Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders=Preferential Treatment for Homosexuals

By essentially saying they’d trust homosexuals with Boy Scouts but not normal men with Girl Scouts, Gates and his fellow travelers have gone beyond equality — they’re implying that homosexuals are superior to straight men.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsGates is a fag and a despicable pervert. — jtl, 419

Written by  Selwyn Duke at The New American

Fresh off making people’s eyes roll with a ban on water-gun play fights, the Boy Scouts of America has found an even better way to lose members: propose that homosexuals be allowed to serve as Boy Scout troop leaders.Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute

Wow, what could possibly go wrong?

The suggestion came from Boy Scouts of America (BSA) president Robert Gates, a former defense secretary with a history of taking the offense Combat Shooter's Handbookagainst tradition. As Pentagon chief he effected the elimination of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, thus allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military; and placed female officers aboard cramped submarines. Now he’s telling the BSA they must get with the times, saying at the organization’s annual meeting in Atlanta, “We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.” My, what spirit. Had the Founding Fathers shared it, we’d still be British subjects.Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

The problem is that “the world as it is” is detached from reality and reason. And here’s reality: What Gates proposes — in the name of equality for homosexuals — amounts to preferential treatment for them. After all, if having homosexuals as Boy Scout troop leaders poses no problems, why not allow normal men to be Girl Scout troop leaders? What’s the difference? Are homosexuals immune to sexual temptation?The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)

By essentially saying they’d trust homosexuals with Boy Scouts but not normal men with Girl Scouts, Gates and his fellow travelers have gone beyond equality — they’re implying that homosexuals are superior to straight men. And by saying they’ll ignore the danger of sexual temptation with homosexuals in the BSA while holding normal men to the traditional standard, they’re effecting a double standard that favors homosexuals.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen such bias, either. When Gene Robinson left his wife and children to be with his homosexual lover, the decision was not only called “brave” by some, but he was rewarded years later by being elected an Episcopalian bishop in 2003. Now, question: If a straight man left his family and violated his marriage vows to be with his mistress, would he be called brave or a dog? Would he be elected bishop or likened to Beelzebub? In both cases the men are attracted to someone else more than to their wives. But in one case it’s called adultery — in the other it’s called liberation.

(By the way, Robinson just can’t help being brave; last year he announced he was “divorcing” his “husband.”)

What’s going on here? Disconnected from Truth and governed by emotion, we now operate not on principles but prejudice. It’s not what you do — it’s what you are. If you’re a white male college professor who renders a politically incorrect analysis of racial differences, your university condemns you and says your remarks have no place in “civil discourse”; if you’re a black female college professor with a criminal record who taunted a white rape victim and made vulgar, bigoted comments, your university defends your right to free speech and proceeds with its plan to retain your services.

So we’d never risk letting straight men take Girl Scouts on camping trips, but homosexuals and Boy Scouts? Hey, if you want to make an omelet of so-called Equality™, you have to break a few eggs. Of course, leftists will say that homosexuality and pedophilia are entirely different phenomena — pedophiles are a distinct group — and that most child molesters are heterosexual. Yet the contradiction invariably goes unnoticed. If pedophiles are a group unto themselves, how can you label any of them “heterosexual”? And if most are the latter, it follows that some of the remainder would be homosexual. Ergo, there are homosexual child molesters.

Yet there’s another factor. Many scouts are in fact adolescents (onset of male puberty occurs on average at age 11). And if it’s not unfathomable that a normal man could find a developing teen girl a temptation, is it radical to assume a homosexual could find teens boys so? Note that history provides many examples of men routinely taking child brides (Islam’s Mohammed comes to mind); likewise, from ancient Athens and Sparta to today’s “chickenhawks,” homosexuality has long been intertwined with pederasty.

Continuing with the double standards, leftists believe homosexuals are being singled out by the BSA. But think about it: An organization has no more way of knowing a person is a homosexual than that he’s an adulterer or fornicator — assuming he keeps his behavior private. And would the BSA accept an “open” adulterer or fornicator, someone who wore his anomalous sexual behavior on his shirtsleeve, as a troop leader? It’s inconceivable. So leftists not only want homosexuals to be able to advertise their sexuality, but also to be free from the consequences any other group would suffer for doing so.

Equality?

Returning to Gates, it’s ironic he was defense secretary as his specialty seems to be waving a white flag. He said at the BSA meeting that his organization cannot “ignore the social, political and juridical changes taking place in our country.” Perhaps he’d rather live on his knees than die on his feet, but he’s not supposed to ignore them — he’s supposed to fight them. Dealing with “the world as it is” sometimes means rejecting it. Otherwise, we’re simply people who’d accept human sacrifice in medieval Aztec times, slavery in slave times, and gas chambers in Nazi times.

Gates also said that ignoring the homosexual agenda could mean the end of the BSA “as a national movement.” But the BSA has already suffered and lost millions of dollars due to sexual abuse, and I can’t imagine anything that would cause parents to flee the organization more than the prospect of a homosexual scout leader camping with their sons.

Gates warned that we cannot ignore the times and “put our heads in the sand.” Americans ought to tell him — and the homosexual agenda — to go pound sand.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

 

Posted in Fags | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Radical Feminism

Murray Rothbard called “women’s lib” (aka radical feminism) the “ugly girl’s movement.” — jtl, 419

by Paul Joseph Watson editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

As you can see from this video, feminists are nice, polite people. They won’t violently scream at and attack you if you disagree with them at all….

WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

Check out our WebSite Check out our e-Store Combat Shooter's Handbook Combat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

Posted in Radical Feminism | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Memorial Day Is A Hoax

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps… I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteI certainly don’t aim to put myself in the same category as Smedley Butler but that was almost exactly my experience too.  The only nit I have to pick is that…well, I just wish these guys would stop confusing “capitalism” with “fascism.” The garage innovator is a capitalist. Big Banking is fascist. — jtl, 419

Thanks for Dying for the Power Elite

By at PaulCraigRoberts.org via LewRockwell.comThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsMemorial Day commemorates soldiers killed in war. We are told that the war dead died for us and our freedom. US Marine General Smedley Butler challenged this view. He said that our soldiers died for the profits of the bankers, Wall Street, Standard Oil, and the United Fruit Company. Here is an excerpt from a speech that he gave in 1933:WCombat Shooter's Handbookar is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Most American soldiers died fighting foes who posed no threat to the United States. Our soldiers died for secret agendas of which they knew nothing. Capitalists hid their self-interests behind the flag, and our boys died for the One Percent’s bottom line.

Jade Helm, an exercise that pits the US military against the US public, is scheduled to run July 15 through September 15. What is the secret agenda behind Jade Helm?

The Soviet Union was a partial check on capitalist looting in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. However, with the Soviet collapse capitalist looting intensified during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes.

Neoliberal Globalization is now looting its own constituent parts and the planet itself. Americans, Greeks, Irish, British, Italians, Ukrainians, Iraqis, Libyans, Argentinians, the Spanish and Portuguese are being looted of their savings, pensions, social services, and job opportunities, and the planet is being turned into a wasteland by capitalists sucking the last penny out of the environment. As Claudia von Werlhof writes, predatory capitalism is consuming the globe. We need a memorial day to commemorate the victims of neoliberal globalization. All of us are its victims, and in the end the capitalists also.

The Best of Paul Craig Roberts

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteAll unclassified Army and Marine Cops manuals and correspondence courses are products of the US Federal Government. They are NOT subject to copyright and can be freely copied and redistributed.

The Marine Corps Institute (MCI) develops correspondence courses for Marines with all kinds of Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) on all manner of subjects. This is one of those courses.

The print is relatively small because that is the way it was in the original and this is an exact reproduction. Also, as a tribute to the individual (and a touch of reality), you will notice that the editorial pencil marks and underlined passages that were put there by the Marine that took this course. They were intentionally left in the reproduction.

This version of the course was authorized in September of 1984. With the exception the development of Infrared technology, it contains information and techniques that have changed very little since the Vietnam war. These battle proven tactics are as valid today as they were in Quang Nam province in 1968.

They will maintain their validity during the upcoming inevitable event of total economic, political and social collapse. Yours for freedom in our lifetimes. jtl, 419

Posted in Government Corruption, Government Propaganda, The Warfare State | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hey Grimes, what’s up dude?

Almost since day 1, it has always been a tradition at FlyoverPress to republish “Hey Grimes” each Memorial Day. Gary Lynn Grimes was a pure and honorable man. His story is tragic but, more than that, it is representative of a generation betrayed.  

Notice that the original was written in 2002—during the Slick Willie days. In the next to the last paragraph, I lament the (then) current condition in America. Can it possibly deteriorate in the next as many years as much as it has deteriorated in the last? Is this what Grimes died for?

Y’all have a safe and fun Memorial Day weekend and, if you speak with the Supreme Commandant, don’t forget to put in a word for me and old Grimes. – jtl, 419

by Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

19 Nov 02

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother. Shakespeare, Henry IV, Act IV, Scene 3

Hey Grimes, what’s up? How are things going for you up there in Valhalla? With Memorial Day coming, I thought I’d drop you a line. I don’t talk about it much, but there has not been a single day in over 32 years that I haven’t thought about you.

I remember the first time we met. It was in Staging Battalion at Camp Pendleton. At the ripe old age of 24, I was a good deal older than average. You’ve heard of the generation gap? Well, I was the gap. I had little in common with the guys of my rank, with whom I was allowed to socialize. But, although you were still very young, you were different–an enthusiastic, bubbling, peached faced kid from Amarillo, TX. Remember our big plans for me to teach you to ride bulls and bareback horses when we got back to the world?

Boy, what a couple of dreamers!

When we got in country, you went to 5th Marines and I went to 2nd Battalion, 11th Marines. Since my Battalion and your Regimental Headquarters were both at An Hoa, we had several chances to see each other and renew our friendship. Any time that you were there, you always made a point of finding me, as I did you when I would pass through.

I’ll never forget the last time I saw you. It was about a month before we were due to rotate. You had been out with a CAP unit and showed up at my hooch wearing a flight suit and sporting a 45 in a shoulder holster. I didn’t ask where you got the flight suit and shoulder holster–just figured that you had traded some air-winger an AK (or something) for them. I’ll never forget the last conversation we had.

“Hey Grimes, what’s up dude?”

“Man, I’m being MedEvaced to Japan!”

I checked you out. You seemed to have all your appendages and didn’t seem to have any extra holes. “MedEvaced? What for?”

“Man, I’m eat up with parasites.”

“Parasites! Man that’s great!!! By the time they get you to Japan and get you cleaned up, it’ll be time to rotate.”

We knew that you had it made so we celebrated. As I recall, we snuck out into Duc Duc and captured a couple of liters of Gook banana rum. What a night! The next morning I sent you off. “See ya back in the world dude!”

When rotation day came and I got on the freedom bird, I was fully expecting to see you in a few days. The first morning back on Okinawa, I ran into Piasaki. Remember him? He was a mutual friend that had gone through Staging Battalion with us. That’s another conversation I’ll never forget.

“Hey man, did you know that Grimes is dead?”

“Naw, bullshit, Grimes ain’t dead.”

“Yea, he is too.”

“No he ain’t. I saw him less than a month ago and he was being MedEvaced to Japan.”

“I’m telling you he’s dead. I kicked his body the next morning. I was part of the relief force that got too them right after daylight. The VC overran his CAP unit and killed them all. It looked like Grimes had been one of the last left fighting. He had about 30 AK rounds point blank in his chest.”

I refused to believe it. I just came home and tried to bury it. I never made any attempt to contact you or your family–guess I didn’t want to believe it. Then finally, in 1983, I went to the wall and there you were—Panel 09W, Line 52, Gary Lynn Grimes. Born 01 June 1949 in Amarillo, Texas. Died 13 June 1970 in Quang Nam, South Vietnam. I cried.

It has only been just recently that I located your family. They are still in Amarillo and, from what little I know, seem to be doing well. Although I have your parents’ and brother’s addresses and phone numbers, I have still made no attempt to contact any of them. That is a wrong that terribly needs to be righted and, I promise, I will…someday…

As far as what’s going on in the world, you wouldn’t believe what they’ve done to our country. Remember all those greasy headed hippies that we used to hate so much? Well, they’re all grown up now and are in control of all our major institutions and all levels of government—everything from Congress to law enforcement to the public schools. Hell, one of them even became President. They are stealing our property, murdering our citizens, and generally making a mockery out of the Constitution—all under the color of law. What a mess! Oh well, hopefully, there’ll be plenty of time to fill you in on the details of all that later.

So, how’s it going for you? I suspect that promotions come pretty slow up there–after all, you are amongst the cream of the cream. But, knowing you, I’d bet that you are at least a Battalion Sergeant Major by now. When the Supreme Commandant decides to cut me a new set of orders, I’m hoping He’ll consider me worthy of joining you. Maybe you’ll have room for a good Company First Sergeant in your outfit.

Hope to see you up there dude!

Semper Fi

LaBaume, Jimmy T, Cpl USMC

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. This is the volume that pulls it all together. With reference to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s description of Murray Rothbard’s work, it is a “unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

How To Spot And Critique Censorship Tropes In The Media’s Coverage Of Free Speech Controversies

American journalists and pundits rely upon vigorous free speech, but are not reliable supporters of it. They both instruct and reflect their fickle audience. … It’s easy to spot overt calls for censorship from the commentariat.

I usually make it a point to watch the Communist Broadcasting System’s (CBS) evening news. Some of my colleagues ask, why? The standard answer is, for a reason similar to why the military conducts intelligence operations–to keep up with what the enemy is up to.

And indeed, it is very easy–once you catch on to how they operate. They even communicate clandestinely — with facial expressions and body language. Watch any of the “anchors” closely (and especially during the closing story). If the report is about something that is NOT politically correct, he/she will have a look of disgust on his face when he says “good night.” Conversely, he/she will beam with joy when the event meets his/her PC standards. In either case, you have been sent a message. — jtl, 419

by Ken White via Popehat

American journalists and pundits rely upon vigorous free speech, but are not reliable supporters of it. They both instruct and reflect their fickle audience.

It’s easy to spot overt calls for censorship from the commentariat. Those have become more common in the wake of both tumultuous events (like the violence questionably attributed to the “Innocence of Muslims” video, or Pamela Geller’s “Draw Muhammad” contest) and mundane ones (like fraternity brothers recorded indulging in racist chants).

But it’s harder to detect the subtle pro-censorship assumptions and rhetorical devices that permeate media coverage of free speech controversies. In discussing our First Amendment rights, the media routinely begs the question — it adopts stock phrases and concepts that presume that censorship is desirable or constitutional, and then tries to pass the result off as neutral analysis. This promotes civic ignorance and empowers deliberate censors.

Fortunately, this ain’t rocket science. Americans can train themselves to detect and question the media’s pro-censorship tropes. I’ve collected some of the most pervasive and familiar ones. This post is designed as a resource, and I’ll add to it as people point out more examples and more tropes.

When you see the media using these tropes, ask yourself: what normative message is the author advancing, and does it have any basis in law?

Trope One: “Hate Speech”

Example: “hate speech is excluded from protection. dont [sic] just say you love the constitution . . . read it.” CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo, on Twitter, February 6, 2015.
Example: “I do not know if American courts would find much of what Charlie Hebdo does to be hate speech unprotected by the Constitution, but I know—hope?—that most Americans would.” Edward Schumacher-Matos, NPR, February 6, 2015.

In the United States, “hate speech” is an argumentative rhetorical category, not a legal one.

“Hate speech” means many things to many Americans. There’s no widely accepted legal definition in American law. More importantly, as Professor Eugene Volokh explains conclusively, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Americans are free to impose social consequences on ugly speech, but the government is not free to impose official sanctions upon it. In other words, even if the phrase “hate speech” had a recognized legal definition, it would still not carry legal consequences.

This is not a close or ambiguous question of law.

When the media frames a free speech story as an inquiry into whether something is “hate speech,” it’s asking a question of morals or taste poorly disguised as a question of law. It’s the equivalent of asking “is this speech rude?”

Trope Two: “Like shouting fire in a crowded theater”

Example: ” There is no freedom to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” Prof. Thane Rosenbaum, Daily Beast, January 30, 2014.

Nearly 100 years ago Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., voting to uphold the Espionage Act conviction of a man who wrote and circulated anti-draft pamphlets during World War I, said”[t]he most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

That flourish — now usually shortened to “shout fire in a crowded theater” — is the media’s go-to trope to support the proposition that some speech is illegal. But it’s empty rhetoric. I previously explained at length how Holmes said it in the context of the Supreme Court’s strong wartime pro-censorship push and subsequently retreated from it. That history illustrates its insidious nature. Holmes cynically used the phrase as a rhetorical device to justify jailing people for anti-war advocacy, an activity that is now (and was soon thereafter) unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. It’s an old tool, but still useful, versatile enough to be invoked as a generic argument for censorship whenever one is needed. But it’s null-content, because all it says is some speech can be banned — which, as we’ll see in the next trope, is not controversial. The phrase does not advance a discussion of which speech falls outside of the protection of the First Amendment.

Trope Three: “Not all speech is protected”

Example: “Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.” Ann Coulter, Townhall, August 2, 2001.

Example: “Not all speech is protected if there is hate speech and it is intended to ridicule another religion,” he said. “I don’t believe it is a free speech matter.” Archbishop Paul Coakley, quoted on FoxNews.com, August 8, 2014.

The media routinely prefaces free speech discussions with the bland and inarguable statement “not all speech is protected.” That’s true. In fact it’s not in serious dispute. The problem is that the media routinely invokes this trope to imply that the proposed First Amendment exception it is about to discuss is plausible or constitutional because other exceptions already exist. Not so. Though First Amendment analysis can be complicated at the margins, the core exceptions to First Amendment protection are well-known and well-established. The Supreme Court — in the course of rejecting a proposed new exception — articulated them recently:

“From 1791 to the present,” however, the First Amendment has “permitted restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas,” and has never “include[d] a freedom to disregard these traditional limitations.” Id., at 382-383. These “historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar,” Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U. S. 105, 127 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment)–including obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 483 (1957), defamation, Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 254-255 (1952), fraud, Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 771 (1976), incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447-449 (1969) (per curiam), and speech integral to criminal conduct, Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 498 (1949)–are “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942).

The observation “not all speech is protected” adds nothing to a discussion because it offers no mechanism for determining whether the speech at issue falls into a traditional exception or not.

To see what I mean, consider the utility of equivalent rhetoric. You’ve been bitten by an unfamiliar snake, and you’d like to know if you need treatment.

You: Doctor, was the snake that bit me poisonous?
Doctor: Actually snakes are usually venomous. Though some are both venomous and poisonous.
You: Great. What about this snake here? I caught it in a bag for you to look at.
Doctor: There are both harmless and venomous snakes in North America.
You: Yes, thank you. Which is this?
Doctor: That snake has rings!
You: Yes. Yes it does.
Doctor: Some venomous snakes have rings.
You: Is there anyone else on duty I could see?

Trope Four: “Line between free speech and [questioned expression]”

Example: “Texas Shooting Sheds Light On Murkiness Between Free, Hate Speech.” NPR.com Headline, May 5, 2015.
Example: “Texas attack refocuses attention on fine line between free speech and hate speech.” LA Times Headline, May 4, 2015.

Journalists and pundits talking about free speech disputes love to frame their stories as being about “the line between free speech and X,” where X is the controversial expression in question.

This trope can be invoked accurately when there is a legally meaningful line separating protected speech and the type of speech called out. For instance, “the line between free speech and true threats” isn’t misleading because “true threats” are an actual category of unprotected speech and there’s a line between them and protected speech.

Too often, though, the “line” is invoked to imply a nonexistent legal distinction. The “line between free speech and hate speech” rhetoric from the examples above is misleading and meaningless because, as noted in Trope One, “hate speech” is not a legal thing. “The line between free speech and bullying” — another recently popular line — is another example. It implies, falsely, that there is a legally meaningful category of speech called “bullying” that lies outside of First Amendment protections. In fact there isn’t — there are traditional exceptions to free speech (true threats, for instance) and some of that conduct could sometimes be described as “bullying,” but that’s not the same thing.

“The line between free speech and X” is often the rhetorical equivalent to “the line between vegetables and rutabagas”: the author doesn’t have a coherent argument that rutabagas aren’t vegetables, but doesn’t like rutabagas and thinks you shouldn’t either.

Trope Five: “Balancing free speech and [social value]”

Example: “The incident raised heated questions about race relations — and how to balance free speech with protection from discrimination and harassment.” Washington Post, March 3, 2015.

The media’s love of “balancing” stories is a variation on its love of “line between” stories, only more misleading.

“Balancing,” when used as a colloquial description of how courts decide whether speech is protected, is almost always wrong. American courts don’t weigh the value of speech against the harm it does. When speech falls into an established exception to the First Amendment, as discussed above, no balancing is necessary; it can be restricted. When it doesn’t, balancing of its “value” against other interests is almost always prohibited. As the Supreme Court recently said in rejecting the government’s request to create new categories of unprotected speech through balancing:

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it. The Constitution is not a document “prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 178 (1803).

Courts occasionally engage in something that faintly resembles “balancing” when they apply different levels of scrutiny to speech restrictions. For instance, the Supreme Court said that Congress could prohibit the burning of draft cards because the government had a substantial interest in the draft system and the law was narrowly addressed to that legitimate interest, and aimed only at the non-communicative element of the conduct (destroying the card) and not the communicative aspect (doing so to protest the draft). But that analysis doesn’t purport to assign a value to the speech. It considers only whether the government has a sufficiently compelling interest in its goal. Moreover, there’s very good reason to doubt that the Supreme Court would ever approve a speech restriction that is content-based — that is, premised on dislike of the speech — no matter how strong the government’s interest. The Court has repeatedly rejected calls to do just that, and a focus on the content of disfavored speech (when it’s not within an established exception) is almost certainly fatal to the proposed restriction.

Trope Six: “This isn’t free speech, it’s [category]”

Example: “It’s not free speech. It’s bullying and intimidation. It’s a horror show.” Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon, February 17, 2015.

The First Amendment is, in a way, categorical: there are well-defined categories of speech that are not protected, as I discussed above. But media commentators often abuse categorical thinking by inventing new categories of speech outside the First Amendment. “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech.” “This isn’t free speech, it’s discrimination.”

The trope can be used correctly — “this isn’t free speech, it’s an unprotected death threat.” But usually it’s not. Usually it’s invoked as shorthand for “I don’t want to address First Amendment analysis so I’m just going to say in conclusory fashion that it doesn’t apply at all.”

Our response to the trope should always be the same — does this supported not-speech category exist, and is it one that’s actually outside the First Amendment?

Trope Seven: “Fighting words”

Example: “There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.” McClatchy.com, May 4, 2015.

No discussion of controversial speech is complete without some idiot suggesting that it may be “fighting words.”

In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit “fighting words” — “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the “fighting words” doctrine survives — that’s in serious doubt — it’s limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The “which by their very utterance inflict injury” language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law — the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

That’s almost always irrelevant to the sort of speech at issue when the media invokes the trope.

Trope Eight: “[Professor] explained . . . .”

Example: “The exhibit of cartoons in Texas might have crossed the line, [Professor] Szmer said.”

The media loves to quote a professor to support a viewpoint. This is intellectually neutral: it can be good or bad, depending on the honesty and qualifications of the professor selected.

Quoting professors about law is particularly risky, if your aim is an accurate and informative discussion of free speech law. If you call a physics professor and ask them what will happen if you drop your pencil, and why, he or she will say “it will fall, because of gravity.” There is a relatively low chance that the professor will tell you “well, maybe nothing will happen” because he or she harbors the belief that the current gravitic regime is unfair and otherwise problematical. But when you call a professor of law, or political science, or journalism, and ask them a question about whether some controversial speech is protected by the First Amendment, there is an unacceptably high probability that you will get a quote expressing what the professor thinks the law ought to be. Sometimes the professor will flag a statement as an argumentative one, sometimes not. Moreover, some professors . . . . how can one put this delicately? Some law professors’ views on how a court is likely to rule on an issue are untainted by exposure to actual courts.

Many professors will give you a sober, accurate and well-informed assessment of how a court would likely approach a given free speech situation. The trick is separating those professors from ones who are out of their field or mere advocates.

Trope Nine: “This speech may be protected for now, but the law is always changing.”

Example: “‘The way we interpret the constitution is always changing. The supreme court can change the rules, and does do so,’ he said.” The Guardian, quoting Eric Posner, May 6, 2015.

When existing American law clearly protects questioned speech, the media sometimes resorts to finding someone to say “the law can change, and maybe it should.”

Yes, American law can change. Constitutional interpretation can change in breathtaking ways inside a generation.

But the United States Supreme Court has been more consistently protective of free speech than of any other right, especially in the face of media sensibilities about “harmful” words. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are universally reviled and held up as an example of the worst sort of speech; the Court found their speech protected by a margin of 8-1. The Court struck down an overbroad law prohibiting “crush videos” of animals being killed by the same margin. There is no sign of any movement towards the proposition that speech may be restricted because it is hurtful or disfavored — the sort of speech that provokes this banal media observation that law changes.

Pointers to more tropes are always welcomed, as are particularly good examples.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

BookCoverImageMurray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”

This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.

The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.

As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.

However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.

The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.

The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Posted in Freedom of Speech and the Press, Government Propaganda | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is martial law justified if ISIS attacks?

Maybe I am connecting dots that are not dots, but it seems to me that the timing of ISIS warnings, the re-ignition of economic downturn in 2014/2015, the global shift away from the dollar, and Jade Helm are not entirely coincidental. Martial Law is not a scenario that can be generated in a vacuum; it needs a primer, a trigger event.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsIn politics, there is no such thing as a “coincidence.” — jtl, 419

by Brandon Smith via Personal Liberty

Search for Boston Marathon bombing suspects in Cambridge, MAFILE/The Boston bombing response exemplifies militarization of a domestic region without it being called “martial law.”

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)A group of foreign militants infiltrates the U.S. using student visas, weak borders, bribery and cooperation with drug cartels. Secret cells integrate within metropolitan areas and blend with the populace. At the precise moment, they activate, unleashing small attacks across the country in coordinated blitzkrieg-style Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Instituteterror campaigns against everything from suburban neighborhoods to public schools to shopping malls, striking fear into the citizenry, which now believes no one is safe, even in the heartland. With normal law enforcement overwhelmed, the economy on the brink and the populace ready to riot, the military is deployed domestically; curfews, price controls and rationing are initiated; and special operations agents act as infiltrators in order to subdue the terrorist factions. The loss of common liberties is welcomed by most as safety and security become the paramount motivator.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)A glimpse into the future? Well, perhaps. Actually, it’s the plot narrative to a Chuck Norris movie called “Invasion U.S.A.” The terrorists in that movie were communists from places like Cuba Combat Shooter's Handbookand Venezuela (hey, it was the 80s, and we had no idea that the communists were elitists that had already taken over from within), but the premise is strangely not far from what the government is trying to sell to us as a potential real-life scenario today.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)As Americans, we have been bombarded with propaganda for decades, which conjures rationalizations for domestic military operations. This propaganda always presents us with an all-or-nothing option: relinquish liberty and beat the enemy, or “cling” to the “outdated” Constitution and fall as a society. There never seems to be a third option, an option that does not require the loss of freedoms and allows for security. In the film “Invasion U.S.A.,” I suppose we had Chuck Norris as a third option, which is not a bad third option in the world of cinema; but I’m sorry to say that Chuck alone cannot save us from what is coming in the real America.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewI am highly suspicious of the rhetoric coming out of Washington lately in terms of the ISIS situation. ISIS has apparently secured the Iraqi city of Ramadi and put the government there on the defensive, meaning that despite the recent claims that ISIS leadership has been hit in Syria, the group continues to advance.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualRumors of potential ISIS attacks on U.S. soil continue to spread from sources like the FBI and the Transportation Security Administration.

“Former” CIA officials (is there such a thing?) are also getting in on the action, warning in mainstream media outlets that ISIS has the ability to direct at least small-scale attacks on the U.S. today.

However, the threat of ISIS does not frighten me. It concerns me, but what truly disturbs me is the likely government response if such predictions by alphabet agencies come to pass.

In my recent article “When the elites wage war on America, this is how they will do it,” I examined the tactics behind not only globalization, but also the most probable methods that will be used to secure globalization through the oppression of dissenting voices and groups. Part of that examination included my take on the Jade Helm 15 exercises running from summer into autumn and how they fit directly into the strategies for disrupting insurgencies (revolutions) discussed openly by internationalists in their own symposiums.

My conclusion given the clear evidence at hand? Jade Helm is definitely not meant to prepare troops for foreign operations. The program is admitted to be a primer for military response to “crisis scenarios,” denoting domestic operation. Special forces groups are training with domestic agencies like the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. And they are training and infiltrating completely American environments, which they would not be doing unless they planned to operate in very similar environments. Special forces always train like they fight. Period.

With at least 45 percent of Americans concerned that open domestic military exercises are a precursor to greater federal control over states and more than 62 percent convinced that government power is suffocating individual liberty, it is only a matter of time before the government spin doctors create a semi-believable rationale for such endeavors as Jade Helm. I believe that ISIS could be their perfect rationale.

As public concern is amplified and evidence indicating that the Department of Defense is lying about the purpose of JH15 is more widely recognized, the DOD may very well admit that the operation is not for training in foreign theaters. Rather, they may argue that JH15 is in fact training designed to protect Americans on American soil from widespread terrorist threats. That is to say, the new spin will be that Jade Helm is meant to save us all from the psychopathic child killing cannibal monstrosity known as ISIS.

Look at it this way, what better excuse for covert military actions in domestic environments? What better way to justify lying to the American people about Jade Helm goals and directives? What better way to silence the critics and so-called “conspiracy theorists” than for the government to say: “Yes, we lied, but it was to keep the real purpose of JH15 secret, and to save the public from terrorism, now shut up naysayers and liberty activists, you are putting the whole nation at risk…!”

Maybe I am connecting dots that are not dots, but it seems to me that the timing of ISIS warnings, the re-ignition of economic downturn in 2014/2015, the global shift away from the dollar, and Jade Helm are not entirely coincidental. Martial Law is not a scenario that can be generated in a vacuum; it needs a primer, a trigger event.

If the trigger event is indeed intended to be a terror campaign on U.S. soil, then questions of the true purpose of Jade Helm will undoubtedly take a back seat to immediate solutions to what amounts to a foreign invasion (at least, that is how it will be painted), and none other than Jade Helm will be presented as that solution.

The debate over JH15 and programs like it will change. It will become a matter of the “greater good” against a foreign enemy, rather than a government overstep against the rights of the people. How can we possibly question the defense of American soil against terrorists? Isn’t that an undeniable directive of the military? And if we do question such a directive and its value to the American people, are we not “weakening” the resolve and effectiveness of the defense apparatus through negative public opinion? And by extension, would that not make us “domestic enemies” as well?

In fact, I can easily argue that there is absolutely no rationale for domestic military operations against ISIS, and here’s why.

ISIS is a fabrication

As I outlined in detail in my article “The time is ripe for a false flag attack on American soil,” the organization known as ISIS has long been a collaborative creation of the U.S. government and its allies. From funding and training in Libya and Jordan, to arming in Syria and Iraq, ISIS is nothing without the Western intelligence apparatus, just as al-Qaida was nothing more than a CIA Frankenstein monster.

So should Americans be forced to relinquish their freedoms in order to combat an enemy that our own government engineered out of thin air? And beyond that, who represents the greater enemy: ISIS or the lunatic elitists who gave ISIS the tools to commit atrocities?

Government is incapable of providing security

Some people may argue that the true origins of ISIS are a matter of historical debate that will not solve our immediate problem of rampant terror threats. How can we nitpick over where ISIS came from while ISIS is trying to massacre us? Fair enough.

My rebuttal would be that regardless of where ISIS found its organizational support, the U.S. government and the military apparatus under the direction of a corrupt DOD are incapable of protecting the American people anyway. If ISIS is able to unleash a campaign of attacks that give license to the idea of martial law, then the government has proven one of two things:

  1. It is too inept to prevent such events from occurring due to its refusal to secure our borders and despite full-spectrum surveillance of the American people by the NSA.
  2. It is so evil in its machinations that it has allowed terrorist infiltration in order to further an agenda of greater control.

Either the government is a bungling bureaucratic mess not capable of keeping anyone safe, or it is a cesspool of tyranny that has no intention of keeping anyone safe. In either case, why should the American people give such an entity even more power, when it can’t responsibly handle the considerable power it already has?

American civilians can provide their own security and do it better

Official martial law may never be declared, but it may nevertheless become a reality. I would present the response to the Boston bombing event as a direct example of militarization of a domestic region without it being called “martial law.” This was, of course, a “federalized” response, rather than a military one. But it was militarization in its nature all the same. The establishment will use all kinds of mislabeling and spin in order to entice the populace to submit to further encroachment of liberties in the name of security.

The fact is the best defense for the civilian population of America has always been the individual population itself. Terrorists are far more likely to be thwarted tactically and psychologically by a trained, armed, aware and free citizenry than any oppressive federal or military dragnet. And legally, it is a constitutional mandate that the American militias retain authority over domestic defense. And to be clear, the militia is every able-bodied American, not only a certain percentage of Americans the government deems acceptable.

This is the answer to the propaganda of militarization. We do not have to choose between liberty and security. We can have both, and we can provide it for ourselves as our own protectors. Sheepdogs be damned. Each citizen is his first and best line of defense.

Only when the American people take on the philosophy of self-defense rather than government reliance will we be free of fear from terrorism and free of fear from tyrannical government. It starts with each of you, in your homes, neighborhoods, towns and counties. Citizen organizations for mutual aid and security to counter any threat, regardless of the mask it wears, will be the catalyst for a legitimately free society. In the face of such organization, martial law is not only illegitimate, but entirely unnecessary. ISIS does not matter. It is what we ultimately do about ISIS that matters, and martial law is not the answer.

–Brandon Smith

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II (The Economics of Liberty)The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty Volume II will introduce the reader to the fundamental principles of the Austrian School of Economics. The Austrian School traces its origins back to the Scholastics of Medieval Spain. But its lineage actually began with Carl Menger and continued on through Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and many others. It is the one and only true private property based, free market line of economic thought. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History  and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Posted in Martial Law, The Warfare State, War on Terror | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Texas Only Pretends to Be Conservative

This could have been a textbook illustration of small-government conservatism, the kind proclaimed by the state’s Republicans. They demand Washington keep its hands off Texas. In the next breath, they use their legislative power to smash Texans who dare resist Austin.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  Well whadayaexpect? After all, they are politicians and, therefore by default, liars and thieves. — jtl, 419

By Philippe Gastonne via The Daily Bell

The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)Last year, a city in North Texas banned fracking. State lawmakers want to make sure that never happens again.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)On Monday, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law that prohibits bans of hydraulic fracturing altogether and makes it much harder for municipal and county governments to control where oil and gas wells can be drilled. Similar efforts are cropping up in states including New Mexico, Ohio, Colorado and Oklahoma, where both chambers of the legislature have passed a bill that limits local governments to “reasonable” restrictions on oil and gas activities.

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewThis is all part of a broader legislative and judicial effort, backed by the oil industry, to limit local governments’ ability to regulate drilling. Backers say that both the Oklahoma and Texas bills were proposed in response to a voter-approved ban on fracking in Denton, Texas, in November. – Wall Street Journal, May 18, 2015 

Combat Shooter's HandbookReconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsMost limited-government conservatives usually prefer as much local autonomy as possible. When government action is necessary, it should occur at the lowest possible level. They resist centrally imposed, one-size-fits-all laws and policies.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualThat’s what they say. All too often, it is not what they do.

We discussed this in The Daily Bell last month in States’ Rights and Frankenfood. In that case, we saw members of Congress seeking to override state-level decisions about GMO food labeling. Now we see the Texas legislature and governor overriding local decisions about fracking.

Whether fracking is good, bad, safe or unsafe is beside the point. Larger principles are at issue.

The residents of Denton, Texas exercised democracy to set a standard for their local community. They did not demand other cities do the same. Denton’s fracking ban did not harm people in Houston or San Antonio.

This could have been a textbook illustration of small-government conservatism, the kind proclaimed by the state’s Republicans. They demand Washington keep its hands off Texas. In the next breath, they use their legislative power to smash Texans who dare resist Austin.

Stranger still, this all happened at the same time some Texas Republicans went into a tizzy over the Pentagon’s “Jade Helm” training exercise. Plans for federal troops to deploy to Texas sparked rumors of martial law and Obama invasions.

Gov. Greg Abbott even ordered his state militia to “monitor” the federal presence. “It is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed upon,” Abbott said.

The governor is correct, but has a strange way of showing it. What about the right of Denton’s Texans to govern their city in the way they see fit?

That one doesn’t count.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History chronicles the rise and fall of the noble experiment with constitutionally limited government. It features the ideas and opinions of some of the world’s foremost contemporary constitutional scholars. This is history that you were not taught at the mandatory government propaganda camps otherwise known as “public schools.” You will gain a clear understanding of how America’s decline and decay is really nothing new and how it began almost immediately with the constitution. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes from the three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty and The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic.

Posted in Contemporary Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

‘We the People’ Need to Circle the Wagons: The Government Is on the Warpath

 In an age of overcriminalization, where the average citizen unknowingly commits three crimes a day, and even the most mundane activities such as fishing and gardening are regulated, government officials are constantly telling Americans what not to do.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsI attended a grand son’s high school graduation ceremony this past weekend. The very first person to the podium read of a list of things that we (the audience) were NOT supposed to do. Did you ever notice how that is almost always the case at any government “sponsored” gathering? — jtl, 419

By John W. Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute

Combat Shooter's Handbook“The government is merely a servant―merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” ― Mark Twain

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteHow many Americans have actually bothered to read the Constitution, let alone the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (a quick read at 462 words)?

Take a few minutes and read those words for yourself—rather than having some court or politician translate them for you—and you will be under no illusion about where to draw the Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian Viewline when it comes to speaking your mind, criticizing your government, defending what is yours, doing whatever you want on your own property, and keeping the government’s nose out of your private affairs.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) In an age of overcriminalization, where the average citizen unknowingly commits three crimes a day, and even the most mundane activities such as fishing and gardening are regulated, government officials are constantly telling Americans what not to do. A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Yet it was not always this way. It used to be “we the people” telling the government what it could and could not do. Indeed, the three words used most frequently throughout the Bill of Rights in regards to the government are “no,” “not” and “nor.”

Compare the following list of “don’ts” the government is prohibited from doing with the growing list of abuses to which “we the people” are subjected on a daily basis, and you will find that we have reached a state of crisis wherein the government is routinely breaking the law and violating its contractual obligations.

For instance, the government is NOT allowed to restrict free speech, press, assembly or the citizenry’s ability to protest and correct government wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the government continues to prosecute whistleblowers, persecute journalists, cage protesters, criminalize expressive activities, crack down on large gatherings of citizens mobilizing to voice their discontent with government policies, and insulate itself and its agents from any charges of wrongdoing (or what the courts refer to as “qualified immunity”).

The government may NOT infringe on a citizen’s right to defend himself. Nevertheless, in many states, it’s against the law to carry a concealed weapon (gun, knife or even pepper spray), and the average citizen is permitted little self-defense against militarized police officers who shoot first and ask questions later.

The government may NOT enter or occupy a citizen’s house without his consent (the quartering of soldiers). Nevertheless, government soldiers (i.e., militarized police) carry out more than 80,000 no-knock raids on private homes every year, while maiming children, killing dogs and shooting citizens.

The government may NOT carry out unreasonable searches and seizures on the citizenry or their possessions. NOR can government officials issue warrants without some evidence of wrongdoing (probable cause). Unfortunately, what is unreasonable to the average American is completely reasonable to a government agent, for whom the ends justify the means. In such a climate, we have no protection against roadside strip searches, blood draws, DNA collection, SWAT team raids, surveillance or any other privacy-stripping indignity to which the government chooses to subject us.

The government is NOT to deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process. Nevertheless, the government continues to incarcerate tens of thousands of Americans whose greatest crime is being poor and brown-skinned. The same goes for those who are put to death, some erroneously, by a system weighted in favor of class and wealth.

The government may NOT take private property for public use without just compensation. Nevertheless, under the guise of the “greater public interest,” the government often hides behind eminent domain laws in order to allow megacorporations to tear down homes occupied by less prosperous citizens in order to build high-priced resorts and shopping malls.

Government agents may NOT force a citizen to testify against himself. Yet what is the government’s extensive surveillance network that spies on all of our communications but a thinly veiled attempt at using our own words against us?

The government is NOT allowed to impose excessive fines on the citizenry or inflict cruel and unusual punishments upon them. Nevertheless Americans are subjected to egregious fines and outrageous punishments for minor traffic violations, student tardiness and absence from school, and generally having the misfortune of being warm bodies capable of filling privatized, profit-driven jails.

The government is NOT permitted to claim any powers that are not expressly granted to them by the Constitution. This prohibition has become downright laughable as the government continues to claim for itself every authority that serves to swell its coffers, cement its dominion, and expand its reach.

Despite what some special interest groups have suggested to the contrary, the problems we’re experiencing today did not arise because the Constitution has outlived its usefulness or become irrelevant, nor will they be solved by a convention of states or a ratification of the Constitution.

No, as I document in my new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the problem goes far deeper. It can be traced back to the point at which “we the people” were overthrown as the center of the government. As a result, our supremacy has been undone, our authority undermined, and our experiment in democratic self-governance left in ruins. No longer are we the rulers of this land. We have long since been deposed and dethroned, replaced by corporate figureheads with no regard for our sovereignty, no thought for our happiness, and no respect for our rights.

In other words, without our say-so and lacking any mandate, the point of view of the Constitution has been shifted from “we the people” to “we the government.” Our taxpayer-funded employees—our appointed servants—have stopped looking upon us as their superiors and started viewing as their inferiors. Unfortunately, we’ve gotten so used to being dictated to by government agents, bureaucrats and militarized police alike that we’ve forgotten that WE are supposed to be the ones calling the shots and determining what is just, reasonable and necessary.

Then again, we’re not the only ones guilty of forgetting that the government was established to serve us as well as obey us. Every branch of government, from the Executive to the Judicial and Legislative, seems to be suffering this same form of amnesia. Certainly, when government programs are interpreted from the government’s point of view (i.e., the courts and legislatures), there is little the government CANNOT do in its quest for power and control.

We’ve been so brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing that the government is actually looking out for our best interests, when in fact the only compelling interesting driving government programs is maintain power and control by taking away our money and control. This vital truth, that the government exists for our benefit and operates at our behest, seems to have been lost in translation over two centuries dominated by government expansion, endless wars and centralized federal power.

Have you ever wondered why the Constitution begins with those three words “we the people”? It was intended to be a powerful reminder that everything flows from the citizenry. We the people are the center of the government and the source of its power. That “we” is crucial because it reminds us that there is power and safety in numbers, provided we stand united. We can accomplish nothing alone.

This is the underlying lesson of the Constitution, which outlines the duties and responsibilities of government. It was a mutual agreement formed by early Americans in order to ensure that when problems arose, they could address them together.

It’s like the wagon trains of the Old West, comprised of individual groups of pioneers. They rarely ventured out alone but instead traveled as convoys. And when faced with a threat, these early Americans formed their wagons into a tight circle in order to defend against invaders. In doing so, they presented a unified front and provided protection against an outside attack. In much the same way, the Constitution was intended to work as an institutionalized version of the wagon circle, serving as a communal shield against those who would harm us.

Unfortunately, we have been ousted from that protected circle, left to fend for ourselves in the wilderness that is the American frontier today. Those who did the ousting—the courts, the politicians, and the corporations—have since replaced us with yes-men, shills who dance to the tune of an elite ruling class. In doing so, they have set themselves as the central source of power and the arbiters of what is just and reasonable.

Once again we’re forced to navigate hostile terrain, unsure of how to protect ourselves and our loved ones from militarized police, weaponized drones, fusion centers, Stingray devices, SWAT team raids, the ongoing military drills on American soil, the government stockpiling of ammunition, the erection of mass detention centers across the country, and all other manner of abuses.

Read the smoke signals, and the warning is clear: It’s time to circle the wagons, folks. The government is on the warpath, and if we are to have any hope of surviving whatever is coming at us, we’ll need to keep our wits about us and present a unified front. Most of all, we need to restore “we the people” to our rightful place at the center of government. How we do that depends largely on each community’s willingness to get past their partisan politics and blind allegiance to uniformed government officials and find common ground.

To put it a little more bluntly, stop thinking like mindless government robots and start acting like a powerhouse of citizens vested with the power to say “enough is enough.” We have the numbers to stand our ground. Now we just need the will.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsThe Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other Misfits. Although woven around the experiences and adventures of one man, this is also the story of the people who lived during the period of time in American history that an entire generation was betrayed It is the story of the dramatically changing times in which this personal odyssey took place. It is the story of the betrayal of an entire generation of Americans and particularly the 40% (of the military aged males) of that generation that fought the Vietnam war.

 

Posted in Police State | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry

 The terror knows no boundaries. It takes holidays, but it takes them hostage, for Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and even Christmas Day have repeatedly been occasions for mass property destruction, brutal beatings, stabbings, and shootings. And beaches, parades, malls, shopping centers, sports stadia, high schools, college campuses, festivals (including Asian festivals), gas stations, parks, and biking trails have been among the locations for these displays of inhumanity.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)   It is an epidemic but you would never realize it is even happening at all if you rely solely on the mainstream media for your information. They either ignore it or, in those cases too big to ignore, go to great lengths to defend the perpetrators and explain away the problem. — jtl, 419

ft2

Colin Flaherty, the author of the best-seller, White Girl Bleed A lot, has once again revealed his heroism in his latest, Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry.

Not since Ilana Mercer’s, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, have we witnessed such steely resolve in reckoning with the great unmentionable evil of black criminality and violence.

Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry consists of 511 pages, 944 endnotes, and a super abundance of references to videos meticulously documenting over 1,000 instances of black mob violence spanning just the last few years.The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2)

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)From sea to shining sea, in hundreds of cities both large and small, and in every region of the country, mobs of (mostly young) black people—males and females—have been busy unleashing reigns of terror upon virtually every other conceivable demographic: whites, Hispanics, and Asians; homosexuals; Jews; the elderly; women, small children, even babies; the mentally and physically disabled; bicyclists and hikers; veterans; Sikhs; and students.Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

The terror knows no boundaries. It takes holidays, but it takes them hostage, for Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and even Christmas Day have repeatedly been occasions for mass property destruction, brutal beatings, stabbings, and shootings. And beaches, parades, malls, shopping centers, sports stadia, high schools, college  Combat Shooter's Handbookcampuses, festivals (including Asian festivals), gas stations, parks, and biking trails have been among the locations for these displays of inhumanity.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsOf course, we’d be remiss if we didn’t list the police among the victims of black mob violence. It’s always the same: Hundreds of black people set their sights upon the properties and persons of their victims, the thin blue line asserts itself, and the rioters attack the forces of law and order with a range of weaponry: rocks, bricks, bottles, and—get this—even fireworks, i.e. makeshift bombs.Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute

While the terror of Islamic militants is accompanied by cries to Allah, that of the black mobs is accompanied by…laughing.

Lots of laughing.

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference ManualFlaherty frequently cites Marlin Newburn, a prison psychologist who “has been on the front lines of racial violence for 30 years.” According to Newburn, these “predators,” do not reflect “a subculture,” but “a primary part of the black culture [.]” This culture “is one of sadistic and primitive impulse where they [the predators] believe themselves to be 10 feet tall, bulletproof, very smart, good looking, gifted, and tougher than anyone.” These “predators” live “without any sense of personal responsibility or boundaries with others.” Hence, while “assaulting or killing someone, the absence of a conscience is considered among their peers as an indicator of strength and power.” The expression of “joy in the process [of violence] only heightens their street cred.”

When two Muslim thugs shot up Charlie Hebdo, segments of the American media were apoplectic over the number of France’s “No-Go” zones, Islamic neighborhoods that non-Muslims dare not enter. Yet America has had legions of its own No-Go zones for decades: We just call them “inner cities.”

This is no hyperbole.

Flaherty relays the story of a “Californian college girl” who was arrested at an airport in Chicago and then released by police into the city’s “deepest and most dangerous ghetto [.]” Within no time, she was set upon and thrown from the top of a seven-story building. Her family sued the city. During the trial, a professor from Harvard introduced the court to “Routine Activities Theory” (RAT), the fancy name given by specialists to the phenomenon of violence committed by blacks against whites who pass through black neighborhoods.

The judge presiding over the trial declared that being a white woman “‘in a predominantly black, poor neighborhood,” the victim “had a much higher risk of predatory victimization.’”

Translation: For whites, areas that are “predominantly black” and “poor” are No-Go Zones.

Flaherty speaks to another dimension of this national scourge of black mob violence that is no less frightening than the violence itself:

The vermin in the streets that are traumatizing, hospitalizing, and murdering innocents have enablers and even apologists in the media.

Whether locally or nationally, members of the press invariably ignore or otherwise misrepresent the nature of black mob violence. Readers of this column know the drill: Reporters either won’t remark at all on black-on-non-black terror or, if they do, they fail to mention the races of the attackers and their victims, choosing instead to refer to the assailants simply as “teens” while waxing perplexed as to how or why the incident in question occurred.

No short supply of media talking heads, along with their accomplices in academia, Hollywood, and Washington D.C., go so far as to excuse black mob violence. The most common strategy of choice is to invoke what is known in academia as “Critical Race Theory” (CRT), the theory that, ultimately, black criminals are the victims, the victims of “institutional racism.” Their white prey, though, are the real culprits, for they enjoy “white skin privilege” courtesy of an incorrigibly racist society.

Flaherty nicely distills the essence of CRT: “Critical Race Theory says three things: White racism is permanent, everywhere and explains everything.”

The apologists are what Hannah Arendt referred to as “accessories” to the crimes of those for whom they run cover. Thus, they too shoulder responsibility for this wickedness.

Flaherty writes: “I’m not frightened of black mob violence. But I am terrified of the bat shit crazy people in the media and government who ignore it, condone it, encourage it, and even lie about it.”

He concludes: “Now those folks are dangerous.”

Colin Flaherty is a national treasure. It is at our peril that we neglect his Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry.

FOLLOW FLYOVER PRESS ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)The Essence of Liberty Volume III: Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic. This is the volume that pulls it all together. With reference to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s description of Murray Rothbard’s work, it is a “unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.” Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

You might be interested in the other two volumes of this three volume set: The Essence of Liberty Volume I: Liberty and History and The Essence of Liberty Volume II: The Economics of Liberty

Posted in Racial Violence | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Note to a Generic Pentagon General:A Cause of Delayed-Nausea Syndrome

What I figure, General, is you ought to set an example for the troops by wearing panties and a bra… A good officer–we had some–doesn’t order his men to do anything he himself wouldn’t do. Walk a Mile in Her Skivvies, General. (Actually, when I was a hard-charging young Gyrene, we spent a lot of time trying to get into women’s skivvies. Now it’s going to be mandatory?)

 I had to stop reading and laugh for ten minutes. — jtl, 419

Fred On Everything: Scurrilous Commentary by Fred Reed

 Combat Shooter's HandbookI have just read in Army Times that, to my delight, the Army is making soldiers wear the prettiest red high-heels in the pursuit of gender-equality. Yes. They look like little girls playing with Mommy’s shoes. It has something to do with understanding the psychological problems of women, a matter of importance in combat. It necessarily was done with the approval of the Army’s generals in the Pentagon, particularly Chief of Staff Odierno, since they are in charge of the whole Army shebang. I write them in astonished admiration, thusly:

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsDear General,

I see that on your watch the Army is turning into a transvestite marching corps in high heels, a Ziegfeld cross-gendered or bisected gay-bath sexual zoo vacuuming up every sort of erotic loony, not to mention becoming a home for unwed mothers and prostitution rings. I commend you. I have always wanted to be defended by a freak show.

Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps InstituteI do not question your qualifications for command. You doubtless have a firm handshake, a steely gaze, an imposing presence, and a perfect grasp of PowerPoint. But a general who is so afraid of feminists that he forces his troops to play dress-up, well, I mean, what if there is a real war?

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian ViewI applaud your forthrightness in bringing the doughboys out of the closet in those cute red heels. They are so precious! (By the way, have you considered foot-binding?) As a former Marine in Vietnamese days, I have always suspected the Army of being cross-dressers. How candid of you to confirm my suspicions.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1) The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3) True, traditionalists, and warriors, and cranky old Marines will say that you are just another sorry two-bit, peace-time, careerist politician of a pseudo-soldier who doesn’t have the balls to stand up to feminists and protect the service from becoming a display ad for Victoria’s Secret. I am shocked. How could they think such a thing?

A Handbook for Ranch Managers Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual Yes, General, yes. I understand. Putting GIs in those darling heels is supposed to provide some kind of uplift (though I believe brassieres are better for that). But I know perfectly well, and you may suspect—check with your dominatrix—that feminists get a hoot out of watching those macho men (ugh!) tottering around before the whole world in heels, like teen-age girls preparing for their first prom. “Heeeeeeeeeeeee-ha-ha.” Likely every diesel-dyke in a Women’s Studies department is rolling on the floor. Tippy-toe. Tippy-tippy-toe. “Hey, Sheila, look what we made them do!”

What I figure, General, is you ought to set an example for the troops by wearing panties and a bra (if you don’t already wear panties: I give you credit for mitary foresight.) A good officer–we had some–doesn’t order his men to do anything he himself wouldn’t do. Walk a Mile in Her Skivvies, General. (Actually, when I was a hard-charging young Gyrene, we spent a lot of time trying to get into women’s skivvies. Now it’s going to be mandatory?)

But you can do more for equity. There should be clear expression of the Army’s commitment to transvest–justice, I meant to say. I can imagine a whole new gendered approach to insignia of rank: Artificial hooters, in easily-washed silicone and real flesh tone. Enlisted men would get small ones. Officers would have big mommas. You, being an exalted military figure, would have three. The Command-in-Chief could wear an udder.

Now, General, I speak only for myself as a Marine who carried a rifle in Viet Nam, but others may agree with me. (A “rifle” is one of those awful long thingies (no, not those long thingies) that make boomy noises and stinky smoke and put stains on your cocktail dress that just ruin it.) Outside of Da Nang we used to lie behind sandbags at night with mortars coming in (a “mortar” is one of those gun thingies with a tube—no, a different kind of tube, General—that shoots–never mind) hoping a hit wouldn’t spray a buddy’s guts around. To a man we were thinking, why couldn’t we have a leader like a Pentagon general to give us cute little heels instead of these uncomfy old boots?

But let us get back to serious military questions. The effect on our enemies of the boob-insignia will be profound. The Afghan resistance fighters will be stunned, just stunned, to see American soldiers in high-heels and varying numbers of breasts. As the Mujahedeen gape, paralyzed with amazement, our soldiers will be able to approach them and give them therapy on the value of non-violence and rape culture. Each mujahid would be encouraged to express his feelings and find the roots of his anger. They could all be given a breast to take home and fondle.

I can see by your feminization of the ranks that you are socially progressive. Good. I imagine that you are against the culture of violence that prevails in the military. But what can you expect in a society that has so many gun thingies, and glorifies them? We need to de-emphasize war, and substitute caring activities involving cooperation. You could lead from the front by taking part in social activities, perhaps being pivot man in a circle jerk. On YouTube (No, not that….)

I hear that also on your watch the Army has taken measures to make the service more LBTG-friendly, as well as more inclusive and welcoming to single mommies. I think you should go further. For example, the Army could use armored nail-salons to keep the troops looking great and feeling good about themselves, and those funny old tanks need changing tables inside the turret-thingy. And big guns look tho phallic. They must make women anxious. The only thing they are good for is drying lingerie. The guns, I mean, not the women.

Now, mean old military historians who say that in a real war soldiers die because of posturing peace-time political pogues (I was in an alliteration company)—what do they know? A few thousand lives are a small price to pay for gender-equity. Besides, those who do the fighting are not the girly-boys, the boy-girls, the katoys, the to-be-decideds, the climbing vines with their cucumbers chopped, or the single mommies who have to look after some random guy’s kid. These, the core of the Army, will not be troubled. As you have shown, we must stay with core values.

Don’t pay attention to those macho infantry men (ugh!) who say that women should try walking in men’s shoes—unloading a six-by of 81mm mortar rounds under fire, or changing a truck tire in sand in Indian territory with night coming on. Everyone knows that trucks unload themselves by pushing some kind of button or something, and anyway we have drones.

Them’s my thoughts, General. And I suspect that every guy who ever served in a combat zone shares my overwelling respect and admiration for you. If anyone criticizes you and you feel all upset and flustered, take your Midol, breathe deeply and it will get all better soon.

Check out our WebSite Check out our e-Store Combat Shooter's Handbook Combat Shooter’s Handbook. Call for a pizza, a cop, and an ambulance and see which one arrives first. So, who does that leave to protect you, your life, property and family? The one and only answer is: YOU This Handbook is intended to help you exercise that right and meet that responsibility. Available in both paperback and Kindle versions.

Posted in Culture War, Radical Feminism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment