Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen. -George Orwell

Wednesday, January 23, 2013


Four dead Americans murdered in Benghazi?

UPDATE: After I tweeted this earlier today, a tweep who saw it brought this to my attention:

Yep, you can count on this not going away anytime soon! 


Wednesday, January 9, 2013


It ain't liberal if it ain't hypocritical!
There are multiple problems with this story. The behavior of Bank of America is one.  The unhinged anti-gun mania of liberals that leads to this kind of abuse is another.  And, perhaps most annoying of all, the inevitable lack of interest by the Establishment Media.  So what else is new?

You might think that a professional outfit such as Bank of America operated based on stated policy and not caprice. But not according to owner of American Spirit Arms Joe Sirochman.
On his Facebook page, Sirochman tells of his adventures with the banking giant. Like other gun dealers and manufacturers, his business is booming currently - Internet orders are up 500 percent. This caused there to be an unusual number of deposits made to his business' BoA account via his website's E-commerce system, triggering an account freeze. This may not seem strange, as banks have security systems that temporarily freeze accounts when detecting anomalous activity. This happened to me once after using my debit card to make an unusual series of purchases; the freeze was irritating, but nothing a few minutes on the phone didn't remedy. But this is where Sirochman's story takes a bizarre turn. He writes (edited for style):
After countless hours on the phone with Bank of America, I finally got a manager in the right department who told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for further review. Her exact words were:
"We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet."
Ask yourself this question: What if the social issue in question was abortion, rather than the Second Amendment?  What if a high-profile company like Bank of America behaved this way because it didn't think that its customers should be involved in promoting abortions?  Do you think the Establishment Media would get involved then? 

It's not hard to imagine headlines about fanatics at Bank of America punishing women because they are "pro-choice."  Or perhaps even more to the point, giving a doctor or clinic that performs abortions a hard time because of the work they do.  The media would be all over it and shrieking at the very idea that such discrimination was being applied to an otherwise good customer or client.   

Even though the gun dealer in question is not doing anything illegal or immoral, somebody at Bank of America feels free to harass him.  And why? Because it probably didn't even occur to the person or persons responsible for this discrimination that what they are doing is hypocritical and wrong.  Because who is going to expose them for what they are?  The media? Not likely.

And the media will remain silent because guns are a "Republican" thing for them and, therefore, not worth the effort of honest journalism.  The Establishment Media is not interested in being an independent Fourth Estate any longer.  It is merely a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and is highly selective - and hypocritical - in deciding what deserves coverage and what doesn't.

Saturday, January 5, 2013


It's come to this: 
Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.

Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News' decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger. 

"They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday.
This is no small matter.  Being locked up is no barrier for a gang member who can have his fellow bangers on the outside use the map to find the guard and his family where they live.  That's women and children.  By its irresponsible actions, the Journal News has literally placed more children in harm's way.  How on earth is this justified? Except, apparently, that as members of families that own guns they no longer deserve any protection from society.  That's the sick, twisted perspective of anti-gun fanatics like the ones running things at the Journal News.

Another important point that has been made over the past week is that in addition to outing legal gun owners to those who might wish them harm, this grotesque publicity stunt has left those homes in which there are no guns vulnerable to burglars and home invaders.  By highlighting where the guns are located, the newspaper has also highlighted where there are NO guns and, guess what?  That's priceless information for criminals looking for the softest targets.  Don't believe it?  Well, read what a career criminal has to say about it:
“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold - why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?

"What they did was insanity," added Shaw, author of "License to Steal," a book about his criminal career.
Consequently, people who were not on the list because they haven't owned guns previously now feel obliged to buy a gun in order to protect their families:
Aron Wieder (D-Spring Valley) called the publication of the list "irresponsible journalism" and said he now fears for his safety because the map broadcast that he does not have a gun license. At the news conference Friday morning, he handed a $150 certified check and a completed pistol permit application to Rockland County Clerk Paul Piperato.

"I never owned a gun but now I have no choice," Wieder said. "I have been exposed as someone that has no gun. And I'll do anything, anything to protect my family."
And in the face of a torrent of justifiable outrage, the fanatics at the Journal News not only said that they would not take down the current list, but would seek to add to it.

This is a long way from being over.  Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Here's an example of why criminals are so pleased with what the Journal News has done.  The criminal in this story wishes he'd known that there was a gun in the house!  Georgia Mother Shoots Home Intruder Five Times After Being Cornered in Attic.

Friday, January 4, 2013


The outrageous publicity stunt and promotional strategy perpetrated by the Westchester, NY, Journal News last week is still in the news.  As everybody now knows, the newspaper's editorial board decided to use FOIA to publish the names and addresses of all legal gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties.
The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so. 
Worse than that, the newspaper provided an interactive map pinpointing the locations. This meant that not only are the addresses available but anybody online can easily use the map to take a look at the house in question.  

In their misguided and mean-spirited rush to punish legal gun owners by treating them like registered sex offenders the people at the Journal News apparently failed to realize that many of these people have good reason to both own guns and maintain some privacy concerning their whereabouts.  That would include members of law enforcement and judges as well as women and children who are hiding from violent ex-husbands or boyfriends who might want to track them down and hurt or even kill them.

I'd like to think that these people at the Journal News simply failed to realize the consequences of their rash act.  However, the sad reality is that these fanatics view legal gun owners as the enemy and, therefore, are not deserving of consideration, even if it means exposing them to life-threatening situations.  
The American Left, which thoroughly dominates the mainstream media, no longer believes, if it ever did, in the concept of reasonable and respectable people disagreeing in good faith on core issues; it increasingly demonstrates that it believes all opposition to its own outlook and policies must never be tolerated, but only eradicated. Its opposition is never to be engaged on the level of ideas, but only ridiculed and held up as evil. The Left has done nothing but demonize its opposition for years.
Here is a transcript of the conversation a concerned blogger had with somebody at the newspaper...   

From Big Fur Hat of iOwnTheWorld:

I just got off the phone with a guy who picked up the Breaking News tip line at the Urinal News- er… Journal News. That number is 914.694.5077

Here are some notes from our conversation:

Big Fur Hat (BFH): Does the Journal News stand by their decision to publish the names and addresses of gun permit owners?

Journal News (JN): There’s been no change.

BFH: What was the motive of publishing this map?

JN: The motive was clearly stated at the time of publication

BFH: Can you spell it out for me what the motive was?

JN:  It was spelled out when we published it.

BFH: I didn’t see that. I saw the map.

JN: If you haven’t seen it then why are you calling?

BFH: For your…

JN: What does it have to do with you if you haven’t seen it and you’re not affected by it?

BFH: No, no no, I haven’t seen what you say is the reason you published the map. I’ve seen the map. I haven’t seen your stated reason. I don’t know where to go to read that. Why can’t you just state the reason now?

JN: One of the roles of journalists is to report publicly available information on timely issues, even if it is unpopular. We knew providing the information in the database in the context of our story would be controversial, but we thought that sharing the information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.

BFH: What is the import of that?

JN: We felt that it was important for people to know about that.

BFH: Know about what?

...long hesitation...

JN: The information that was imparted.

BFH: Well, what are people supposed to do with that information?

JN: It’s up to them.

BFH: So you’re putting that information out there as a public service and you don’t care what people do with that information?

JN: I have no comment and I’m not going to let you bait me…

BFH: no no no… wait, one last thing. I’ve made some phone calls to some of the people on the map, and 30% of the people were ex-detectives, judges and attorneys. (Full disclosure – I called 3 people and one was an ex-detective who was very upset. One other person I called did his own research and uncovered several attorneys, judges and members of law enforcement.) Do you care that you put this information out about people who spent a lifetime keeping certain information non-public?

JN: The information is legally available and public.

BFH: Ya, but what is legally available and what is right morally and ethically are two different things. Do you have any opinion on that?

JN: My opinion is not an issue here.

BFH: Is the Journal news going to continue with this style sheet, publishing FOIA information, are you going to put out anything other than gun permits, perhaps people who are HIV positive? That would be a “public service.”

JN: I have no idea..

BFH: Would that be a public service?

JN:... I wouldn’t reveal our plans to you even if I did know.

BFH: Would that serve the public?

...long hesitation...

JN: I have no comment.

BFH: What about people who are gay? Would that serve the public?

...long hesitation...

JN: You know the answer to that.

BFH: No I don’t. I’m asking you, the Journal News is educating me.

JN: I have no comment for you. If you have a (unintelligible) to answer I’d be happy to answer it, otherwise I will say goodbye to you and have a good day. (His voice sounded like he wanted me to die a thousand deaths.)

BFH: hmmm… wow

JN: (click)

Thursday, January 3, 2013


When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they’re doing so for purely selfish reasons. It’s the human equivalent of a puppy dog’s face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler, than saying something like, “please lower my taxes” Greg Gutfeld
From John Hawkins:

1) Most liberals are hateful people. Who are the most hateful people you can think of off the top of your head? If you're not a liberal, the first people that probably come to mind are the God hates f@gs lunatics from Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church. What type of human beings would do sick protests at funerals? Well, liberals have their own version of this. Whenever a prominent conservative gets sick or dies, there's an orgy of celebratory hatred on the Left. It happened with Reagan, Breitbart and every other big name conservative in between.

Bill Maher, Barney Frank, Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Amanda Marcotte, Ed Schultz, Dan Savage, Ted Rall, Al Sharpton, etc., etc. are some of the most hate-filled people you'll ever run into outside of a maximum security prison, but liberals consider it to be okay because their hate is aimed at conservatives, who are acceptable targets. This is why liberals felt perfectly comfortable attacking Sarah Palin's children, harassing Michelle Malkin's family until they had to move, and publicly posting the addresses of ordinary citizens who opposed Prop 8. They're hate-filled people who are constantly accusing EVERYONE ELSE of behaving the way they do on a daily basis. So, if you want to find the most hate-filled people in America, look for a liberal lecturing other people about how important it is not to hate people and you're practically guaranteed to be looking at a hate-filled person.

2) Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred. It's amazing how much we still hear about Nazis and the KKK, even though they're both marginalized, nearly powerless groups of misfits and losers. On the other hand, how marginalized are the hatemongers on the Left? MEChA is allowed in public schools, Al Sharpton is on TV every night, and Democratic congressmen are still willing to appear on stage with Louis Farrakhan.

But that's no surprise because promoting racial strife at every opportunity is an actual Democratic campaign strategy. Almost the entire message of the Democratic Party to large swathes of the electorate is, "Everybody who doesn't look like you hates you except us." There are plenty of liberals who have jobs almost solely because they're willing to incessantly shout "racism" to help the Democratic Party. We even have groups of professional grievance mongers like CAIR, La Raza, and the New Black Panther Party that work incessantly to stir up race hatred because it's good for fund raising and gives them a reason to justify their existence. If the Nazi Party or the KKK had tried to come up with a system to keep people hating each other based on skin color, they couldn't have ever created anything as effective as the one liberals have now implemented.

3) Most liberals are less moral than other people. You won't see liberals being accused of being hypocritical if it turns out that they don't have "good family values," commit adultery, or don't live up to their Christian beliefs because they don't really buy into any of those things. Liberals incessantly attack the church and they seldom talk about morals because if they have no morals, then no one can ever accuse them of being hypocrites. This is also why liberals feel so comfortable lying about conservatives. The standard with liberal blogs, papers, and cable news outlets isn't accuracy; it is doing damage to conservatives. It's considered perfectly acceptable amongst liberals to lie about conservatives, Christians, and anybody else who gets in the way of liberalism. The problem for liberals is that you can't smear and mock people for believing in morals, traditions, and family values while simultaneously credibly claiming to have them yourself.

4) Most liberals don't care if the policies they advocate work or not. This may seem like an alien concept to a lot of people, but liberals don't push policies based on whether they improve people's lives or not. To the contrary, liberals support policies that make them feel good about themselves or alternately, help cement liberals in power. This is why liberals don't care whether tax revenues go up after a tax cut, whether high taxes on the rich kill jobs, or how high your gas prices go because they don't want to drill. To liberals, a policy that kills millions but makes them feel good about themselves is a win, not a loss. See the Left's cut- off of military aid to South Vietnam for one example of that and their opposition to the use of DDT, which is needlessly killing 1.5 million people a year in Africa. Conservatives would be happy to reverse that ban, but it makes liberals falsely feel like they're good environmentalists to keep it in place; so all those poor people in Africa have to die for no reason other than to prop up the fragile self esteem of pampered left-wingers here in the United States.

5) Most liberals are extremely intolerant. Liberals talk incessantly about tolerance and yet they lash out whenever anyone dares to present a view that doesn't toe the liberal line. Conservative college speakers usually need extra security because budding liberal fascists often try to shout them down or assault them. Liberals desperately try to censor talk radio, which they don't even listen to, because they can't stand the idea that someone else is allowed to have a contrary opinion. Why do you think liberals get so upset about a conservative-leaning news station like Fox News, when ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN all lean to the left? It's because liberals don't think people should be allowed to have an opinion that differs from their own.

Amazingly, if you listen to liberals, you'll find that they don't even understand what tolerance is in the first place. Actual tolerance means that you realize people have different practices and views and even if you don't agree, you understand that they should have the ability to live as they choose, just as you should have the leeway to live as you choose. On the other hand, liberals have a fascistic view of tolerance, which really isn't surprising since liberalism and fascism are merely different branches of the same tree. To liberals, tolerance is, by definition, whatever their opinion happens to be. So, to be tolerant, you have to agree with them. People who don't even know what tolerance is shouldn't be lecturing everyone else on the subject.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013


I strongly encourage all Conservatives to set aside an hour and watch this video.  If you watch it once, I guarantee you'll watch it several times because Whittle really does a wonderful job conveying the message and explaining what it all means.  He also lays out some blueprints for what we have to do next to start turning things around.  He asks the toughest questions and provides answers and attitude that will stay with you. Please watch it in its entirety. I promise you it will be time well spent AND IT WILL MOTIVATE YOU!