The Gross National Debt

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

10mm carbine! WOOHOO!

Hi-Point is coming out with a 10mm carbine! YES!

If you are one of the Hi-Point haters, go away. Now.

If you are a Hi-Point fan, rejoice with me.

If you are not sure about Hi-Point, lemme slap some salient information on you.

I've owned, and sold at a profit, several Hi-Points. The last one I had and sold had a broke spring mechanism in the mag release. No telling how many people owned it before I got it. Anyway, the owner after me contacted Hi-Point.

The company repaired the gun at charge.

Show me another gun company that will do the same. You can't.

My first, and every HP I've owned since then, functioned without issue (excepting the broke mag spring). I took my first one to the range and ran a box of .45 ACP without issue. Straight from the box. Never had a misfire. Ever.

And the .45 ACP was, at the time $150 when a 1911 was running $500 and up.


The Hi-Points are big. Bulky. And, frankly, butt-ugly. These are not firearms for people with small hands or people who want gun safe queens. These are firearms for people who use their guns, demand function over appearance and don't care what other people say.

They work. Reliably. All the time. Experts who shoot 'em say the Hi-Point delivers every time.

As Joe Saxon said, you point it, pull the trigger and it goes bang. What more do you want?

How can the company sell so cheap and yet provide a gun that does all this? Other gun companies greatly over-price their products.

With an MSRP of $325-$379, the Hi-Point carbine should be available for under $300, I'm thinking $275.

Can you say TRUCK GUN? I knew you could.

The 10mm is enough bullet to stop dead anything that lives in South Georgia even when shot from a 6-inch handgun barrel. Coming out of a carbine, this is will rock.

Even better. Since it's a 10mm, I suspect we'll be able to shoot 40 caliber from it. May need to replace a spring or two to account for the lower recoil of the .40. Most people, I find, do not know that the 10mm and .40 S&W are the same diameter. The 10mm is just a longer case. Think .38 S&W, .38 Special, .357 Mag and .357 Max. Get a gun capable of shooting the .357 Max and you can shoot all four of the rounds I list here.



The Hi-Point promise - Damage, age, and plain old wear and tear – these things happen. When they do, Hi-Point customers enjoy a lifetime, no questions asked warranty. And lifetime means just that – free repairs for the life of the gun, whether you are the first owner, or the third.
Hi-Point service is fast, friendly and expertly performed. Your firearm will be back in action and good as new, in no time.

Monday, October 2, 2017

One more thing I don't understand

Amongst the gnus today is an announcement that Facebook is handing over the ads that were supposedly bought by Russia.

Ehum, so?

Lots of people, from the Liar in Chief on down are claiming Russia tried to influence the US elections.

Ehum, so?

Many of these people are saying that is illegal.

No. It is not. In fact, it is specifically and Constitutionally and Supreme Court decision-affirmed legal to try to influence an election through media outlets.

S'called the First Amendment.



However, Mark Zuckerberg is a US citizen and is protected by the 1st Amendment and so is his business. He has every right to sell ads that appear on his business to Russians. To Irainians. To the Taliban.

Just 'cause you don't like it does not mean it is illegal. (Whew).

Russia's efforts to plant "fake news?" Completely legal. Russia's stories originated in Russia, and quite often were posted to social media from within Russia and other nations. US law, despite what liarberals and cantservatives believe, does not apply in other countries.

Russia's efforts to steer discussions on topics germane to the election, completely legal.

You ain't gotta like it.

So far no one has shown where Russia tried to buy votes. That is illegal. So far we have reports that Russia might have tried to have elections computers. That is illegal, but if the attacks (even happened) and originated on Russian soil, good luck bringing that one to court.

I have not seen proof of the hacking attacks so I remain dubious.


Besides which, the US government has been doing the same thing all over the world.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I hear you. Liarberal outlets and slanted agendas. Cantservatives don't do that.

Cantservatives don't just influence. They send in guns, ammo, bombs and material support to the opposition.

So if you are one who is foaming at the mouth over Russia's attempts to influence the elections, please stay away from me. I shoot things that foam at the mouth unless a toothbrush handle is poking out somewhere.

Monday, September 25, 2017

The most important thing

Allow me a moment and a moment only to discuss politics.

For a politician, nothing is as important as getting re-elected.

First a qualifier. I have met with, interviewed, watched, argued with and watched in horror as "something" happened in politicians ranging from Senator Harry Reid from Nevada (yes, I know him personally) down to City Council members of cities with fewer than 200 voters.

"Something" happened when these people took their oath of office.

"Something" turned what used to be a very good person into a power-mad oligarch intent on keeping office.

Of the hundreds of politicians I have met, I'm saying less than 10 did what was right and being re-elected be damned.

That is appalling to me.

Of, say 300 people, less than 10 people who took office were more concerned about doing what was right as opposed to doing what was necessary to get re-elected. More than 290 people were more interested in being re-elected than in doing what was right.

Appalled yet?

Someone is going to ask who these 10 or so people are? Are any from Turner County, where I presently live?

Less than 3.

The rest? It's more important to be re-elected than to do what is right. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

Annnd, I'm done.

Friday, September 15, 2017

Full bore tac

Remington 870 with mag extension. Yes, pix is rotated 90° clockwise.

For many years (How many? A lot) I've wanted a shotgun with a mag extension that will allow me to carry as many as 10 rounds of 2&3/4 buckshot in the gun.

When I first wanted this kind of shotgun, I was still a teenager, invincible and capable of bending I-beams with the power of my mind, able to carry a pair of elephants on my back through the desert with nothing more than a 48'er of malt liquor to sustain me. I reasoned the extra ammo would allow me to kill every dove in the flock that soared overhead (never mind I could not and still cannot hit these rocket-propelled kevlar-vest coated speed demons) and lay waste to entire herds of deer as the dogs chased them past me in Stewart County. In short, I aspired to be an alcohol-fueled cross between Jerry Miculek and the 1970 Russian female weightlifting team.

Fast forward into middle age and I acquire an 870 with synthetic furniture. I studyify the gun and decide now is the time to get the tactical assault shotgun I always wanted.

Here is how it went:

Item 1 - Synthetics to make it as weather-proof as possible. Already installed.

Item 2 - Sling attachments. Order four from eBay, 'cause two can also go on the 1100 if needed. One sling attachment on the stock. One for the mag extension connection point. Two that double as mag clamps for the barrel.

Item 3 - Mag extension. Order from eBay. Discover the extension comes with one clamp, so cancel order for second clamp. Realize that order is already placed. No worries. Two mag clamps have got to be better than one.

Parts arrive. Set about installing and discover that, dammitall yes, the mag tube indents are still in place. Post a request on FB to borrow a Dremel as mine is burned out. Lots of offers and one actual delivery of a Dremel with a complete case full of tools.

Disassemble shotgun. Various parts fall out and go everywhere. Decide most of them are now irrelevant and forget about them.

Grind out indents in mag tube. Clean mag tube. Make sure everything can slide through, including the shell follower which, SURPRISE!, is one of the bouncing parts that must be put back into the gun.

Re assemble shotgun.

Realize the slotted sling holder is still sitting on desk. Take apart and place sling holder on backward. Take apart again. Install sling holder correctly.

Verify shotgun will accept ammunition.

Remember, BEFORE TEST SHOT, that test firing a shotgun in the office is not a good idea.

Admire shotgun. Take pix for this column. Believe I am 17 again. Ponder other accessories (not installed) such as a collapsible stock with pistol grip, tac rails to hold lights, laser, scope with green light for night hunting atop the scope, ammo holders, drink holder, War Hammer heat guard & pic rail combo, vertical slide grip, door breecher choke and MP3 player to play the predator calls to draw yotes in really close.

Gun porn. Just like human porn. Complete fantasy and totally unrealistic.
Shoulder shotgun as seen in top picture with 4 rounds of buck in the mag tube. Watch in horror as the front end slowly sinks to the floor and I am incapable of stopping this from happening.

Realize I am 50, out of shape and never get invited to dove hunts anyway. Decide to add a sling so I can actually carry the gun to and from the truck on the rare occasions I want to do some weight lifting at the gun range.

Friday, August 11, 2017

Colin Who?

Blog by request.

Full disclosure, I do not care about professional sports. I had to do more research than usual to find out what this controversy is and why and who and what and so on.

In the words of a bud, "Yet, a whole ‘nother set of Americans are pretty much indifferent. Some of us support his stance (if it is sincere…and who knows). Some of us couldn’t care less….because it doesn’t immediately impact us. Some of us hear/see the word football, and everything after that turns into white noise."

So I will cancel the white noise generator and pretend to care.

Colin Kaepernick is a professional football player. He chose to kneel during the National Anthem in an apparent protest. Not long after his NFL contract ran out (get it, football player? Ran out? Work with me here), he became a persona non gratis. His protest led others to emulate his actions.

Vilified, excoriated, attacked, slandered, libeled and in general rejected by so many people, despite having done nothing to harm them.

Colin also has plenty of supporters. I just wonder if they are supporting him for the right reasons.

I support his right to try to make a living playing football.


Do I support his protest? Ehhhhh.

He said kneeling instead of standing is a protest. He has right to call his action what he wishes. I read where he called it a protest. Much of the planet is calling it a protest.

What did he do? He knelt during the national anthem. According to what I read, Colin is also a Christian. The dood has Psalm 18:39 tatt'ed on his arm. And you thought Tebow (?) was cool for putting verse numbers on his eye patches. Here's a quote from Colin, "God has brought me this far. He has laid out a phenomenal path for me. And I can't do anything but thank Him."



Football players take a knee when a player is injured on the field.

I think people are missing something. He. Knelt. If Colin is the Christian that my readings show him to be, kneeling was not an accident.

To me, that's a pretty awesome display of respect. Those with a religious faith will kneel when they go to their god in prayer. Christians definitely do.

But he said it was a protest, not a show of respect.

If it was respect, I want to believe he was showing that respect to the people who have suffered, those killed, tortured, summarily evicted and etc. But it was not respect. It was a protest. Please tell Aretha Franklin she'll have to wait a few more minutes before singing R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

Kneeling is also a way to show sorrow. To ask forgiveness. To seek redemption. To petition. To go before the Great Maker and plead a case. To seek assistance. To plead a case. You can do all that for yourself, or on behalf of someone else.

He said it was a protest.


So do I support his protest?

His right to stand, kneel, sit, dance, sing another song, hula-hoop, work on a car engine, fry fish and so on (and if he can do all that at once, whoa) during the National Anthem is his right. Period. Ain't none of your business and ain't none of mine. It's his business.

Forcing someone to do anything during the National Anthem is flat wrong. Smacks of slavery or at least a dictatorship.

Dood was doing something to bring attention to a matter that is important to him. He harmed no one.

Good'un onya CK.


The protest apparently cost him his job as a football player.

Up front, I have a LOT of problems with the NFL, all of which are directly related to taxpayer subsidies of this sport. Tax dollars have no business building giant stadiums for professional sports teams or supporting those teams.

If the NFL were truly a private organization, then the team owners should have the right to hire and fire whom they please. Since the NFL is so intertwined with tax dollars, I'm having real problems parsing this one out.


This is about money. Principles get left at the locker room door. NFL players do not belong to themselves. Their contracts set forth standards of behavior. Violate and they get fined or worse.

Don't like the contract terms? Don't sign the contract. However...

On one hand, the team owners should be able to pick players they think will generate wins.

On the other hand, if taxpayer dollars are involved, we need some leveling going on here.

(Excuse me a sec, I need to get Kali).

On the other hand, professional football is brutal, ritualized violence. Most people cannot do it.

On the other hand, if he is good and can deliver the wins, rational thinking says the man should have a contract.

On the other hand, if he is so disliked, having him on the team could cost money from reduced ticket sales.

On the other hand, Hodges' Rule of Thumb says do not expect rational behavior from beings with opposable thumbs.


This comes down to something I said years ago. The first person to attempt to blaze a trail is also the first person to get eaten by bears. If Colin is not eaten, he's certainly badly mauled.

Trails must be cut through the wilderness to get to the other side. If that wilderness needs to be tamed, then some very good people are going to become bear poop before it is whipped into shape.

As I see it, Colin is protesting because the world is not fair. He wants it to be fair. That bothers people.

I'm for being fair. I think we need more people like Colin Kaepernick. Unfortunately, few of us have the financial resources he does to take such a stand.

Colin's protest has nothing to do with how well or how badly he does his job. In a fair world, his protest would be irrelevant to NFL team owners. He would be considered solely on his ability to play the sport of football. The world ain't fair. Very few people want it to be fair. I'll wager most of the readers of these words are not interested in a fair world; I speak from decades of observing humans.


In one very important respect, what Colin is doing is old news. People started standing up for what they believe before recorded history. Our history books are the stories of people who stood up for what they believed in. Colin is only getting attention because he is a celebrity.

People all around the world are doing the exact same thing, but are ignored, except by the people who feel affected. Feel affected. Whether or not they are affected is a different matter.

Some of these people, who are taking a stand, won't live to see the sun set today. This too is old news.

The good ones, in my opinion, are those who fought for the right for you to suffer the consequences of your own actions. (And a lot of people are gonna misinterpret that statement. Just so yer clear, I'm responsible for what I write, not what you think I wrote.)

In that regard, Colin K. falls into the good ones category. He's not trying to impose his will on others. He merely wants to bring attention to past injustice in hopes of preventing the same in the future.

Depending on which side of the belief-under-examination you fall, the stand can be for evil or good. Mao Tse Tung, Iosef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, John Brown, Paul, Guru Arjan are just a few who either killed or were killed for what they believed. Pick a name. Someone will call that person evil. Someone will call that person a hero.

Many people die for their beliefs. That list is many millions of people long.

Some people killed for their beliefs. A short list of people responsible for killing for a belief structure includes Adolf Hitler, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher. The full list of people willing to kill for a belief reaches into the millions billions. If you have ever cheered the misfortune of another human being, your name goes on this list.

There is no practical difference between celebrating harm to another and causing harm to another. The difference between creating harm and ending a life is just a matter of how deep the knife goes.

Only a few are willing to take the harm and pain for their beliefs. Colin K is one. More power to him.

As it turns out, I do care ... just not about football. I care about and support the message Colin is trying to spread.

Allow me to rephrase as I close: The full list of people willing to kill for a belief reaches into the billions. If you have ever cheered the misfortune of another human being, your name goes on this list.

Like it or not, that's reality and truth. If the truth hurts, yer living wrong.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Equal treatment of unequal individuals is the height of injustice

Me bud Doc posted this bullet point meme. I replied in thread, but I think the replies are truncated and deserve more exegesis.

1 - Read The Bladerunner by Alan E. Nourse. This is not the movie. This is a dystopian SF novel with universal health care as the plot device. It proves the adage, a government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take everything you have away.

2 - Willing to reluctantly concede this one.

3 - Utter tripe.

People with enough money to get the best possible health care will continue to do so. They will go where they want, when they want and get what they want. It is impossible, under a single-payer system, to provide anything remotely resembling uniform benefits. People with the money go to 3-4 cancer treatment centers, sometimes a thousand miles away. Why? They provide the absolute best outcomes.

A single payer system is not going to ship a single mother of 5 on public assistance to Houston, Texas, for treatment for cancer.

4 - This implies people will take more responsibility for their own health. As long as we have food deserts, this ain't gonna happen. As long as people are allowed to chose SuperSize v. a salad, this ain't going to happen.

5 - Yes. From the docs who chose to participate. See No. 1 above.

If you force all medical providers to participate, you have immediately restored slavery to the United States.

6 - Well, yes. But it is exchanged for government interference with care.

Do your homework. Read this report -

7 - This is, simply, delusional. When the US Post Office is paying $1,500 a month for a building in a residential neighborhood that would rent for maybe $400 as a home (and this is common within the USPS), no. This is but one of many thousands of examples.
Especially this one -

8 - Show me any government program that saves money v. the private sector doing it. I will show you two examples of government-run programs that cost more.

9 - There is nothing so unjust as equal treatment of unequal individuals.

This proposes to pay the same amount for the same procedure in the middle of New York City as in Eutaw, S.C. as in Kotzebue, Alaska. Check the cost of living in all three places. Equal pay? This proposal will make medical care providers even more wealthy or greatly reduce their pay. Some will be about even.

10 - If you truly and honestly believe public ownership and public oversight is a good thing, you are henceforth barred from ever criticizing any elected official from the president on down.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Worms, bulldozers and economics

Let's open a can of worms and serve annelid sammiches all around.

How many believe the law-mandated minimum wage is wrong?

How many believe employers should pay whatever they think is appropriate?

Aight, now the real question - how many of you believe employers should subsidize pay for substandard employees?

Ah so. That is not a hypothetical question, or as Hawgin' likes to say "Great. Baker is making stuff up again."


Anyone see a problem here?

If this proposal passes, it is going to eliminate jobs for the handicapped. Poof. Gone. Is not like there are a lot of jobs for handicapped folks anyway.

Employers will not hire disabled folks because they will have to pay 'em the same as nondisabled people.

This goes deeper than what you are thinking right now. Maybe. Possibly not. You may be ahead of me. Let's see.


If you've read this blog with any regularity, you know my take on employee pay. If you don't know my take, go ye forth and be edified within this blog.

Lemme digress a second here to splain something. I grew up farming. Dad paid employees, and me, based on what we did. We got paid for productivity. The more we worked and produced, the more we made. In the 80s, we had one lady who worked for us who made more than $100 a day. We had some who barely made $20.

Is this fair?

More to the point, should employers be forced to subsidize the pay for handicapped employees?

Things like tax incentives and less than minimum wage mean people with disabilities can get jobs. They may not earn as much as other folks. But what if they can't produce as much as other folks? What if their production is 75 percent of the average nondisabled person's output?

How much should they be paid?

An employer hires a person with disabilities. The person does their absolute best. At minimum wage, the employer is losing money by keeping that person on staff. At less than minimum, the employer breaks even.

Which one is fair?


All in favor of a level playing field? What if that leveled playing field means running over you with a bulldozer?

The Americans with Disabilities Act is one of the most massive pieces of legislation the liberal left ever pushed onto the American people. It goes beyond Abominable Care. Bush I signed it into law.

The ADA puts an unbelievable burden on employers and businesses. Yes. It does. I've seen it. Some people in California have literally made a VERY good living just suing people under the federal ADA and the state version.

This is a case of using the whole fire department to extinguish a single candle.


Here's economics so people on the far left and far right can understand. Businesses have employees because the employees help the business make money. Employees who cannot produce get fired.

So, do handicapped people deserve to have a job?

I say certainly, if they can do the work. But that is a decision an employer must make.

If they can do the work, but not as well as a nonhandicapped person, then should they be paid less? Or, should the business be forced to subsidize the pay? Is it right to penalize the nonhandicapped employees against their wishes to support the handicapped employees?

If we're running this strictly on the economics I list just above, handicapped employees get fired. But when they get paid less because they produce less, employers are willing to step out and offer jobs.

Mandating identical pay is going to flat kill those jobs. That's fair to whom, exactly?


No doubt I'm gonna get someone whose left wing knickers are now in a Gordian knot. I'm going to be called all kinds of pejoratives.

Shuddup. You have no idea what you refer to. I do. The above situations? Handicapped person trying to get a job? I'm living it RIGHT NOW. So, shup until you have walked with me and understand my situation.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

Ain't none of mine and ain't none of yours

Lemme play lumberjack and ax you a question.
Does it affect you in a way that can be measured empirically?
No? Then it ain't none of your business then.
Yes? Then you get to have a say.


Doesn't matter what "it" is. Pick something. Your next door neighbors growing a marijuana plant for their own enjoyment. Your other neighbor lighting M80s at 3:30 a.m.
Don't care. You get to define the "it."
Really. I don't care what the "it" is.
Transgender people serving in the military. Same-gender marriage. Owning a gun and carrying it in public. Hunting. Fishing. Standing on a street corner and warning people of the impending Alpacalips. Abortion. Rock & roll music. Taxes.
Pick something? Got it in mind? Good. Hang on to that.


Now about that empirically part. Tangible. Can it be measured and quantified? Can you say it is affecting in you a material way? Does it affect you economically? Physically?
Can you prove it? Can you show me on paper how it affects you?

That M80 going off. You may be able to prove that is keeping you up at night causing you to lose sleep. That is a measurable matter. Loss of sleep can be quantified.


Can the effect be measured, laid down and shown to other people? Ok. Then is the effect voluntary? In other words, are you asking for the effect? Do you have to do something to be affected?
Your neighbors and their funky plant. Are you buying a rollup from them every now and then? Then, yes that affects you, but that is also a decision you made to be affected. 
Because you choose to be affected by giving them money in exchange for twisted basil, then what your neighbors do in their garden is none of your business.
Some things are tangible and you can choose to participate in some and you are forced to participate in others. If you get to choose, it is none of your business because you can walk away. If you are forced, then it is absolutely your business.
Taxes. Depends on the tax. Many communities have a hotel-motel tax that is higher than the local sales tax. Don't like the tax? Don't stay in a motel or a hotel. Gas tax? Do use a petroleum product-consuming vehicle. Diesel engines can run off used cooking oil. You can also walk. 
Income tax? You pay a tax simply because you have to work to provide for yourself. That's your business.
If you have a choice on whether or not to pay the tax, that tax levy is none of your business.
Standing on a street corner telling people they are going to whatever version of perdition may exist. Does this affect you? Possibly. It certainly can be annoying. But annoyance cannot be laid down and calculated. So, it is none of your business.
If the person is getting in your way, different matter. If the person is being so loud you cannot be heard over them, different matter. Both of these can be slapped down on the sidewalk, compared and proven in a tangible manner.
You volunteered to be affected. This is not the same as being affected against your will.


Lots of things are intangible. I'm racking my brain here and I cannot think of a single intangible thing that is your business.
Neighbor getting an abortion. How does this affect you? Do not hand me the claptrap that it is immoral. Morality cannot be placed on a yardstick and marked off incrementally. Do not tell me it is against God's law. God's law is not meant to be forced on people. Jesus did not demand. He requested. He certainly never demanded of government.
You getting an abortion? Absolutely 100 percent your business.
Things that:
Are annoying
Are disgusting
Are revolting
Are weird
Are offensive
are none of your business.
A person carrying a pistol in his pocket as he walks down the street? None of your business.
Two or more adults getting married to each other? None of your business.
Some guy going out and killing a lion in Africa? Unless you owned the lion, none of your business.
Your hurt feelings are your business and yours alone. Quit trying to make your inability to cope everyone else's problem.


If you are looking for the line on whether or not it is your business, I have given you the answer already. But to re-explain, does it:
• Come out of your wallet? If yes, it is your business. If no, none of your business.
• Does it have a physical impact on you? Yes? Your business. No? Not your business.


Lemme rip you an example from the headlines.
Transgender folks in the military. Are you serving alongside these people? No? Then none of your business. TG person wanting to get a sex change operation on the military's medical plan? Your business if you pay taxes that go toward the military budget. TG person wanting to pay for the sex change and take unpaid time off to recover? None of your business unless you are that person's commanding officer or you serve with that person.


So what do I think about all these things I've listed and more? You have my opinion.
If it takes money from my wallet against my will, it is my business. If it creates a physical impact to me, it is my business.
Just because I like or do not like something does not make it my business.
I detest dill and anything that has dill in it. Therefore, I do not eat food with dill in it. I do not try to stop other people from eating dill-infused products.
I have cut sugar from my diet. I read labels on food. If it has sugar, I do not buy or eat it. I do not try to ban sugar.
Don't try to tell me what to do, unless I am affecting you, and I won't tell you what to do unless you are affecting me.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

The violence in the system

Oooo! I managed to get a video clip in the blog. Maybe.

Anyway, this one is sparked by a FB conversation. I am not providing you the link to that discussion 'cause it is set friends only. Ergo, you couldn't see it. The discussion was over government-provided one-payer, universal health care.

And on that topic, can anyone tell me why John McCain did not go to the VA for treatment?


The point I finally made is - Might makes right. Fair warning, I talk about government-owned guns a lot in this piece, guns aimed at you, me and the guy trying to look into your windows with his binoculars. I'm even gonna prove it.

Also, I may be wrong in what I say below. If I am, please show me. Correct my mistakes. Prove where I went wrong. If you do, I guarantee I will change my view.


As Muricans, we have the 5-person-ordered right to either purchase health care or go to jail.

Yup. Go to jail.

You say no?

"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," the decision said.

Hey. Don't take my word for it. Here's the entire decision -

It is, according to 5 people, a tax. It is a legal federal tax. Pay it. If you don't pay up you can be arrested. You can go to jail.


Al Capone, one of the greatest REAL gangsters of all time, was arrested and sent to jail not for the crimes he was most famous for, but for not paying federal taxes.


If you have a job and your employer does not offer health insurance, you have to get it yourself or be found in violation of federal tax law. Never mind if you can't afford it. If you can't afford it and do not get it, you are punished for that.

Muricans are forced to buy something from a private company or go to jail.


Those who support OBAMAcare (I use that term because it makes some people mad), generally also support a vast array of government-supplied services.

Full stop. I like government-supplied services. Some of them. I like the ambulance service where I live. I like the fire department. I like the law enforcement agencies. I appreciate the prisons that keep some people off the street. I think prisons should do more to be self-supporting.

Re-engage that transmission and let's resume moving.

Those who support OBAMAcare et al are big on compassion, empathy and the hand of Big Brother reaching toward people.

Depending on how and where you stand that hand is:

• A handout

• A hand up

• A fist to the face

No matter where you stand or how you stand, that fist to the face is for everyone, even those participating in the up and out hands. Because in order to give you anything, government first has to take it away.

It does this by way of a gun. I explain below.

The irony of this is, if we refuse to pay, government then converts us to a massive burden on the taxpayers by stripping us of our rights and property, including our right to vote.

And you thought poll taxes were illegal!


Furthermore, we are forced to support the handout and the hand up, else the fist in the face becomes far more serious. As holding a gun with the barrel shoved up a nostril serious.

Don't like Wikipedia? Ok.

And then straight from the gunslingers -

Ever been on an IRS raid? I have. I even have the pictures, some of which I published in the newspaper I run, of IRS agents in body armor with firearms standing outside the home they were raiding.


Those who argue for government intervention services like to use words like "kindness and compassion," "moral," "ethical" and other high-falutin' words that speak to the nobility of self-sacrifice and helping those in less fortunate situations.

Except they are only looking at one side of that very tangible coin. They completely ignore and most refuse to admit the coin has an obverse.

Ah hell. Might as well spit it out. I am not insulting anyone. I am stating a fact which can be proven empirically. I will even prove it.

These people are delusional, as I prove above and below. Or, hypocrites. Take your pick. Use both.

There is nothing kind... There is nothing compassionate... There is no empathy... It is not "self-sacrifice" to go to a man and take what he owns at gunpoint so it can be given to another.


This reasoning is using violence to enforce a moral code. Period.

These same people who decry the efforts to impose a different moral code - think same-gender marriage - insist it is both right and just to enforce their moral code with violence.

How is it ethical and moral to use violence to enforce one person's moral code and not another? What makes your code of ethics and morals superior to mine?

The only difference between a robber/burglar/murderer and the government is degree. Period.

When the trigger is pulled, the machine gun does not give a spent primer who is on the receiving end.


It is, according to the "kind and compassionate" crowd, a matter of charity.

When has charity even been found at the muzzle of a gun?

Charity is doing because you want to. Not because you are forced to.

Those who demand you give and support the use of force to do this often point to the Bible, whether they believe or not. They say Jesus said we are to support the less fortunate.

Yes, we are, according to the Bible. Jesus' instructions are to individuals, not the government. Nowhere does He say it is government's job. No. It is the responsibility of individuals. And, it is a choice individuals get to make.

The difference is the "kind and compassionate" crowd is willing to use force to make you help people. The Good Samaritan is no longer a volunteer but is carrying the pack of the Roman soldier because if he does not, he goes to jail.

This is horrific? Yup. Is this deplorable? Yup. Is it illegal? Nope. The teens cannot be forced to sacrifice what they have to save another. Except, as noted above and below, they certainly can. It is just a matter of degree.

NB: Since the incident, authorities have charged the teens with failure to report a death. That's like the traffic offense "traveling too fast for conditions." In other words, we believe what you did should be illegal, but it is not, so we're going to come up with something else, make that illegal and charge you with that.


How does ruining someone square with being kind and compassionate? How is it kind and compassionate to throw a person out of his home because he could literally not afford to pay taxes?

What is kind and compassionate about throwing a person in jail for not paying taxes?

How is it kind and compassionate to take what a person has and throw them in jail because they cannot afford to buy health insurance? How this can be squared with the ethical and moral imperatives of "kindness and compassion" those who push this kind of legislation insist on.

"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," the decision said.


Those who argue for this government intervention into people's lives to "improve them" often fall back on the argument: It is the will of the people.

It ain't.

Aaight, so 60 percent of the eligible voters marked their X in the last election.

40 percent never voted. That leaves 60 percent left. Those votes were split. Someone with better math skills than me will have to figure the numbers. Looks like to me, the best a president (pick one, any president) did was maybe 40 percent of the eligible voters.

40 percent ain't the will of anybody except that 40 percent andnot even a unaimous will. Your elected reps speak for you. Do you support them? Binary decision. Either they do or they don't. You don't get to pick which decisions you support and which you reject. This is all or nothing because that is way our election system works. The person who takes office is not an amalgam, not a composite. The person in office is going to do exactly what he wants, regardless of your wishes.

It is all or nothing and that's your only choice. Either you support everything your elected rep does, or he does not truly speak for you.

Very very very few people running for office get a clear majority. My rep in the US House ran unopposed. He didn't even manage to get 50 percent of the total eligible votes.

That ain't the will of the people.


So let's examine this "majority rule" thing anyway, this idea that so many of the "kind and compassion" crowd talk about.

Majority rule suits them when it goes their way. When it doesn't, "Light the pitchforks, sharpen the torches and call the ACLU cause we're gonna make some lawyers rich!"

If the majority says "This is how it should be" how is it ethical and fair for the minority to say "No, it cannot be that way" and then they get their way? Careful with that sword Damocles!

They (and you, truth be told) do not want majority rule. You want your opinion and ideas to be the law of the land. Hey! Don't look at me that way. I feel the exact same way. The difference is, I'm only willing to resort to violence in defense. The K&C crowd goes on offense with violence.

Here's another hypocrisy - same gender marriage. So many people demand two consenting adults be allowed to decide how to live their lives. Excellent! But these same people have no problem in not even turning around to dictate how those two people must live their lives and expend their resources.

I'm all about "do not harm anyone." The K&C crowd is all about "We're going to harm you to help someone else."

Hypocrite much?


When groups don't get their way in the ballot box or through legislation, they head to a one-human decision maker - a judge. Eventually, some of these second vacation homes for lawyers reach the US Supreme Court where five people get to decide for the rest of the 300 million people in this nation.

Five people who are not elected. Five people appointed for life or until they decide to retire. They decide and they don't care what you want or think.

Remember OBAMAcare? We were repeatedly told, "It is not a tax."

"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," the decision said.

Praise the Supreme Court and pass the ammunition, got some people to ruin because they can't afford to buy something from a private company like we said they have to.


What we have here is literally slavery by any other name.

If you can be arrested, deprived "of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" for failure to share what you have, then how is this different from slavery?

Make note: Failure to share. You are not harming anyone. You are merely minding your own business. Someone comes along and takes what you have.

How is this fair?


Those who object to buying health insurance from a private company say that's the problem with OBAMAcare. We need a single-payer system, they say.

We have one. It's called the Veterans Administration. Again, can anyone tell me why John McCain didn't go to the VA?

We also have a single-operator system in so many other places. The Post Office, which used to be awesome but today can be counted on to lose important packages.

These are NOT isolated incidents. Talk to people who bulk mail regularly. Talk to the billing department at any utility.

Lots more examples of single-payer systems inefficiencies out there. For each government efficiency you present, I will present one non-government efficiency and two government inefficiencies.


Supposedly, the system of "checks and balances" is designed to protect the minority against the will of the majority. Those are not my words. Those are the words of a lawyer I personally know who has argued cases before the Supreme Court.

But this system of checks and balances absolutely relies on the support, unwilling or not, of the majority. Don't think so?

As a nation, we've hashed this out with live ammunition, plenty of dead bodies and decades of government intervention. The Civil War, reconstruction and so on, in case you don't get the reference.

But is it really support when the person giving the support is doing it at gunpoint?

Looking for some kindness and compassion. Ain't finding much. Someone help me out.


Quite often when I bring up the ideas of:

• Arresting people for not paying taxes.

• The will of the majority being overruled by the minority.

• How is it kind and compassionate to do all this?

Invectives erupt. Pick your favorite pejorative and it is applied to me and those who think like me.

Or, the subject is changed. A favorite subject change is how those who think like me (please, get professional help if you think like I do) is summed up as "Why won't you agree to help people who need it?"

Please, show me where I said do not help people who need it. Help. I see help as a voluntary action. Help is not showing up at my house with a rock&roll rifle and taking my possessions and putting me in jail.

If your idea of help is taking what someone else has, at the point of a gun, and giving it to someone else, delusional does not begin to describe you.


Ask the K&C crowd how much they do to help the "less fortunate." Direct, hands and wallet-on action. How much? When? Where? I've asked.

"That's why I pay taxes," is the usual response. Very very very few ever make their money follow their mouth. "I pay taxes" is a cop-out anyway.  People who say this distance themselves from the dirty work.

Justify it however necessary.

Let's make this personal. If you are one of the K&C crowd, I ask you, how much do you do? What are you willing to do? Give a few cans of food at Thanksgiving and Christmas to a food drive? Drop a dollar in the bucket? Give those old, stained, torn, stretched and worn out clothes to a thrift shop?

Ain't you just the heart of charity.

You are fully within your rights to ask to what I do. Words are worthless. Come spend a month with me and see for yourself. See for yourself if I walk the same as I talk. Bring some clothes that you can get bloody. Yes. Real hemoglobin. If you are gonna hang with me, you are gonna do as I do.


A few people say "This is the system we have."

Yeah. It is. I am working within the legal framework of that system to change it. So are they. Hopefully, so are you.

And now for a bad joke.

Brunhilda: Did you know bull fighting is the most popular sport in South America?

Clothilda: That's revolting!

Brunhilda: No, that's the second favorite sport.

Unfortunately, the rumblings you now feel may be the precursor to a far more physical change. Domestic terrorists are not killing people because the terrorists had a bad day. They see the killing as the only way to effect the change they want to see.

One man is a terrorist bent on mayhem and destruction. 1 million men are an army determined to enforce the will of the people and bring peace by whatever means necessary.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


A common argument by those supporting OBAMAcare is 1) "it is for the greater good." and 2) They admit "some people will fall through the cracks."


HELL NO in flaming letters tall enough to be read from orbit.

"The greater good" is the universal justification for the most incredible atrocities humans inflict on humans. The Inquisitions tortured people for their greater good.

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good." What was that "wholesome and necessary" stuff? How about protection from ,"the merciless _______ Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. This "wholesome and necessary" stuff led to genocide.

How about Mao Tse Tung? "Over the next few years, Mao Tse-tung instituted sweeping land reform, sometimes through persuasion and other times through coercion, using violence and terror when he deemed it necessary."

Pol Pot. "During that time, about 1.5 million Cambodians out of a total population of 7 to 8 million died of starvation, execution, disease or overwork. Some estimates place the death toll even higher. One detention center, S-21, was so notorious that only seven of the roughly 20,000 people imprisoned there are known to have survived."

Stalin. "Millions of farmers refused to cooperate with Stalin’s orders and were shot or exiled as punishment. The forced collectivization also led to widespread famine across the Soviet Union that killed millions."

Can't happen here? A president killed US citizens without giving them the due process rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Foreign soil you say?

The peace prize winning president took us to war (war is defined as a military attack on a nation) into more countries than anyone else. But it was for the greater good.

Every war fought is done for "the greater good." The exact phrasing varies. The justification is exactly the same.

2) Yep. People fall through the cracks. From time immemorial, the government solution for these people is to ignore where possible, kill where ignoring them does not work and make a great show of trying to do right by these people while making life worse for them.

A terrorist by any other name...


Here's a beef ... no. Here's an entire Montana herd worth of cows I have with this. Let's make this personal.

You, you who call for kindness and compassion and insist on taking what belongs to me to make this happen. You are ... sigh. No help for it.

You are a coward.

The guy who pulls a knife and takes a wallet from someone on the street has far more courage and conviction than you do. He is willing to do the deed himself. He is willing to put his life on the line for what he wants.

You, nah. You hide behind such things as "the law" and the "will of the people" and hire other people to go out with guns to enforce your directives. You stand well-removed from the potential reality of lethal violence and let others do it because you simply don't have the courage to do it yourself. Proof below.


Yeah. You read that right. Call me out. Stand up. HUMAN UP. Do the deed yourself.

Come to my house and YOU collect what you believe I owe society. You do it. Do not depend on the hired employee to do the dirty work of your collections.

Come on.

Figured as much.


A very few of the "kind and compassionate" crowd are willing to admit to the violence inherent in the system. They even admit they do not like it. They are not forthcoming with alternatives. They cannot grasp alternatives, even when the alternatives are actually working right now.

The extremely rare person who is in the "K&C" crowd and admits these outfits do an awesome job will also say, "They don't do enough so we must have government."

And there is the violence inherent in the system. When you go from "should" to "must", then a gun barrel is shoved up someone's nostril. In the case of "government" demanding it, the nation takes the gun and shoves it up the collective nostril of the nation.

Some us a trying to put the gun down. Some are pushing it harder.


What this all comes down to is - Might makes right.

You do not have to agree. Reality is under no obligation to conform itself to your expectations and if the truth hurts, yer living wrong.

Might makes right. If enough people agree, then it becomes the right thing to do. The US Constitution SPECIFICALLY says if enough people agree, it is the right thing to do. Yes it does. Look it up. SCOTUS says the same thing. Yes huhn. Look at the decision on pornography.

What that reasoning does is kill people because they want to be in charge of what they have. Not harming anyone. But they are killed because you say they have to die because they will not surrender what they have or do what you say they have to do.

And again -

As Waylon says,

Makin' their way
The only way they know how
That's just a little bit more
Than the law will allow

I wanna see you make the dead guy understand why he had to be killed for doing nothing more than wanting to run his own life. Explain, so that he understands, that you are sorry he fell through the cracks. Tell him, so he can understand, why it was necessary for him to die so someone else could be helped.

Send me the video of your explanation, please. I'll take a transcript too, but I want to see the reaction of the dead guy.