One upon a time there was a team that hadn’t won a championship in a long time.

That team acquired a quarterback, a quarterback who had led his previous team to a National title.

The quarterback led team to win after win, he was much beloved by the fans of the team.

But all was not well, Despite his success the quarterback on the field, he was derided by members of the media and the elites who downplayed his skills considered his victory’s flukes and mocked his behavior on and off the field and confidently predicted his failure.

The cries did not lesson when his team won the division. The critiques screamed all the louder and hoped for his failure. Even as the team won the wild card game they confidently predicted his failure as he headed to the 2nd round of the playoffs

They were rewarded his team was unable to win the divisional game. They urged his team to cut loose the quarterback and replace him. Despite his success management didn’t think highly of the quarterback sought a new one trading the first quarterback to another team.

The team signed a different quarterback who had a team to a National title for 18 million dollars.

The different quarterback lead his new team to win after win, he was much beloved by the fans of the team.

Unlike the first quarterback the second quarterback was treated differently. His success on the field and behavior off it, was celebrated by the members of the media. The elites praised his considerable sills, attributed the victory’s to him and confidently predicted his continued success

Meanwhile the elite’s hatred of the first quarterback still burned. That laughed as his new team refused to start him. When their starting QB replaced due to failure they promoted the 3rd string QB over him. When the 3rd string QB went down with an injury before the last day game of the season his new team refused to start him and finished the season tied for last place with the first quarterback on the bench without starting a single game.

But as far as his old franchise was concerned the first quarterback was old news. The new quarterback continued to win and the praise of all only continued when his team won the division and the accolades came all the louder as the team secured a first round bye. They anticipated his success as his team headed into the 2nd round of the playoffs with a bye.

And then with the game on the line, the quarterback that was considered a candidate for MVP. The quarterback that they paid more than 11 times more than the first quarterback threw a key interception and lost in the playoffs.

The extra 16.89 million dollars the team paid bought them one less playoff victory than the year before.

The two quarterbacks if you haven’t figured it out by now are Tim Tebow & Peyton Manning the team is the Denver Broncos.

Both Quarterbacks played hard, they conducted themselves professionally and honorably on and off the field but one was loved by the elites and one was not. Why?

The elite culture can abide almost anything, even belief and faith in Christ as long as it is not public and unafraid. Tim Tebow not only loves Jesus Christ and tries his best to walk in his ways but he loves Christ instead of the culture that the media and the elites rule and feed off and does so publicly and unafraid.

That’s a crime they will never forgive.

I’ll give the last word to Denver fans via twitter:

Everybody knows I watch MSNBC and Morning Joe every day so I tend to see what MSNBC reports, it has been all “guns are evil” all the time.

I quoted Glenn’s story from last week about the mother who with 6 shots and 5 hits failed to kill the attacker who pursued her and her children to an attic crawl space and wondered aloud why it wasn’t covered but I found an earlier story much more interesting: Here is the video

Here is a quote from a blog post on it:

When momma’s got a gun and her two daughters can quickly lay their hands on a butcher knife and an axe, you’ve become the very definition of “failure in the victim selection process.”

If you make it too expensive and too difficult for mama to get that gun then her house is transformed from a “failure in the victim selection process” to as Larry Corriea calls it: “hunting preserves for innocent people”

There are interesting quotes in the story as well:

Lewis told the station one of the responding police officers said it would have been a different situation if she hadn’t been armed.

“One of them said we would be writing up a different report if she had not had that gun,”

and this:

“There’s so much talk about banning guns and gun control but they’re for protection,” she said. “There’s no way that I could have fought him off.”

Interesting points, but to me the most interesting thing I see from the story and video above is the lower left hand corner of this screen shot:



This is an NBC affiliate, that means that whoever at NBC is in charge of screening local shows for promotion decided that this particular story was not worth promoting nationally, particularly during an election year.

I submit and suggest that there are plenty of these stories. I further suggest that networks have for years made a decision to suppress their own affiliate stories if they are contrary to their message on guns.

Move along, nothing to see here, cue Frank Drebin:

Update: Nothing to see in the 10 stories from 2013 at Nice Deb posts either

In his opus about French, Rule 5, and Alyssa Milano, Stacy McCain asks this question regarding The Film That Will Not Be Named:

What is all the more shocking is that The Movie I Will Not Name was directed by a woman, Anne Goursaud. You cannot tell me that Goursaud, whose primary career is as a film editor, could not have cut that scene down to eliminate its awful creeptastic lingering quality.

If it creeps me out? Yeah, it’s just plain wrong.

So here was young Alyssa Milano, just a couple years past Who’s the Boss? and trying to break out of the dreaded Hollywood child-actor career trap, no doubt hoping for a breakthrough role that would get her noticed as capable of starring roles in serious dramatic films. Instead, she gets subjected to this dreadful exposure — by a female director?

We sort of expect a French dude to display Valérie Allain’s assets. We expect James Cameron to give us Kate Winslett naked. This we can explain either by reference to the ordinary impulses of human nature or (if we are feminist ideologues) as the typical oppression of the patriarchy. But I’m having a hard time understanding how anyone could explain Anne Goursaud’s treatment of Alyssa Milano in that movie.

[Emphasis mine] For all of Stacy’s shenanigans, he’s obviously never eavesdropped on girl talk. So let me explain the obvious: Anne Goursaud Epstein started directing films in the 1970s.  The internets are silent as to her exact date of birth, but she had to have been at least 45 when she directed The Movie That Shall Not Be Named.  Alyssa was twenty.  She’s now 40 and is still absurdly hot.  This is a semi-recent picture of Anne Goursaud.

In case anyone needs it spelled out even more explicitly, some older women can be complete twats to younger women.  I’m not Anne Goursaud; I spent the early ’90s in middle school, on the science team and not in Hollywood; but, having been around the block a few times, when an aging women gratuitously exploits or degrades a younger woman, it’s  jealously.  Aging Anne Goursaud, who was probably never half as lovely as Alyssa, apparently couldn’t resist the impulse to take the young beauty down a notch.  Other directors may show off women’s lovely bodies to get ratings, or to throw a bone to men who are dragged to Titanic by their girlfriends, but Goursaud’s exploitation is nothing but jealousy – the jealousy of someone who competes by degrading the opposition.

Leave it to others to decide if this is a remnant of the patriarchy, evidence that sexism is okay, or some other twaddle.  I’m just here, as the resident thirtysomething, to point out that older women can be dreadful to younger women.  (Heavens, some of them will write in national publications about how they can’t handle aging.)  I think it’s an individual thing – not a woman thing, not a patriarchy thing, but a conscious choice by certain people to be ugly inside.  Because, after all, the world is also full of middle-aged men who hate young, successful women.

In my last post I talked about my grandfather refusing assistance, as I prepare for his youngest daughter’s funeral mass tomorrow I’ll tell you the story she told me.

Antonio or “Tony the Barber” had a shop at the edge of the “Patch” the Italian section of the city.  During the depression times were very hard, it was hard for the fathers to come up with the money for a cut or a shave let alone a cut for their sons.  Antonio would often call a boy passing by who hadn’t had a haircut in a while into the shop for a free cut when he knew his parents couldn’t afford it and would be too proud to ask.

One day in the 1930’s  a person from the state came by, he was talking about some of the relief efforts being offered.  He said “Tony” could get free shoes for his five children.  Antonio declined.  He didn’t’ explain the garden he kept, the grapes he grew, the chicken and goats or the dandelions he had for greens, he didn’t talk about the hard work his children did after school, or his wife did during the day to keep the house.  Instead he simply said he would feed and clothe his own kids.

The man was astonished, saying Tony was robbing his children, Antonio raised his head holding the razor he was using to shave a customer saying they were HIS children and suggested his visitor should leave.

Antonio found himself in court, having been raised in Sicily and not being familiar with American law he suspected he would have to pay the judge for justice so he had two ten-dollar bills in his pocket that he had put aside for a rainy day and went to court.

In the court they stood before the judge and the man-made a complaint saying he had threatened him with his razor.  The judge being a sensible man listened to the story and asked Tony if he threatened him.  Antonio answered he the man had no business coming into his show and telling him how to support his children.  As for the razor, he was shaving a customer at the time and had his razor in his hands.  If he had not been in the middle of a shave he would have would have punched him and thrown him out.

The judge replied that if he had struck him there would have been a $10 fine.

My grandfather reached into his pocket, took one of those $10 bills that he worked so hard to earn, put in on the bench before the judge,  turned to the man standing next to him and decked him.

Antonio turned to the judge and said: “I have another $10”.  Times being different and men being men in those days the judge accepted the fine and closed the case, Antonio went back to his barber shop and supported his wife and children for the rest of his life without help or inquiries from the state.

That’s the story my mother told me when I was very young.  Maybe it’s true maybe it isn’t but I submit and suggest that if there were more Antonio’s in the country or more people who thought like him the nation would be a better place.

Ask Not What your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country

John F. Kennedy Jan 20th 1961

Woman #1: ‘I don’t need anyone’s help. My husband earns enough to take care of us.’

Woman #2: ‘When are you going to learn?’

USDA Spanish Language Novela 2012

It’s near the renewal time for some of my annual customers and I was visiting them along with a few new potential customers for the radio show in its third year yesterday.

Central Massachusetts is a tough place make it today. I’m expecting a really bad economy over the next few years with perhaps a small bump in the middle (you can’t outlaw the business cycle but you can screw it up royally) so going to business’ and asking them to commit money for advertising.

Over and over people told me of issues. I spoke to one business that talked about the same problem everyone has, a lot of customers who haven’t paid yet, because they can’t pay yet, orders they want to pay but have to wait for cash flow. One person told me of their various plans to cut their overhead to keep the business going.  A third told me he had to go over all his advertising before making a decision and a forth wanted to jump on but hadn’t paid himself in six months and needed to be sure the cash would be there.

In my 6 hours on the road yesterday, I heard many things,  but one phrase never came up: “I’m waiting to see what the government give me?”

That’s not to say some business’ aren’t counting on the government. During my travels two years ago I talked to a doctor who declined ads saying his practice was driven by the Spanish on assistance under Mass Health.

Remembering my grandfather born in Sicily who ended up in court during the depression over refusal to take assistance, I remarked how it must be tough for him since the people on assistance must only come when they are REALLY sick.

On the contrary, I was told, at the slightest sign of illness or soreness they and their children are there for the fullest possible treatment and diagnosis, paid by the state and for the doctor, billed TO the state.

As I left I was told anybody in the area who doesn’t gear his business toward people on welfare and food stamps is a fool because this is the future of my city.

How many business’ out there have made their business model in the same way? How many people have decided that this is the way they will carry on.

How long before some electronics store sells an iPAD for $5 and snacks for $600 or till a Wal-Mart lobbies the government to allow that EBT card to pay for that iPad because access to the internet is a human right?

Perhaps I’m a sucker for not going on disability and getting on food stamps. Maybe as the doctor suggested I’m a fool trying to build a business, going door to door and shaking the tip jar to pay the bills with my writing and reporting.

The USDA asks:  “When am I going to learn?”  the answer?  Not until I unlearn the lessons of my parents, grandparents and JFK that I hope to pass onto my sons.

When when the country recover?  When we unlearn the lessons of Ted Kennedy and re-learn the lessons of his older brother.

In the National Review, Heather MacDonald laughs at the New York Times for it’s hand-wringing and pearl-clutching over the idea of rural teenagers using their high school degrees to make good money without first going to college.   Teenagers are making an economically rational decision to work for several years, learn a skill, and earn very good money (for an unmarried teen/twenty-something with no financial obligations).  They do not see the need to head straight to college as an “undecided” major, rack up debt, and spend four to six years out of the workforce.  Good for them.

Now comes the news that graduates with occupational/technical associate’s degrees (e.g. nursing) earn more than their counterparts with bachelor’s degrees, and significantly more than their counterparts with B.A. degrees.  There is the usual caution that this is salary straight out of school, not lifetime earnings, but underscores a harsh reality: people are paid to do things that someone else wants to get done, not to be their own amazing phenomenal selves, nor to develop emotionally, think deep thoughts, or engage in preening.  People want and need nurses, plumbers, electricians, and paralegals; they do not need someone to regurgiatate third-wave feminist philosophy.

More importantly, the “lifetime earnings” canard is just that.  There is no law saying that you cannot obtain a bachelor’s dgree at night or after several years in the workforce.  Those kids in Montana may work in the oil fields for several years, then get a degree in petroleum engineering.  The plumber could go to school at night.  A nurse could continue obtaining degrees if it benefits her career or stimulates her intellectually. This is university with a purpose – not as the mindless pursuit of an aimless teenager, aged out of state-mandated daily schooling and desiring to ape the customs of the nineteenth-century’s upper class.

Moreover, the value in a non-technical college degree had mostly been to show discipline and the ability to learn.  Before the days of grade inflation, getting into college, and staying in, were no small feats.  The work was harder, the courses more rigourous, and thus, the value of the degree, greater.  Consider, however, the modern college student, and compare to the young men highlighted in the New York Times:

“I just figured, the oil field is here and I’d make the money while I could,” said Tegan Sivertson, 19, who monitors pipelines for a gas company, sometimes working 15-hour days. “I didn’t want to waste the money and go to school when I could make just as much.”

Less than a year after proms and homecoming games, teenagers like Mr. Sivertson now wake at 4 a.m. to make the three-hour trek to remote oil rigs. They fish busted machinery out of two-mile-deep hydraulic fracturing wells and repair safety devices that keep the wells from rupturing, often working alongside men old enough to be their fathers. Some live at home; others drive back on weekends to eat their mothers’ food, do loads of laundry and go to high school basketball games, still straddling the blurred border between childhood and adulthood.

While the NYT may think that a young man is “straddling” the border between childhood and adulthood while working 15-hour days laying pipeline, most employers will understand that this is an adult in every sense of the word – in a way that college students, and college graduates, are not.

Who would you rather hire – the young man who has gotten up at 4 am every day for four years, or the B.A., communications graduate, who hasn’t gone to bed before 4 am in four years?  Let’s also not forget: should the oil boom dry up, these kids can go to college, but the college graduate, B.A, gender studies, may never get hired for one of these jobs.

The Doctor must be behind it! I sense the vicious doctrine of egalitarianism, Hade!

Doctor Who, The Sun Makers 1977

In my last post on the seeming willingness of Democrats to condone behavior against their foes that they would condemn if experienced by their friends I noted how familiar the arguments of those on the Democrat left sounded to the points their party forefathers of the nineteenth century made when explaining why a particular group of people were unworthy of the protections of law and culture.

While some on the left may not believe it right to comparing the arguments and attitudes of an Alexander Stephens in his famous crossroads speech or the majority opinion in Scott vs Sandford to their own, the objection fails due to their quite understandable mistake of seeing these arguments purely in terms of race rather than in terms of the real game here: social structure.

One of the distinct differences that social structure or caste brings is status. How one reacts to different behaviors and what actions can be permitted is based upon where you exist in the structure.

Here are three current examples of this:


The people we cover, we move in their world, but it is their world. You can’t live like them. You’ll never keep up.

The Paper 1994

Last Sunday David Gregory, while hosting NBC’s Meet the Press was interviewing Wayne LaPierre of the NRA held up a 12 shot magazine clip during a confrontational moment of the interview.

Meet the Press is shot in DC and these items are strictly banned with a stiff penalty for possession. NBC made it a point to ask permission of the DC police to bring in the studio, and the DC police refused yet Meet the Press and David Gregory felt unrestrained by this refusal.

As Stacy McCain put it:

in full knowledge that possession of a 30-round magazine is illegal in D.C. — where Meet the Press is recorded — David Gregory and NBC willfully violated the law just so Gregory could dramatize his anti-Second Amendment lecture to the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre.

NBC acknowledged directly the validity of the law by their request to the DC police, their ex-post-facto to provide ATF cover for their actions implicitly acknowledges the legal violation.

Yet the argument of the press is not a question of facts it’s a question of intent. Howard Kurtz laughingly states:

I don’t think Gregory was planning to commit any crimes.

I beg to differ, Gregory planned to possess an item in a location where it was prohibited by law.

If it was you or I or anyone else who possessed said device, the law would take it’s course but David Gregory is one of the elites of the media profession (not some grubby member of the Breitbart Crowd like James O’Keefe) as Noah Rothman puts it:

If the post-Newtown debate over gun control has shown that the media is somewhat out of touch with average Americans, the Gregory episode has revealed that they do not see themselves as average Americans.

He is not an average American, he is a member of a different distinct class, Bill Jacobson on the WCRN Morning Show’s case and Glenn Reynolds arguments  not withstanding as far as the media is concerned David Gregory is a courtier to the king beyond these petty rules and laws that an O’Keefe, Jacobson or DaTechGuy must follow.


“I — I couldn’t take a blow, sir. I suppose I’ve been too long with gentlemen”

Among gentlemen a blow could be wiped out only in blood; among the lower orders a blow was something to be received without even a word.

C. S. Forester: Hornblower and the Hotspur 1962 p 301

Sen. Daniel Inouye, who represented Hawaii in congress since statehood, died this week at the age of 88. Inouye served with distinction during World War 2, losing an arm, his death meant that governor Neil Abercrombie had to appoint a new senator for the seat and selected Lt. Gov Brian Schatz who flew back to the Washington with President Obama to be sworn in as Senator.

Not three weeks earlier Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina announced his upcoming resignation. Governor Nikki Haley in response appointed newly re-elected GOP congressman Tim Scott to the Senate seat. Scott will be the only African American member of the United States Senate and the first Black Senator from the south since 1881.

Yet while the appointment of a black American to the Senate by a female Republican governor of color has elicited responses like this…

MSNBC: Tim Scott, don’t be a token senator

Black Voices News: No reason to celebrate Tim Scott

The NYT: The Puzzle of Black Republicans

…the appointment of Brian Schatz a White Male to the Senate over Rep Colleen Hanabusa by another white Male to replace the longest serving minority in the Senate in US history has not produced a murmur of objection by the MSM.

To supporters of the GOP on the right this contrast might seem unjust but for the media and left Mr. Schatz’s and Mr. Abercrombie status, established by their political persuasion, provides the necessary imprimatur for their choices. That status means their actions are unworthy of complaint while the critique of Mr. Scott & Mrs. Haley, they are to be received without even a word.


Is that you reading Kizzy?

Roots 1977

I follow several people of the left, some that I have met, some that I haven’t and some simply because the mood struck me. One of these people is a lady by the name of Reda St. Cyr.

I know nothing about Reda than what I’ve seen on twitter and what is in the description above. As she lives in Nevada that is unlikely to change.   We’ve occasionally had disagreements over the NRA, over show ID to vote and other issues over twitter, but I know absolutely nothing else about her.

Yesterday we tweeting concerning Guns & the NRA when a subject that is a pet peeve of mine came up, the slaughter of inner city blacks that is ignored by the media and by those who march. At the end of the conversation she tweeted something I found telling:

It is the confusion that is of note here.  I’m sure Ms. St. Cyr is a nice and reasonable woman and is thought so in her community but like Q on WCRN who sees the Tea Party as totalitarian see the GOP as a force for wrong. She, unlike Q, can not wrap her head around the idea that a seemingly nice fellow could be a Republican, and even stranger that such a fellow could make a public argument to support GOP or NRA beliefs. It’s a source of expletive generating confusion.  Why it’s as unbelievable as an illiterate reading scripture.


All of these examples, point to a different caste, a caste that lives under a different set of laws then beneath them, a caste where behaviors are not to be questioned, a caste that reacts with amazement when a member of a lower order displays traits that they would expect from their fellows.

In short this is Feudalism, and they are the lords…well almost. as I’ll explain later.

P.S. I have an emergency bleg up to cover some expenses (oil), details are here, any help would be most appreciated.

Today during my stint as guest host for the WCRN Morning Show I mentioned a book I received for Christmas: Ships of Oak Guns of Iron the war of 1812 and the forging of the American Navy.

As I took a look at it today I noticed a passage that jumped out at me from the introduction. Charles Francis Adams is giving a speech in 1912 at the American Historical Association answering the question: “Is the United States a ‘world power’ and if so , when did she become one?”

Adams not only says “yes” but dares to specify an exact date and time when the country reached this point:

…To be specific , it was at thirty minutes after six o’clock on the afternoon of Wednesday, August 19th 1812.

It wasn’t Adams quote, but the next two sentences of the author Ronald D. Utt that caught my eye:

Adams did not have to remind his audience what had happened at that specified moment. They all knew, as did every schoolboy in the nation (emphasis mine). That was the moment when the American frigate Constitution shattered and sank the British frigate Guerriere in the first major sea battle of the War of 1812.

That the American Historical Association including former President Theodore Roosevelt knew that date and time is not strange, but that every school boy in the nation would know it is a sentence that might shock and confuse the people of today.

It would not have been a shock to people when I was born. Nor would it be a shock for young boys to know who Alvin York, Davy Crockett, David Farragut James Doolittle, or Anthony McAuliffe were.

I grew up in a time without the internet, without iPhones, and without computers yet any 10 year old boy in America knew who these guys were. Their exploits were taught in schools and celebrated in culture.  Yet today most in public school have no idea who these men were nor would it surprise me if their ignorance was shared by their teachers. They are certainly ignored by our culture.

These men were heroes, they risked or gave their lives to the concept of something bigger than they were. Today we no longer celebrate our heroes, the great and brave deeds that made our nation or the men who did them as Powerline reports:

Beyond the tiresome (race, class, gender, zzz…) and the false (big business causes racism), an obvious feature of the new social studies standards is the banishment of any sense of the heroic in American history. If your child should attend public school in Minnesota under these guidelines, he or she will learn a lot more about the Anishinaabe than about James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson. Those founders are mentioned just once

A society becomes weak when we no longer are willing to celebrate strength. Rick Rickola served with distinction in Vietnam and died going back into the World Trade Center to save people in his care, Sgt Paul Smith was awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq.  Marc Allen Lee was the first Navy Seal who died fighting in Iraq and Tyrone Woods died this year fighting to save ambassador in Libya when he could have run.

In my youth these men would be celebrated and known in every schoolroom in America.  Memorials would exist of them, movies made about them and boys would dream of matching their bravery. Today a 15 year old boy knows more about  Charlie Sheen, Matt Smith, or Kobe Bryant than any of those men.  If you say “Eli Manning they will talk sports heroics  but if you said the words “Dick Winters” 9 times out of 10 a person under 30 wouldn’t know who he was.  Bilbo Baggins  they can tell you chapter and verse, Bill Guarnere, forget about it!

A society emulates and it’s children aspire to what it celebrates. A country celebrates greatness, can remain great. A society that celebrates nothing, can’t.

That simple sentence in that book says more about the decline of America than any budget battle or reality show ever can.

Daras: The Deputy Fuhrer is an authority on the genetics of racial purity. How do you classify this one?

Melakon: [regarding Spock] Hm. Very difficult. Note the sinister eyes… and the malformed ears. Definitely an inferior race.

Star Trek Patterns of Force 1968

“You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.

Leviticus 19:15

Our programming does not permit us to acknowledge that any creature is superior to the Daleks

Doctor Who: Genesis of the Daleks 1975

Picking up from where I left off, when looking at some of the stories that I didn’t bother to write about in the last few days I find there is a common thread.

From the calls for death of Climate “deniers” to NRA members to the “not to be taken seriously” assassination list of earth first including Brandon Darby there is a single basic connection.

It is the idea that the people who are thus targeted or critiqued are not worthy of the same courtesy and standards of behavior that those making said declarations would hold for themselves.

Thus any critique particularly public critique of Professor Erik Loomas is beyond the pale but Professor Loomas’ connecting Sarah Palin with the Giffords shooting calling for the hunting down of Dick Morris to be skinned like a pig declaring for the world to see we need the heads on sticks of those who disagree is perfectly acceptable no matter what language he may employ or colorful metaphors used.

Now while members of the tea party, the conservative blogosphere and Republicans around the nation might object to this as a double standard,   we obviously are forgetting that this type of thinking from our democrat friends concerning Republicans is simply an extension of  science:

Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.

On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.

It’s the very same principle that another Democrat echoed describing republican opponents on another critical matter:

All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity

Being fanatics with a species of insanity,  we don’t understand why someone like Brandon Darby, who had the audacity to believe that bombing the GOP convention might not be the appropriate response to political disagreement, is clearly unworthy of standards of society, let alone the consideration   for his acts that an Erik Loomas should expect.

And we of the right like Darby, being unworthy of the consideration for the standards or support of society due to our mental impairment, dare I say mental inferiority why stop there?  After all, if conservatism is a form of irrational insanity that as some say, has “blood on their hands“,  what rights do conservatives have that should be respected by he left and the media culture that support them, particularly if these opinions lead to the violent death of women and children?

If such insanity could somehow be restrained, then the enlightened could solve problems from the economy to gun violence unrestrained.  There is a precedent.  In fact there’s a whole Supreme Court ruling, one of the most famous rulings in American jurisprudence, made by some of the most educated and elite democrats of their time that can be looked to for guidance:

We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.

I don’t see a single line in the constitution protecting the rights of the insane fanatics.  Do you?

I know some might object to Democrats being connected these opinions of their party.  Their resentment to some degree is proper, after all the left goes after the right irregardless of race.  So what is the actual driver here?  Well that’s for tomorrow.

Update: Stacy McCain notes something at Occupy Rebellion that is relevant:

Andrew Breitbart was a career criminal who made it his mission to destroy people & their families. . . .
NO ONE linked to Breitbart has the right to ever claim their “victims” of anything. NO ONE linked to Breitbart has the right to ever “grieve” for anyone they know who died.

Stacy is stuck by this:

What is striking — and, in a weird ironic way, a tribute to Breitbart’s greatness — is how this obsessive hatred has persisted even after Breitbart’s death, so that now Rauhauser, “Occupy Rebellion” and others (most of them involved with the “Weiner Truther” cult) have transferred their “heroic hatred” to Breitbart’s associates.

Stacy Stacy Stacy, you just don’t get it. It’s not obsessive hatred, Breitbart obviously doesn’t have the right to be mourned because what he did and thought was obviously, as Dr. Stephens would diagnose, due to his insanity and any of us who wish to follow his example deserve no better.

…let me explain, in a way you can comprehend, why this article in the Journal News crosses a big line.

On this 2nd day of Christmas lets pretend just for a moment that this map of legal Gun Owners in New York was not a map of Gun Owners and permit owners in the NY Area being published by a liberal NY paper titled: The gun owner next door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood.

Let’s instead pretend it is a list of the names and addresses of all the people who work at planned parenthood or train people in abortion in the New York area published by a Christian organization titled: The killers next door, what you don’t know about the abortionists in your neighborhood.

What would your reaction be? What would the media be saying? How would you see it as anything other than a threat to a group of people doing a legal activity that “protects women”?

And let’s go further: What would you say if any kind violence took place at any of those locations? Would you be calling the radio stations? Would you be writing angry letters to the paper? Would you be demanding action against advertisers?

As for the media I submit and suggest that there would be no other story nor would anybody allow any other kind of story until the paper apologized and the reporter fired.

And that’s not even getting into the realm of boycotts and the use of such an action as part of a reoccurring theme of the “violent right” whenever such a topic came up in every round table for years.

Pause just a moment and think. If you have anything resembling a moral base you can see what is wrong here and understand why this map has generated so much buzz and anger among defenders of the 2nd Amendment (deleted comments not withstanding, when I saw this article there were thousands of comments, post-Christmas there are now hundreds).

If you don’t understand it, if you still see nothing wrong, then you might be the subject of my next post…