CORRUPT DEMOCRAT SLEDGEHAMMER SLAMS ALABAMA SPECIAL ELECTION

As we write this, various political commentators are (and have been all day) picking apart the election held yesterday in Alabama to fill the Senate seat opened by the departure of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions as he took the post of United States Attorney General.  Republican Roy Moore lost to his opponent Democrat Doug Jones by a razor thin margin. Moore has not conceded and states that he will request a recount.

The Republican primary for this election was won by Judge Roy Moore.  With a Republican poised to give Republicans 52 seats in the Senate, the Democrat smear machine kicked into overdrive. within weeks it was found that Moore in his 30s apparently had a taste for romancing teenagers who were older than Alabama's legal "age of consent" of 16.  Then and under dubious circumstances a woman was found who claimed she had been "sexually assaulted" by Moore when she was 14 years of age. Although the criminal and civil statutes of limitation have since expired, such an act would have been considered a serious felony under Alabama law.

All hell broke loose.

We will not here recount every last detail of this story as we are sure it has been discussed to death. But it has been our position here at the Alexandria Daily Poop that since there had been no outcry for 40 years until Moore looked poised to take a seat in the Senate, this fact alone in our opinion puts this woman's story in grave doubt. Moore's admission of his penchant for teenagers as a 30 year old however gave just enough credence to the story to add fuel to the fire. The Democrat hatchet men went looking for more stories.  

Some of these stories were quite salacious, but most were false involving for instance an incident in a parking lot which parking lot never existed. One woman however claimed Moore had signed her high school yearbook and had written some semi-sleazy comment there. When Moore denied having done this and when Republicans began demanding an independent handwriting analysis, famous political ambulance chaser and professional public spectacle Gloria Alred inserted herself into the case.

Despite Alred's interference, the woman was forced to admit she had forged Moore's writings beneath his signature. This event in our opinion put the stake in the heart of this smear. But the Democrats found an ally in - of all people - a Republican.

Senator Richard Shelby, concerned about the "child molestor' label that Democrats would hang on every Republican who supported Moore urged Alabamans to write in "a Republican" without naming any one specific one. This quote found its way into ads by Democrat front groups, some purporting to be "concerned Republicans".   When the votes were tallied, the margin of victory closely matched the write-in votes. 

One Senate seat can be of enormous consequence. This election was isolated and this enabled the full force of the Democrat political machine to be concentrated on one state.  Even so, the only reason Roy Moore is not the Senator-Elect today is because the Democrats got the other Republican senator scrambling to avoid a perceived stain on the reputation of the Party. 

We believe that to avoid Senate elections which become public circuses, the 17th Amendment to our Constitution ought to be repealed and Senators rather be elected as prescribed originally: by the State legislatures, who would had this been in effect yesterday been able to recall an errant Senator at will. Smear campaigns would be less effective and the general public would have more incentive to take an interest in their State legislatures. It is damn time that it be made much more difficult for people from out of state to whip the residents of a state into a frenzy in order to get a Senator more to the liking of any one national group into office..

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS PART II: WHY FIREARMS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM

The blithering from the Statist Left in the wake of the Connecticut massacre continues on and on, with the same tired old baloney rehashed as the lefties fan the embers of emotion shamelessly. This is, after all, how the Left makes every argument they try: by getting people to act on their feelings instead of looking at facts with a level head (see the post "Liberal SIN" for more on this).

 

The Left does not hate guns. They hate guns in the hands of anyone who opposes them, including United States armed forces when the Commander in Chief is a Republican. (When the CinC is Barack Hussein Obama, they even love the hell out of drones doing missile assassinations of American Citizens without due process of law.)

 

The Left is well aware of the truth of the saying of Mao Tse-Tung: "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun". (This is possibly the only thing the late Chairman Mao and I would agree on.) Thus, firearms in the hands of those who oppose the Left must be tightly controlled (or ideally eliminated altogether). Chairman Mao's saying was however hardly an original thought. The Founders of this Republic had exactly that in mind when they put the Second Amendment into the Constitution. The power (and therefore the guns and the right to keep and bear them) belong to "the people"; meaning to each individual free citizen.  No wonder the Left hates the thought of a common citizen being able to own firearms and carry them.

 

But the trend for about 35 years has been toward recognizing the right of citizens to keep and bear Arms, and toward loosening the infringements on them that began back in the Depression era. This has been driving the anti-gun Left nuts. Their reaction has been predictable, and time and again they have been shown to be spectacularly wrong.

 

When Virginia joined the growing ranks of states which stipulate that any citizen who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a handgun be issued on request - with the exception of persons convicted within the five years preceeding the request of certain offenses such as disorderly conduct or DWI - a permit to carry a concealed handgun, provided the applicant take and pass an NRA-approved concealed carry training course; the Washington Post op-ed page went absolutely nuts.

 

Rivers of blood running through the streets of Arlington and Alexandria were forecast, especially since those jurisdictions' "three-day waiting periods" and Alexandria's special prohibition against the open carry of a loaded firearm were nullified by the law that was passed.

 

Nothing even remotely like this happened. In fact, Virginia's (already lower-than-much-less-"gun friendly" D.C. and Maryland) crime rate plummeted. Virginia has had a few - notably the "Virginia Tech Massacre" - mass shootings, but these were committed in places which were among the few places allowed under Virginia law to declare themselves "gun-free" zones.

 

As Virginia's crime rate dropped, the city of Washington D.C. experienced a rise in particularly gun crimes. Of course the Post and the politicians were quick to blame the "easy availability of guns in Virginia" for their problems. But this just begs the question of why, if we just across the river are so awash in evil guns, we in the Blessed Commonwealth don't have the problem?

 

Then, the District of Columbia was forced by the Supreme Court's Heller decision to allow (allow??) residents to purchase and keep handguns in their residences, loaded and ready to go. The Washington Post again literally screamed bloody murder. But the result has been a steady decline in the homicide rate. 

 

Meanwhile, Chicago - whose Mayor Daly said a few years ago that he was against loosening that city's gun laws because it would lead to "You got a gun, and I got a gun, let's go out in the street and settle this". Today Chicago has the strictest prohibition on handguns in the country. And last year, 800 people lost arguments settled because the guy who shot them knew his opponent would be unarmed.

 

Also, consider Vermont. In Vermont, you carry your weapon openly, you carry it concealed, you carry it how you like, when you like, and where you like. Ever hear of a mass murder in Vermont? (And by the way, Vermont is also so far to the Left otherwise that - barring the cold and the absence of firearms restrictions - it could be California with maple syrup.)

 

Of course there are people who say that the "more guns = less crime" examples here are a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. This is Latin for (roughly) "It happened after this, therefore this caused it".  The classic example of this fallacy is: "The rooster crowed, the sun arose, therefore the rooster crowing made the sun rise".

 

The "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy can be exposed by the simple device of killing the rooster. When the sun rises in silence, the fallacy is exposed.

 

So you would expect that if some area in a "gun-freindly" place were made "gun-free"; then if nothing bad happened there either; that would mean that other factors unrelated to the presence of firearms in ordinary citizen's hands were responsible for the low occurrence of gun violence. Fair enough.

 

Look to Aurora, Colorado. In Colorado, citizens may carry concealed weapons into almost any venue that does not specifically prohibit them.

 

The maniac who shot up the theater multiplex in Aurora bypassed several other (much more conveniently located) theater complexes which did not prohibit firearms. In those places, the rooster of  firearms in the hands of citizens was crowing, and the sun of safe and peaceful life shone.

 

The place where that rooster was killed and failed to crow was a theater which specifically prohibited its patrons from having weapons on the premises. When that rooster failed to crow, darkness reigned, and people died.

 

The state-controlled media reporters like to respond to this fact with a droning mantra about how if there had been armed citizens in the theater they (choose as may as you like, it's all BS) would have not been able to stop the killer because of his "superior weaponry"/ might have sprayed even more bullets and killed more people/or whatever. But the main usefulness of an armed citizenry in preventing crime (and for that matter, tyranny) is mostly one of deterrence. In Aurora, the killer was deterred three times before he found a place where there was guaranteed to be no opposition to his design.

 

In the case of the tragic massacre in Connecticut, the lamestream media types have been conjuring visions of "teachers in pitched gun battles" with the killer, had they been permitted to have firearms to defend the kids.  The irony is, the killer selected a school full of kiddies for his crime precisely because he knew that there would not be a single armed person there to stop him. Had he known that any adult he encountered just might have a Glock under his or her jacket, he likely would have just stayed home and jerked off.

 

Firearms are not "the problem". In our next post we will identify the problem and posit some possible solutions.    

THE ENEMY WITHIN: THE STATIST LEFT AND THEIR EIGHTY YEAR CAMPAIGN TO DESTROY AMERICA

WE ARE AWARE THAT THE TITLE OF THIS POST IS INFLAMMATORY. THE TRUTH OFTEN IS.

The administration of "president" Barack Hussein Obama is clearly the culmination of 81 years of a continual campaign to turn the United States into a Leftist dictatorship, a one-party state in which everyone is dependent upon a cabal of elitists and all that is not prohibited is mandatory. The great enemy that has threatened Liberty across the globe since the end of World War I is Leftist Statism.

Leftist Statism is a political form that metamorphizes from its larval form of Socialism. Leftist Statism has four main denominations: Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, and its newest guise, American Progressive Liberalism. Fascism and National Socialism were quite compatible with the other two for almost 12 years, and particularly the American Left was quite comfortable with Adolf Hitler right up until he betrayed Josef Stalin and attacked the Soviet Union. The American Left was at the time allied closely with the founding entity of Leftist Statism, Russian Communism; and so from the launch of Operation Barbarossa the Nazis and their Italian allies were therefore no-good-sons-of-bitches. The hostility toward Fascism and National Socialism displayed by Communists and American Progressive Liberals is not based so much on a differing world-view as it is a battle for the leadership of the Statist Left leadership. It is a power struggle within the philosophy.

Any form of Leftist Statism requires fertile soil in the form of an impoverished, fearful, and abject populace. In Russia, that condition had been met in spades at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. In Italy and Germany inept, socialist-style governments drove the populace to discontent.

The United States, however, was (and is) a much tougher nut for the Statist Left to crack. The unique form of government and the barriers between competing powers at the State, Federal, and Local levels and between several branches and houses of government; combined with the staggering of elections and a Constitution separating powers and forbidding certain infringements on certain rights; means that attempts to impose Statist policies are (or were) limited to certain States or regions of the State or the Nation, where before long the disastrous results of Left Statist policies become obvious to the rest of the Nation and eventually to the People of the affected States (and/or get struck down by the court system as un-Constitutional.) Since the Inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, however, the Statist Left has put into action a plan to reduce as much of the populace as possible under dependence upon the State for their well-being in almost every department of individual life. This is what Barry Goldwater called "creeping Socialism". The idea was to insinuate the larval form of Statism into the very fabric of the Nation.

This was first accomplished with the introduction of Social Security, peddled as a Federal form of "retirement insurance". But when Social Security was challenged as being unauthorized by the Constitution, the defense presented by Roosevelt was that the payroll deduction for Social Security was a "tax" and so was authorized by the 16th Amendment. Today, SS has been joined by Medicaid and Medicare and the ultimate "entitlement" Obamacare. The hook has been set with the first three, and the Left is fighting a desperate delaying action so as to make the populace dependent on Obamacare to the extent that repeal of it will be all but impossible.

Making the populace dependent on the largesse of the Federal government was the first facet of the attempt to destroy the Republic and remake it in the image of Statism. The second was the takeover of The Academy; the public institutions of learning. Packing the faculty of major institutions of higher education was a priority, as from these came the people who would become teachers in elementary and secondary schools, where truly impressionable minds could be reached and indoctrinated.

The third leg of the triangle consists of the disparaging and dissolution of the traditional American family centered on a mother, a father, and their children. This attack was opened with the "Women's Liberation" movement, which positively encouraged women to (among other things) eschew the role of home-maker and turn the kids over to (Government-approved) daycare centers and enter the work force. Later, manipulation of the economy would make this a near-necessity. At the same time, "the good of the children" has sufficed at almost every turn as a bogus-yet-compelling justification for almost every incursion of the Federal government into more and more intimate aspects of individual lives.

All of this would be a two-dimensional chimera, but the fourth point transforms it into a three-dimensional threat: The war on "religion"; by which is meant Christianity. Christianity is for example said to be "arrogant" because we who are Christian say that no one gets to Heaven without Jesus. But Islam, which not only also claims to be the only true path to God but also arrogates to itself the authority to subjugate by the sword those who do not agree; is given a pass and indeed the Statist Left seeks to accomodate Islam wherever the opportunity exists. It is no accident that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WWII was made an honorary Gruppenfuhrer (General) in the Nazi SS.

The times we are living in are the times of the Statist Left's final assault on the United States of America. This nation is hated by them precisely because we stand in the way of these lice, who would order our lives and the lives of all who inhabit the planet to their philosophy of a perfect world. Perfect, that is, in their eyes; and God help you if you disagree.