The Nature of Trump Sycophants

“Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe.” – Trump supporter ‘Omarosa’

Interesting position given that Trump has provably lied more times than Clinton, even with her atrocious e-mail scandal.

GOP voters….this is the hell you have wrought.

Who are the Enemies?

The Liberty Zone

During election season, in particular, I think we many times forget who the true enemies are, which is only part of the reason why I have, for the most part, refused to blog election politics this year. This year, more than usual, the rancor has reached fevered pitch, and I want to remind us who the real enemies are.

kbw-2e1uuqjOUR FELLOW AMERICANS ARE NOT THE FUCKING ENEMY! Hillary Clinton in one of the primary season debates claimed that Republicans were the enemy she was most proud of. Not kidding. She basically said she was proud of the fact that half the country was her enemy. Unbelievable! So much for being the President for all Americans. Basket of deplorables? Really? There are definitely Trump supporters – the class (or lack thereof) I call Trumpanzees – who are classless, bigoted fucks, but really, Hills? Half of those who support your admittedly odious…

View original post 930 more words

Integrity Counts

A couple of days ago, Gary Johnson appeared on Morning Joe and stumbled badly when Mile Barnacle asked him what he would do about Aleppo, if he were President. He muffed it.

However……the next day, he outright owned his lack of answer. Owned it. Class.

Compare that with the catalog of lies, conspiracies and Twitter trolling from Donald J.Trump or the obfuscation and feigned ignorance from Hillary Rodham Clinton.

P.S. It could also be argued that the question was a gotcha, especially in light of Scarborough’s response. The U.S. doesn’t have a policy position on Aleppo. We have a policy position on Syria. The media’s business model is interrupted by any success of a third party

The Anatomy of an Unstable Authoritarian

‘He was the founder of ISIS, absolutely,‘ Trump said in a half-hour-long phone interview with CNBC, citing ‘the way he removed our troops’ from Iraq in 2011: ‘He shouldn’t have gotten out the way he got out. It was a disaster what he did.’

Obviously fallacy…to the point of absurdity, to include the tired canard of Obama being responsible for US forces withdrawal from Iraq. In an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Trump was given a gold plated opportunity to retract or revise his lie:

Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean “that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace.”
Trump objected.
“No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” Trump said. “I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”
Hewitt pushed back again, saying that Obama is “not sympathetic” to ISIS and “hates” and is “trying to kill them.”
“I don’t care,” Trump said, according to a show transcript. “He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?”
So, he doubles down on a fantasy sprung from his addled mind. But wait, there’s more!
‘We had a president who decided he would announce a date, and he was gonna get out by that date. The problem is, the enemy, which really turned out to be ISIS, the enemy was sitting back and actually didn’t believe that this could be happening,’
So now, he now re-invents history by claiming that Obama set the date for US withdrawal from Iraq…instead of the agreement signed in 2008 by Bush and Maliki. That Obama sure is amazing, isn’t he?
But to put a bow on it, Trump amps the crazy to the highest level with:
‘I’m a truth-teller,’ he added. ‘All I do is tell the truth, and if at the end of 90 days I’ve fallen short … it’s okay.

How can I have any pride in my nation when the opposition to a toxic candidate like Clinton, is this guy? Thanks GOP…YOU made him the nominee. No whining allowed. This is YOUR fault.

Irony at the DNC

The most prolific nanny-stater on the Left utters the following incredulous words at the Democratic national Circus”

“We can only solve our biggest problems if we come together and embrace the freedoms that our Founding Fathers established right here in Philadelphia,” – Michael Bloomberg

The Meaning of Rights

Too often, especially from the Left……we hear that people “have a right to X”. But these alleged “rights” are typically undefined, emotionally appealing ideas. Example: Gun control proponents will often claim that we have “a right to be safe/free from gun violence”. These people, no matter how well intentioned, seem to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of a “right”.  recent commenter at TTAG – The Truth About Guns, delivered one of the better overviews of rights, in layman’s terms, that I’ve come across….so I wanted to share.

Rights are viewed in two ways. One is legitimate, and the other is not. These two concepts of rights are known as “negative rights” and “positive rights.” 

Negative rights are those things that another may not do to you.

Positive rights are those things that another must do for you.

Positive “rights” are the moral equivalent of slavery as you are asserting that you have a claim on the effort of others, forcefully and without compensation or any kind of value exchange. Positive “rights” include “free” anything. Free healthcare, housing, sustenance, education, etc. These are not rights. If you receive these things for free, then someone else is paying for them. Someone else is supporting you. You are not an independent person. You are (ideally) answerable to those who support you. This amounts to charity when done privately and voluntarily. When accomplished through the state, this is theft under coercion and the threat of violence. It understandably upsets those who pay because they are working for far less than their labor is worth because they’re supporting you. Meanwhile, they are able to provide less support to the people they are truly and morally responsible for. Positive rights also include any action you expect others to take on your behalf, even — and especially — if it’s against their will. 

Only negative rights are legitimate. The only ethical fight is a defensive one. You have a right to defend your life. You have a right to refuse coercion. You have a right to reject and respond to aggression initiated against you. You have a right to protect your property and the fruits of your labor as the means by which you provide survival and comfort to yourself and your family, and as an extension of the very energy you expended to create value. You have a right to think, feel, and believe as you will. You are a sovereign being. THESE are rights. 

Perspective example: you have a RIGHT to speak. You do NOT have a right to be heard, respected, agreed with, or even be given a platform.


Their True Colors……

So, Democrats in the House staged an ironic sit-in some day ago….ironic because it was led by a noted civil rights ‘activist’ with the intent of sitting in a ‘safe space’, suffering not a whit and surrounded by heavily armed security…..all in an effort to deny American citizens the right of due process if and when they’re name is placed on a secret government list, with no notification and no recourse.

Now, when the spineless and perfidious bastards of the House GOP, cave and proffer a bill that denies due process, but with an scant opportunity for the State to ensure it is not in error:

House Democrats said Friday they will oppose a Republican bill aimed at preventing people suspected of being terrorists from buying guns because they don’t believe the proposal will be effective in stopping the purchases.

The legislation, which will be voted on next week, is similar to a bill authored by Sen. John Cornyn of Texas that Senate Democrats rejected a week ago. It would give the Justice Department three days after a suspected terrorist tries to buy a gun to show that the person should not be allowed to have it. Democrats complain it is onerous and unworkable. – CNN
It would be difficult to script a bigger farce than the idea that the Left in this nation support civil liberties and reason.
This is almost becoming cliché for me to say this, but I weep for the Republic.

American Thinker: Interview with AR-15

Posted in it’s entirety from the source.


Hi, my name is AR-15. Some of you know me, but many more of you know of me — through the media. But you may not know the real me.

I’m that cool, sleek-looking black gun you’ve seen profiled by the press. They put me in newspapers and on TV, showing my picture as if it’s a mug shot, even though I’ve never committed a crime. Oh, bad people have at times used (and abused) me to do bad things, but not really that often; as even The New York Times admitted in 2014, firearms such as me — which that paper and others call “assault weapons” — are only used in two percent of gun crimes (most are perpetrated with handguns).

And that’s another thing. For a long time I didn’t mind the misnomer; it massaged my ego and made me feel like the big man on the block when I was called an “assault weapon.” But Mr. Duke convinced me that “pride goeth before a fall,” as the Good Book says. He pointed out that the term “assault weapon” was popularized by anti-gun zealot Josh Sugarmann, whose goal was to besmirch my reputation and get me banned. In fact, Sugarmann, not at all a sweet man, actually once said, “Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

And it’s true, especially in my case. The public knows my appearance well; people have seen my cousin and dead ringer, M-16, fired machine-gun style in war movies for decades. But, alas, I, AR-15 — the weapon available to the public — can only be fired semi-automatic. This means that every time you pull my trigger, one shot, and only one shot, is released.

So even if we accept the term “assault weapon,” that’s not me. To qualify, a gun must be capable of fully automatic fire (machine-gun style), and no such weapons are readily available to the public. So unlike cousin M-16, who originally had a select-fire feature allowing him to be shot in various ways, I’m just a one-trick pony.

Despite this, I’ve become a media whipping boy. Even when those rare crimes are committed in which a gun of my class is used, but which don’t involve me personally — such as the horrific Orlando incident, where Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX — my face is front and center.  In fact, that’s what finally inspired me to speak out, articles such as this outrageous one from Daily News writer Gersh Kuntzman. Reporting on how he tried me at a Philly gun range, he actually wrote:

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

None of the above is true; I know because I was there. Oh, in my younger and more impetuous days, I would’ve gotten a thrill out of being portrayed as such a macho guy. But the Truth will set you free (something the propagandizing Mr. Kuntzman should ponder).

And the truth is that I never bruised Mr. Kuntzman. One thing I can rightly puff up my chest over is that I have very little recoil because I’m high-tech — my mechanism is designed to absorb much of the energy of the blast. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Mr. Duke had the opportunity years ago to fire me on multiple occasions, and he says that I have by far the least kick of any firearm he ever used. And if you don’t believe him, trust your own eyes. Below is a video of a seven-year-old girl trying me for the first time (forward to 2:55 if you want to see just the actual firing).

Did the little lass say “Ow!” or register discomfort in any way? Did she rub her shoulder? A 12-gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot could have knocked that little tyke on her kiester, but me? Also know that Kuntzman fired me only three times before bowing out, grousing that I was a “dangerous weapon.” And that fact, my friends, comes from Frank Stelmach, who was quoted by Kuntzman and who owns the gun range the journalist visited. You see, Mr. Duke actually called Stelmach, and one of the first things the man said to Duke — as he complained of how Kuntzman misrepresented his words and the experience at the range — was “It would be nice if journalists would write what you actually say!”

And by the by, Stelmach said that Kuntzman never mentioned anything about his shoulder or expressed that he was experiencing any kind of discomfort. Stelmach also called the notion that an ultra-low-recoil weapon such as me could bruise a grown man’s shoulder “nonsense.”

As for my “explosions” being “loud like a bomb,” well, I can belt out a song, but not like some other firearms. And no wonder. I fire the .223 cartridge, a small-caliber round the same diameter as a .22 (yes, .22s are those cute little rounds you put in your Marlin as a kid). Of course, my round is a lot more powerful than a .22 (in your face, Marlin!), but just take a look at these “killing power” rankings of rifle rounds. It’s hard to admit, but my small .223 has the second least power of the 41 cartridges listed. In fact, when a lady friend of Mr. Duke’s tried me years ago, she remarked that, owing to my almost non-existent recoil, I was “like a toy.” It’s quite emasculating.

Of course, then there are my magazines; for the Kuntzmans of the world, no, those aren’t things you read that usually contain liberal propaganda. They’re objects loaded with cartridges that, assuming they’re removable, you then insert into firearms. It’s true that high-capacity magazines are available for me. But criminals would always get them on the black market; moreover, with just a bit of effort, any gun’s removable magazine can be modified to hold a large number of rounds. So why am I singled out?

Am I not a sharp-looking guy? Black is beautiful!

But it’s also seen as “menacing,” especially by liberals in the media. Face it, since I’m functionally no different from other legal firearms — semi-automatic just as most guns sold in America are — I can only conclude that I’m profiled as dangerous because of my sleek military-like appearance and my color. If I looked like those much more powerful hunting rifles, would you really be troubling over me?

As Mr. Duke likes to put it, this is standard liberal style over substance. Never sparing my ego, he points out that assuming I’m a machine gun because I look like cousin M-16 is akin to putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and expecting to go 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds. Of course, my self-image will survive, but being misunderstood, mischaracterized and discriminated against is a bit depressing.

It’s enough to make me want to shoot myself.