Scum & Villains

Given the state concerned, one has to wonder what John and Sam Adams (not to mention John Hancock) would have thought of this piece of theft and anti-Constitutional skulduggery (brought to my attention by Reader Mike L., who is inexplicably resident* in said state):

A Beacon Hill committee met on Monday to discuss a proposed excise tax on firearms and ammunition, aimed at enhancing public safety in Massachusetts.

The proposed bill, introduced by western Massachusetts Representative Mindy Domb, seeks to increase the excise tax on firearms and ammunition, with the revenue directed to a Public Health and Safety Fund. This fund would support community-based research, public health interventions, and services for gun violence survivors and victims’ families.

“Tragic gun deaths and catastrophic gun injuries cost the great state of Massachusetts an astounding 3.5 billion dollars each year, of which 85.4 million dollars is paid by taxpayers,” said a testifier, Matthew Nugent, during the hearing.

The proposed excise tax is set at 4.75% of the wholesale value of each firearm and individual round of ammunition. If implemented, Massachusetts would join states like California and Colorado in using gun tax revenue for violence prevention and support services.

Now I’m not proposing — what does the Left call it?  oh yeah — direct action (a.k.a. violence) should be brought to bear against the people who are supporting this un-Constitutional and illegal theft.

All I’m saying is that Sam Adams (he — and  brother  cousin John both — of Sons of Liberty fame) would by now be firing up the tar barrels and plucking a few geese, and yea even preparing a few firebrands to be tossed into some houses.  Because if they were prepared to go all fire, tar & feathers on people over a tax on paper, imagine how they’d feel about a tax on guns.

But this is modern-day Massachusetts, not the pre-Revolutionary state where the whole thing started over taxes.

More’s the pity.


*Mike, my longtime Friend & Reader:  GTFO, willya?

Heroism As Cause For Expulsion

If this one doesn’t make your blood boil, we can’t be friends.

An 11-year-old boy in Michigan did something most adults would hesitate to do. He saw a classmate pull out a loaded gun in a school bathroom, and instead of freezing in fear, he lunged, disarmed the student, and prevented what could have been another tragic headline.

Nazzo fast, Guido.

The Lansing School District announced that the child will face “disciplinary action” for his bravery. Why? Because the district’s beloved “zero tolerance” policy doesn’t distinguish between a kid wielding a gun and a kid taking it away to save lives. Bureaucrats love to tell us they’re “keeping schools safe.” But in reality, they’ve created a system where blind adherence to rules matters more than actual safety.

And the philosophy behind this bastardy is quite simple:

The message to this boy, and to every other student paying attention, is clear: Don’t be brave, don’t take risks, don’t step in to help. Just sit down, stay quiet, and hope someone else will save you. That’s the lesson public schools are drilling into kids: obedience over courage, paperwork over principle.

My personal opinion is that the school administration — every single member who voted for this expulsion — should be stripped naked and flogged in the school gym, in front of the entire school.

I don’t just want pain, I want humiliation for these bastards as punishment for trying to turn our kids into quivering cowards — into Europeans, if you will — and even worse, punishing heroism instead of rewarding it.

Feel free to suggest your own ideas in Comments.  Be as creative as you want.

No Such Thing, Blondie

Nobody but nobody can step on their own dick quicker than a Republican.  In this particular instance, metaphorically speaking, it was Attorney-General Pam Bondi who came out with this bullshit:

Speaking with the Trump administration Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller’s wife, Katie Miller, yesterday, Attorney General Pam Bondi decried “hate speech” and vowed to “target anyone with hate speech.”

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech,” Bondi explained.

To quote the memorable line from the late Robert Redford’s movie The Sting:  “Try not to live up to all my expectations of you.”

One more time, with feeling:  There’s no such thing as “hate speech” — from a legal perspective.

In other words, I may say that Rep. Ilhan Omar (Communist-MN) is a foul pustule who should be whipped in the public square once per week — which I admit frankly is hateful speech, because I loathe the African-born bitch with a passion.  But if some federal badgeholder tries to arrest me for saying that, there will be gunfire.  Because what I said about the dreadful Omar is my opinion, and therefore protected by the First Amendment.

Now, if I say, “I’m going to murder that bitch Omar with my home-made bazooka next Tuesday” — yeah, that’s a threat and you’re not only welcome to come after me, you have to do so.

But “hate speech”?  Fuck that for a bowl of cherries.

Bloody hell, it just goes to show that no matter which party’s wearing the high-heeled jackboots, the outcome is always the same:  our rights get trampled.


Update:  I see that AG Blondie has been trying to “clarify” her statement.  Not buying it.  Fuck off, Pam.  Go after the real criminals — and if you don’t know who they are after all this time, GTFO and let someone better to come in and do your job.

Easy Fix

So there’s this little back-and-forth between various IRS employees:

A deep state Internal Revenue Service (IRS) official has been attacking President Donald Trump’s agenda after one of her colleagues was ousted for allegedly targeting conservatives.

IRS Appeals Officer Niki Wilkinson commented on a LinkedIn post and claimed Republicans were “fear mongering” when it came to the work of the IRS official whom the Daily Caller on Wednesday identified as Holly Paz.

“Wilkinson made the remarks in a comment on conservative activist Chuck Flint’s post about Holly Paz, a former IRS official who served as a deputy to Lois Lerner. Lerner was head of the IRS division responsible for the Tea Party targeting scandal during the Obama administration,” the report said.

Flint is the president of the Alliance for IRS Accountability. He was quoted in his post as saying, “Paz’s Biden-era pass-through unit is now bludgeoning conservative businesses with fines and must be disbanded. Commissioner Long is flexing his muscles on the IRS Deep State and sending a signal to rogue bureaucrats by placing Paz on leave.”

In response, Wilkinson said, “Such a farce! Interesting how Senators outside the IRS are fear mongering and falsely describing the work. They have no idea what Examiners found in those audits, which in fact exposed fraud or noncompliance in the passthrough area as for years the IRS didn’t effectively audit them — there was a history of ‘no changes’ because Examiners didn’t have the skill or the time to do the work. And Paz was not diving charge of this unit, but rather it was one of many under her umbrella as the LB&I Comm’r.”

Yeah, whatever.  As there are all these claims and counter-claims refuting each other, it’s impossible to divine the truth from the smoke.

I have a modest (Alexandrine) suggestion for a solution:  close down the fucking IRS altogether and fire all IRS employees, to be replaced at some later stage by a minuscule group of newcomers (previous employment at the IRS being an immediate disqualifier).

I don’t actually care what replaces it — 5% national sales tax, [your suggestion here] — but just get rid of these meddling, intrusive bureaucrats who seem to think they own your income when in fact it’s your money and not theirs to control.

Burn down the whole village, not to save it but to save us.

Why, Indeed?

When it comes to disemboweling a government agency, it’s really hard to beat Matt Taibbi’s take on the CIA:

Before Trump was even a Republican nominee, a CIA Director relayed “concerns” to the FBI that “served as the basis” for years of grueling investigation that would paralyze his presidency; after his election, as we’ve learned all summer, CIA then cooked up a bogus intelligence report saying Trump won with Russian help; CIA leaked its balls off to papers like the New York Times about how Moscow worked to “install” Trump in the White House; CIA helped topple Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn by telling every reporter on earth he was a “clown” who said mean things about the CIA and secretly conspired with Russia; CIA warned foreign countries not to share intelligence with Trump because Russia held “leverages of pressure” on him; CIA stuck fictional campaign research about “compromising personal and financial information” Russia had in a report that was leaked to CNN in less time than it takes for fleas to mate; CIA accused Trump of treason; CIA got Trump impeached; CIA leaked stories that Trump let Russians kill Americans for sport; CIA banded together to call a true Hunter Biden story a Russian influence operation; CIA spent the last half-century overturning foreign governments and in this one is trying do the same at home, in such blatant violation of its charter that 77 million people last year voted to have it shot like a lame horse… But sure, yes, let’s make sure the CIA is at the President’s side when we’re trying to negotiate a peace settlement. What could go wrong?

Yeah, those days of relying on the “experts” in government agencies — any of them — are as gone as last year’s flatulence.

Never Justified

I see that someone in the Golden Shower State has come to their senses:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate Thursday overturning California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

The Second Amendment Foundation noted the “one-gun-a-month” restriction allows law-abiding citizens to purchase only one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period.

Here’s the thing about this ridiculous law.

Quite apart from its prima facie  Constitutional illegality, the 30-day restriction just makes absolutely no sense — I mean, what are they trying to achieve (other than a broad restriction, of course)?  Are they trying to stop someone from arming a group or gang? (I know, nonsensical.)

As with all laws like this, it should be looked at as part of a whole.  What is intended is to make a thicket of laws like this so that the breaking thereof becomes an inevitability — and the side-benefit (to the anti-gunners) is that the people most likely to fall foul of this nonsense would be gun owners.  (We always talk about lawful or law-abiding gun owners, but what we sometimes forget is that to the anti-gun set, all gun owners are evil, and not just the criminals.)

Anyway, it’s gone away, and good riddance.  Best of all is that because of this ruling, it’s going to apply to any and all other states who have similar nonsense in their raft of laws;  and all that’s left is for the SAF guys bring suit in each of them.

Go to it, guys.


Side note:  I have more than one friend who won’t give money to any gun lobbying group like the NRA or even GOA.  But they give lots to the Second Amendment Foundation because Alan Gottlieb and his guys are doing the work where it matters most:  in the courts.

Think about it.