Billy Shakespeare once said "There is nothing new under the sun." True it is.
I really don't need to post new material every Wednesday; I've posted enough to show you the correct viewpoint
on whatever comes up.
But even if the news is always the same, you like to have a fresh clean newspaper with breakfast every day.
Clicking the "Billy's Blog" button to the left will deliver a fresh old post right to your screen. No matter how old it is,
it will probably be relevant to what's happening today.
Today's Second Amendment Message
What to do until the Blog arrives
The John Galt Society
It can be discouraging to look around at who's running the show these days and wonder "Where have all
the grown-ups gone?"
Take heart. There are still some people who are not drinking the Kool-aid. Here's where to find them. I would
suggest going down this list every day and printing off the most recent articles you haven't read to read over
Michelle Malkin is a feisty conservative bastion. You loved her book "Unhinged" and you can read her columns here. Ann Coulter
Ann posts her new column every Thursday, or you can browse her past columns. George Will
What can you say? It's George Will. Read it.
posts every Friday. Just a good, smart conservative columnist.
If you want someone who gets it just as right, but is easier to read, try
who just posts at random times.
Jonah Goldberg seldom
David Limbaugh carries on the family tradition.
If you have to read the news, I recommend
The Nose on Your Face, news so fake you'd swear it came from the Mainstream Media.
HT to Sid for the link.
Or there's always
The Onion. (For the benefit of you Obama Supporters,
it's a spoof.)
Or just follow the links above and to the right of this section (you can't have read all my archived articles
already). If you have read all my articles (you need to get out more) go to my
I'm Not Falling For It section.
Above all, try to stay calm. Eventually I may post something again.
What the hell kind of country is this where I can only hate a man if he's white? Hank Hill
On This Day in History
Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe
And the blah-blah-blog continues . . .
Refresh to get latest blog entry
I looked it up. Not that I really care, but the wording Hillionaire used was "Don't you someday want to see a woman President of the
United States?" (I can't read those words without hearing her fingernails on a chalkboard voice.)
Actually, what I'd like to see is a real President of the United States. Someday I'd like to see us be through with token Presidents.
You know what's always bothered me? "Not guilty by reason of insanity." That's always driven me crazy.
I thought I could resolve the deal with semantics. Maybe "guilty" involves more than just "He did it." Maybe it takes into account intent or
malice or something. Then I remembered something that happened to me back when I was in college.
One afternoon I ran up to visit my uncle in another town about 45 minutes away. When I got in my car to go home, I couldn't drive it. I don't
remember what the deal was, but I think something was wrong with my brakes. Anyway, I couldn't drive my car, so I borrowed a car from my uncle.
(I can't remember what was wrong with my car, but I remember the car I borrowed was a red Buick Skylark, about a 1969 model.) I drove it back to the dorm, parked it
in the parking lot, and went to bed. The next morning I got up and went to the traffic office and picked up a temporary permit for the car.
When I got back to the dorm I had a ticket on my uncle's car. No problem, I'll go explain to them what happened and they'll make it right.
So I went back to the traffic office with my receipt for the temporary permit and the ticket and explained the situation. They said no problem, we'll just schedule you a court date.
Yeah, they scheduled me a date to make my case in front of a "court" that tried that sort of thing.
I showed up at the appointed day and hour and they assigned me counsel. They really did. Some upperclassman in
pre-law took me out in the hall and listened to my side of the story and said I had a pretty good case. Then we went in before
the "judge," another pre-law student--or maybe even a full-blown illustrious law student.
My counsel plead my case. I seem to remember the problem with my car had been brakes because I remember the guy representing me
('cause I wasn't qualified to tell my story) made a big deal about "You don't want him to operate an unsafe vehicle, do you?"
Then the "judge" pronounced me guilty. What?! But waived the fine because of the circumstances.
I was glad I didn't have to pay the fine, but I wasn't pleased about wasting all my time for something that the clerk in the traffic
office should have been able to take care of. And I was miffed that I hadn't done anything wrong but they had to be sure to say that
I was "guilty."
Guilty. The word itself means responsible, culpable, accountable . . . But from a practical legal standpoint it means "he did it." That's
all you care about. Did the guy do the crime?
Okay. So from a legal standpoint "guilty" meant that I did it. Nothing about acting wrongly, or being irresponsible. I had done the only
thing I could do, but I had in fact done what they accused me of doing.
Therefore, from a practical legal standpoint "Not guilty" means "He didn't do it." Right? If "guilty" doesn't take into account intent
or motive or state of mind or options, "not guilty" should do the same.
Did he do it or not? That's all you care about. Any appendage to that phrase makes no sense at all.
So "Not guilty (he didn't do it) by reason of insanity" makes absolutely no sense at all.
James Holmes, that psycho nutjob spawn of Satan who shot up the Aurora theater, claims he is not guilty. Forget any appendages.
His lawyer said he's not guilty. So, what? He didn't do it? Oh, sure, that was his body and brain in the theater killing people, but it wasn't
him. Some other being that wasn't him inhabited his body.
Just plain stupid. It takes three years of law school to divest you of enough common sense to believe that someone can be not guilty because
they are crazy.
Anyway, that's my take based on my extensive legal experience dealing with a parking ticket in a court run by college students.
I was in Phoenix last year on a runway re-surfacing job at Sky Harbor airport. We went through security to get onto the runway by the executive
terminal. There's a police station in the same complex right there. While we were being processed outside the double gates I was looking at the
bars and concertina wire on the police complex. Something about it was unsettling. I kept trying to put a finger on what it was that bothered me.
It just seemed reminiscent of places I'd been in Mexico and other Latin American countries.
I think I figured it out. It's the idea that the bad guys think they're on even footing with the cops to the extent that those physical barriers
Okay, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting for a second that they not be there. It's just that they represent that I was standing in the divide
between civilized society where law is respected and rules are followed by people who choose to live in peace, and criminals who see the cops as
someone they can conquer.
This becomes particularly apropos in the current climate of riots over perceived police misbehavior. Yes, I said perceived.
I grew up in the 60s. I remember a little bit of watching the events of that era unfold in real time. Then I read about them in the past. As I
watch this crap happen today I and kind of picture how it might be reported in the future, like reading about the Long, Hot Summer Watts riots.
"The riots of 2015 were the result of tensions between law enforcement and . . . " whatever.
Police brutality isn't the defining problem facing the country today. Sure, there are instances where police act illegally. Always have been and
always will be. We deal with them. The cases that the evil forces are taking advantage of to cause disturbance right now do not fall in that
Cops should have indomitable power over criminals. It shouldn't be a fair fight at all. Criminals should be out-gunned and out-smarted and not
stand a chance against the cops.
Is that a scary concept?
It is, which is why the cops answer to a much higher power, too. Us. The power is held by the People and it is granted to those who govern us and
police us. That's how cops can be as powerful and they need to be without being dangerous. They answer to The Law, which is more powerful than the
cops or the criminals. That's the only way it can work.
The bloods and the crips and the whoever Black Nation whatever thugs want a society without cops? Fence off an area and let them have it. Then go
in after they've killed themselves off and use the space for civilized society again.
Sorry. I jotted down a note. I had to post it.
Ancient History, Toons Department
Read Ann Coulter's
column about rape hoaxes. She kind of talks about what I'm always flapping my jaws about, which is that you don't help the cause by spreading
lies. Someone (if he is a complete idiot) might think "But . . . who's side is she on? We have to exaggerate the problem so people take
What you do is the complete opposite. When you quote statistics that are false you make people disregard the problem. And it's a serious problem.
People figure if you have to lie to make it seem like a problem, there must be nothing there.
this great analysis of the Iran deal by Katie Pavlich. She explains that the Iran deal doesn't actually stop them from getting a nuclear bomb. Great negotiating there, Mr. Kerry!
What is there to say that reasonable people don't already know?
This kind of crap is an interesting microcosm of all of the little concepts I'm always flapping my gums about here. It's the rape
hoax--these people don't care one bit about the guy who got his spine broken. Nobody will remember his name in a week. They want to loot and
one excuse is as good as another.
Of course you know that the word "looter" comes from the Latin word meaning "waste of skin."
Speaking of concepts I'm always flapping my gums about here, let's look at this angle on it. The Wild Weasel deal.
The Wild Weasel is an F4 that flies out over enemy territory for the express purpose of getting shot at. See, you don't know where the enemy SAM
sites are until they shoot at you. As soon as they light up to shoot, you've got them.
You see people walking around Baltimore and you can't tell which ones are humans and which ones are wastes of skin. So an event like this is very
clarifying. Look, right there on video. You can see the human-shaped piles of excrement who have no business walking around on our planet.
Then you get the idiots who aren't rioting but who spout nonsense like "Riot is the expression of those with no voice." See, you might think
"Holy crap, uttering those words just disqualified you from ever expressing an opinion again." But I like it. It brings a great deal of clarity.
You could be walking around with your mouth shut and I might think you're just another human being. Then you say that and I know. "Oh. Idiot."
Showing your colors
That ties in to a concept I jotted down a note about so I have to post. Sorry.
I heard a story about a gal who lived out in the boonies where there were no bus lines and she had to walk
some ridiculous distance to get to the bus to go to work. Someone found out about it and said "Omigish we've got to get bus lines out there!"
Sure, let's get bus lines where they make sense if we can. But the fact that there was not a bus line (regardless of whether
that fact was good or bad) gave her a chance to show her colors. Some people can't get off their carcasses to get to work in the
best of circumstances. This gals was able to let her character shine because of that situation.
It's the Hugh Nibley Ancient Law of Liberty deal. If there were a bus she'd be no big deal. Well, she would be but you wouldn't know it.
The fact that she did what it took under those circumstances revealed what great character she had.
The circumstances don't make the man, they reveal him.
Who's side are you on?
I don't give a crap about the looters. Honest to Earnhardt I wouldn't give a crap if every single one of them fell dead this instant.
They are never going to do any good to the planet where I'm trying to raise my kids.
Some people, who would never make it this far into my blog, might think that's a bad position to take. They might think that I don't have
any sympathy for the cause of police brutality and no respect for the guy who got killed.
And they would be as wrong as they could be.
Explain to me again how these . . . uh . . . "people" . . . advance the cause?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Think about it for three milliseconds and you can see that my position actually advances the cause that they're using as an excuse to show
It's like Benjamin Franklin said about wise men leaving you alone in your error.
Look it up.
Don't you want a Mormon President?!!
Do you remember during the 2012 election when Mitt Romney said "Don't you think it's time we had a Mormon president?!"?
Oh . . . wait . . .
Here's the crazy thing: I can understand our side pointing out that the only reason to vote for Hillary is her gender. But she is the one using that as her resume. Sit there for a minute and think about how crazy that is.
The fact that she uses that immediately disqualifies her for two reasons. 1) She's an idiot if she thinks that's a good strategy. 2) The fact that she has to plead for you to vote for her genitals underscores that she has nothing else going on.
You listen to that clip and think "Whatever Republican operative put together that parody clip did a really good job of imitating her voice."
That's the clip that I would put together to underscore the absurdity of Hillary Clinton running for President. But she's already done it.
That leaves us with the less elegant option. Posit a white male with her identical background. Nobody had ever heard of him until his sleazy politician wife rose to prominence. You outline his complete lack of accomplishment and record of failure. List all the scandals he's been involved in, and then ask the kids on the college campuses if they'd vote for him.
To paraphrase Geraldine Ferraro, who worked on Hillary's campaign, "If she were a white male she would not have risen to that position."
Obama the Christian
There's a certain freedom in anonymity. If you are a Rudy Giuliani, you have to consider the consequences of saying "Barack Obama does not love America."
Barack Obama does not love America. But if you are a public figure, it's tricky to say that.
I am not a public figure.
Barack Obama does not love America. Second point. Barack Obama is not a Christian..
See, if I were a public figure, I would have to say something like "There is no way that I can see inside a man's heart. If you want to know (if he's a Christian), ask him." I could say "He says he's a Christian, I think we should take him at his word."
That's a codeword for "he is not a Christian!"
So I won't. I'll just tell you that Obama is not a Christian.
Don't get me wrong. Barack Obama is not a Muslim, either. It's true that he has more sympathy with Muslims that he does Christians, but he is not a Muslim. He is an atheist.
To adhere to any religion would require a devotion to a higher power than himself. Can you honestly imagine Barack Obama recognizing that there might be a higher power than himself?
You know I'm right. But just in case you want to verify it for yourself, listen to the Easter speech where he tries to talk up about how he is a Christian. It sounds like Rosie O'Donnell trying to describe what it's like to go to the gym.
" . . . as a Christian . . . " Obama says. It's like hearing Mike Tyson sharing what he heard at a conference for microbiologist. It's like hearing a man describe what childbirth is like.
He can't keep a straight face. "Where's there's disagreem . . . Ha ha ha hah! Oh, weeee! Hee hee hee hee! Oh, I slay me . . . "
Barack Obama is a Christian. Pfffft. Tell me another one.
But . . . but . . . you have to turn the other cheek!
Whenever people start posturing as experts on my religion, it always seems to fare a lot better for them than it does for me.
It's funny how my Christianity restrains me from opposing their evil.
Okay, I'm a crappy Christian. What you got now?
Do you want to play by those rules? Let's do that.
I'm not going to turn the other cheek, but you have to forgive me 7×70 when I break your jaw for smiting me.
You know the rules. More stuff I jotted down from my notes. This is about the Ferguson deal. Not sure why the verbiage didn't make it into the post back when it was relevant.
The encounter with the police in Baltimore deal was different from the Ferguson deal. The cops there likely did something wrong. The rioting is all a pile of crap in both instances. But the initial deal was completely different.
In Ferguson the press kept reporting that a white cop shot an unarmed black youth. What really happened was that a cop shot a criminal.
Saying a white cop shot a black criminal is as irrelevant as saying an earthling shot an earthling.
Aren't you glad I posted that brilliant verbiage?
Race and Other Hiding Places
You remember "Joe." "Joe" is the completely totally fictitious character I made up, completely out of my imagination without inspiration from or
reference to any real person that I actually worked with daily, just to see if I could come up with crazy liberal ideas that no person
(certainly not someone who I knew and talked to every day and worked with) could ever actually believe. You remember.
The day before the 2008 election "Joe" came into my office. "I don't know," he said. "I just don't know." He seemed like he was anxious or
tormented, kind of like someone waiting outside while his dog is having emergency surgery. "If Barack Obama doesn't win the election I guess
we're still too racist to elect a black President."
So I explained to "Joe" what everyone already knew (everyone, that is, who is not a fictitious illustrative character completely made up out
of my imagination without reference to any real people that I actually know).
First, Obama was going to win. Everyone in the country had known that with a certainty for about three weeks. The polls were very clear on that.
But, to address his concern, the only reason he was going to win was precisely because he was black.
Barack Obama's race is his biggest--possibly his only--asset. (That's not precisely true. He does have charisma and personality).
One. More. Time. If Obama were a white radical idiot with no ability or experience, nobody would ever have heard of him.
His race is wholly responsible for his success. But, and I've mentioned this before, Barack Obama's race is a detriment in one way.
Obama's race is an excuse that prevents him from meeting his potential as a human being.
That's because any failing that he has he will justify as people just being racist. You can't improve if you think you're not doing anything wrong.
See, when people point out I'm an idiot, I don't get to claim they only say that 'cause I'm black. I have to take a look at myself and think
"I wonder if they have a point and there's a modification I can make to improve myself?"
You know my position: Always view criticism of yourself as useful. If the person has a valid point, you have an opportunity to improve.
If you analyze it and he doesn't, you know he's just a schmuckwad, and that's good information to have as well.
So . . . there's that . . .
We've seen this movie before
If Hillary were the husband of a sleazy politician instead of the wife of one, you never would have heard of her.
I'm sorry. I thought you said you wanted a dialog on race.
America is a nation of cowards!
Is that better?
Who is ever going to find out?
I was going to say that I used to work with a psycho. But that would imply that I no longer work with psychos.
But I no longer work with the psycho that I'm about to tell you about.
A particular quirk this particular psycho had was to say things that were verifiably not true, as if the act of saying them would make them true,
or that once he said them, nobody was going to follow up.
But before I tell you that story, I have to tell you this story.
When I was just little, before I even started grade school, my friend was over at our house playing. It was summertime and Mom had made popsicles out
of Kool-Aid in the freezer. She said we could each have one and only one. So I got one and my friend got one and my sister and her friends got one each.
They were good. After we finished them my friend said we should have another. I reminded him of the rule that we only got one. He said "Let's tell your
mom your sister and her friends took ours away."
It was brilliant. I remember being fascinated. Could you do that? Was it possible to form sentences that described situations that were not true? Brilliant!
So we did that and got another popsicle each. Then we got a spanking when Mom spent three seconds checking on our story. I hadn't seen that part coming!
So, back to the psycho I worked with. One time he disappeared for a couple of weeks. Just didn't show up to work. The boss said to clear off his computer
and give it to someone else and give his office to someone else.
Then one day he showed back up. He walked into my office and said "The boss says to get me an office and set me up with a new computer and a cell phone."
I got right on it. I really did. Who am I to argue with the boss? I didn't even check; why should I? No one is going to just say something so outrageous
and so easy to check on unless it's true. It was literally nearly a week before I found out that the boss knew nothing about it. Seriously.
Oddly enough, he stayed working. Very odd, but I was smarter now. One day he came into my office wanting to get something that the boss had specifically
directed me that he was not allowed to have. I told him I wasn't going to give it to him. He said "Well, David said . . . "
Without saying a word I stood up and headed into David's office. He followed me. "Wait. Where are you going? Wait, before you talk to David . . ."
Seriously. I learned the lesson at age five. He was an adult with a Master's Degree in Engineering and he hadn't figured it out.
Okay. You know what I'm talking about.
Josh Earnest et al.
Do these morons not realize that we have video cameras? How in the actual Hell do they think they will get away with the lies they tell us when we have caught them in it time after time after time?
No, really. What are they thinking? I don't get it.