to have commented on my blog. I think he's Souza, the bastard son of a single mom, who enjoys calling me a racistsexistclassisthomophobe on various posts of mine. Both Chris and Souza seem to have very similar political positions, are quick to anger, and are highly childish.

I have commented on your blog, TAS. I find engaging with you a fruitless exercise, so this will be the last time I respond to you directly.

Then mythago joined in:

Rand Paul’s website says that he has been married for 19 years. If he believes government should be out of marriage, why didn’t he and his “loving wife” go for private contracts rather than state-sponsored marriage? Or, if that were not possible 19 years ago, why don’t they now legally divorce and use private contracts to arrange their affairs?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course.

TAS, “politically incorrect” is the PC, euphemistic term for what, in pre-PC days, used to be called “loudmouthed bigot”. I don’t understand the current fashion for tiptoeing around calling something what it really is.

Finally, the big man (in multiple ways) himself, Ampersand joined in, issuing his banning edict

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

Notice how he doesn't even bother to respond to anything I posted on my blog or commented on his. He saw my HBD/racialist views and decided not to talk to me. Liberals fear people who recognize racial and gender differences. They realize that no amount of social engineering and brainwashing can change the fact that blacks and whites are not equal and that men and women are different. Thus they to avoid conversations about such topics entirely and silence those who believe that racial and gender differences exist.

The irony is that I wasn't even disagreeing with anything in the original post. I didn't attack gay marriage, I in fact criticized Rand Paul's flip-floppy, pandering view on the subject.

I posted a response to Ampersand, though I doubt it will make it through moderation which was deleted from the moderation queue:

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

I figured this would happen. Liberals generally do not like debating people who understand human biodiversity.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

No problem, although it’s worth noting that I allow pretty much anyone to comment on my blog, including feminists, socialists, and other leftists.

If any liberals from Alas are reading this, I'd like to reiterate once again that unlike Barry, I do not fear people who hold different political opinions. I do not ban people or delete comments unless they are spam. It doesn't matter if you are a libertarian, neocon, Christian conservative, moderate, liberal, socialist, anarchist, or Black nationalist; I welcome people who wish to debate or argue with my about my posts.

"Looter" is a Racist Word

In yesterday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a column headlined "Looters in Loafers." Joshua Holland (who appears to be the result of a dyke having a sex change operation) calls this "hopelessly naive" and implies that looters is a racist word because only black people are called "looters." To support his claim, he resurrects the set of pictures taken in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in which the caption says that a black kid "looted" food, but the caption for another picture claims that two white people "found" food. Of course, he doesn't mention the plainly visible fact that the pictures were taken by two different photographers working for two different companies.

Everything is racist to liberals. It is impossible for white people to do, say, or write anything that liberals will not find some way to turn into racism.