Category: Rights

That “86” Thing

Asshole Cops, Rights, Two-Minute Hate

A whole lot has been said about former FBI Chief Thug James Comey’s X-post featuring this picture, and his coy little observation:

Needless to say, this silliness found immediate favor with the Perpetually Indignant (Rightwing Division, even John Kass), who claimed that the “86” is code for “kill” or “assassinate”.

No it isn’t.

“86” means to dump or throw in the trash — in restaurant terms, it also means “not to mention (to customers)”, and back in my executive days, we used to use “86” to mean “forget about it” — e.g. “86 that idea, dummy”.

In other words, it’s a completely innocent term.  It does not mean anything sinister.

I don’t care that the .dotmil uses “86” to mean “kill”, either.  The military (and government, for that matter) has a long and storied history of using the English language to cover a whole panoply of ugly shit (e.g. “Terminate With Extreme Prejudice”), and I don’t care about any of that either.

Now far be it for me to come to the defense of that treacherous lizard Comey, but seriously?

Current FBI Director Kash Patel announced that his department is in communication with the Secret Service over Comey’s social media post “directed at President Trump” on X Thursday evening.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem added in her own X post that the DHS is investigating Comey’s post as well.

Noem appeared on Fox News Thursday night, saying she believes Comey “should be held accountable and put behind bars for this.”

“The rule of law says people like him, who issue direct threats against the president of the United States, essentially issuing a call to assassinate him, must be held accountable under the law,” she said.

FFS, grow up, you assholes.  Your reaction to this is actually in the dictionary, under the word “Overreaction”.  Get a clue, and stop being so hyper-sensitive.

This is just as bad as those foul pricks on the Left complaining about Sarah Palin’s “crosshairs” comment.  It was bullshit then, it’s bullshit now.

Yeah, I know Trump has already survived two actual assassination attempts and everyone’s hyper-sensitive about anything that might hint at another.  But wait… we’re talking about jailing someone for a fucking Twatter post?

And yet we (quite justifiably) mock the BritGov when they send the rozzers over to threaten people over Fecesbook ramblings that run afoul of the dreaded “hate speech” rules?

Fuck off, all of you — and yeah, I’m including Superhero Kash and St. Kristi here — because this is absolute bullshit.

Look, the whole “86” thing may be in poor taste;  but the last time I looked, “bad taste” is kinda protected by the First fucking Amendment.

I know, the Bill of Rights can be a somewhat inconvenient at times — the Second as much as the First, ask any gun-confiscator — but that’s the exact purpose of the Bill of Rights:  it protects us from government.

And as much as I hate to say it, that shitbird Comey gets the same protections as the rest of us, even if he himself is a prime candidate for “eighty-sixing” — i.e. should be dumped in the trash heap of history and forgotten.

Fach.

Quote Of The Day

QOTD, Rights

From some Brit:

“I saw Starmer in the White House telling Trump we’ve had [freedom of expression] in the UK for a very long time, and I thought, ‘Yeah, right.’ We can see what’s really going on.”

Read this for an explanation of the above.  Then be grateful you don’t live there.  (To my several Brit Readers:  I’m sorry, folks.)

Same Here

Government Thugs, Rights, Surveillance Society

Tom Knighton has written an article which resonates with me, for obvious reasons:

By now, we’re all well aware of the Biden-era “Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” which has some very troubling language in it.

As Just the News reported earlier on Tuesday, the criteria included buying guns, being a veteran, and what was termed as “‘xenophobic’ disinformation.”

I’m a veteran and gun owner, and I was pretty critical of China during the whole pandemic, at least on social media. Now, I’m curious as to whether my own government was monitoring my lawful activity simply because I wasn’t a raging leftist loon willing to toe the progressive party line on these issues.

Was I considered a threat to become a domestic terrorist?

Anyone see any parallels between Knighton and me?  The only difference between us is that I’m a veteran of another country’s army — but I’m still a veteran.  (As for the criticism of the foul ChiComs, and buying guns:  ipse dixit.)

I have no idea what is/was meant by “xenophobic disinformation”, but if it means saying that I heartily dislike furriners who creep illegally over our borders to take jobs away from U.S. citizens, commit other crimes, engage in espionage or otherwise try to undermine our country, then I’d have to plead nolo contendere*.

Knighton goes on:

I’m sure I could file a FOIA request and find out, and part of me is considering doing just that, but another part of me would rather not know.

I do have one hint that I may be on such a list if “undesirables”:  back in 2017 (that would have been under the Obama administration), I had the dreaded “SSSS” designation appear on one of my air tickets, but it was for one flight only (among several others in that year and the year following), and Obama had only been  in  out of power for a few months at that point.

I’m fairly sure  that I was “noted” by some government apparatchik during the latter years of his presidency, and if not then, I have absolutely no doubt that I was flagged during the Biden era.

This website is my only “online presence” (no Twatter, no Fecesbook, no Instagram and certainly no ChiCom-based Tik Tok either), but over the years several of my posts have engendered (shall we say) some notoriety, and it wouldn’t take much for those to have got me noted and monitored by some DHS/FBI drone.

Anyway, my interest in such surveillance by the .gov is minimal, although I am a kindred spirit of Tom Knighton’s in that:

Finding out that I was monitored because of my views and lawful behavior might just be too much for me to tolerate, and I’m seeing too much that I’m incapable of tolerating as it is.

Amen, Brother Tom.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the range.  My AK-47 is feeling all neglected and stuff.

*Whole lotta Latin in this post… sorry.

Old Enough

Rights, The Gun Thing

As I wrote earlier:  if they’re old enough to have consensual sex, to vote, to be drafted, to sign binding contracts and all that goes with being legally adults, they should be old enough to own and carry guns, kinda like the Second Amendment provides*.

As Iowans have just passed into law, and every state should follow suit.

*Okay, I know that when the Constitution was written and ratified, the legal age of majority was 21 — at least when it came to voting and getting married without parental consent.  But seeing as at that time you could serve in the citizen militia at age 16, let’s not go down that rabbit-hole, shall we?

Today’s time is sufficient, and I’m fine with 18.

I keep thinking of the time when my kids were at college, had night classes and had to walk unarmed to their cars in badly-lit parking lots, forced to do so by stupid laws that forbade carrying guns on campus, and gun carry denied to them in toto  because of their age.

And they were the law-abiding ones;  their 50-something Dad was the lawbreaker, as he carried a gun onto campus every time he went there, despite the law.

I should point out that I also had a mental plan in the event of a campus shooter starting his bullshit if I were in a lecture or seminar:  tell everyone — lecturer included — to overturn their desks and take cover behind them, while staying out of my line of fire pointing at the classroom door.

I remember telling one of my erstwhile professors this some time after I graduated, and he thanked me.

Racism, Straight Up

Legal Stuff, Mocking Furriners, Rights

Here’s a fun item:

The British Sentencing Council has decided that starting Tuesday, white men will be sentenced to longer prison sentences than women and ethnic minorities.

From Tuesday, new judicial guidelines in the United Kingdom will introduce sentencing policies that apply differential treatment based on ethnicity, gender, and age—leading to harsher punishments for white men compared to other groups in society.

Under the updated guidelines, judges will prepare pre-sentencing reports where necessary for defendants from ethnic, cultural, or faith minorities, as well as young people under 25, women, and pregnant women. Historically, such reports have resulted in mitigated sentences, including reduced jail time. The practical implication of these changes is that white men, who do not qualify for these reports, will face relatively harsher sentencing outcomes.

I’m not sure that any Brit, ever again, can accuse anyone else of being a racist.

Transferable Rights

Rights

I would have thought that things you do in your home country are no problem — I mean legal stuff and such, of course.

And of course too that would apply to your freedoms — in our case, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and so on.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore when it comes to the UK and Europe.  Because they seem to be obsessed with policing speech — you know, the “hate speech” bullshit — they seem to be getting a leeetle too big for their britches.

Consider this, in Britishland:

Police officers questioned a grandfather for more than an hour after he called his neighbour “Mrs Twat” in a row about his dog.

Laurence Meir, 73, was visited twice at his home in Gorsley, Herefordshire, by police who warned him not to use the term again.

Background:

In January last year, Mr Meir’s dachshund Dixie strayed into his neighbour’s front garden, prompting the neighbour to allegedly call him a “twat”.

The neighbours had another run-in several weeks later, during which Mr Meir said “Hello Mrs Twat”.

Days later, two officers from West Mercia Police arrived at his home and questioned him for more than an hour about the incident, before warning him not to get “involved” with her again.

What about that second visit?

The police then visited his home for a second time after the neighbour complained that he poked his tongue out at her children.

“I was livid that the police had come to see me again about such a pathetic matter and couldn’t believe that they were wasting more of their time,” he said.  “I told the officers that I didn’t stick my tongue out at these kids and that they should go and catch some real criminals. But the police warned me that if it happened again then they would be forced to take further action. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, it really shows that the police have got their priorities completely wrong.”

“Further action”?  What the actual fuck are these idiots doing Over There?

But it gets worse.

A grandmother was spoken to at her home by police after she criticised Labour politicians online for sending offensive WhatsApp messages.

In a series of Facebook posts Helen Jones called for the resignation of a councillor embroiled in the WhatsApp scandal which led to the sacking of Andrew Gwynne, the former health minister.

The 54-year-old school administrator, who was not accused of committing a crime, said she was left feeling scared to post on social media following the unannounced visit by two officers on Tuesday.

Mrs Jones said two plain-clothes officers arrived at her home in Stockport last Tuesday at around 1.30pm, but she wasn’t in and they spoke to her husband Lee via an intercom. She rushed home fearing something had happened to a relative.

At 2.15pm she received a phone call from an officer thought to be the same sergeant who knocked on her door and was told the police had received a complaint about her recent social media posts.

Speaking to the Mail on Sunday, Mrs Jones said: “It was actually quite scary. It made me think I best just keep quiet for the rest of my life, because you just can’t say anything these days.

“I asked the police officer, have I committed any sort of crime – why did you call at my door? They said, ‘Someone has spoken to us about your social media posts’.

“I then said: ‘If I don’t take your advice and continue doing what I am doing, will I be committing a crime?’ He said no. I then asked: ‘What will you do about it?’ He said: ‘There’s not a lot we can do, we are just giving you advice’.”

Of course, to Americans, the concept of the fuzz coming over to your house because of something you posted on the Intarwebz is almost a joke, because we have that pesky inconvenient First Amendment whereby we can call (say) Barack Obama or Chuck Schumer a fucking asshole without the fear of a knock on the door from the police.  Furthermore, I am equally free to call BritPM Keir Starmer a fucking moron Commie who’s going to destroy Britishland because he’s well, a fucking moron Commie, he and all his little Labour Party lickspittles together.

Now pay careful attention to this.

Do you realize that through British and European law as currently written, if I were to visit the UK (as I am wont to do), I could be denied entry because of my predilection for “hate speech” — or even if I were allowed into the country, the cops might very well show up at, say Free Market Towers or wherever I was staying and arrest me for something I said in the United States?

Look at it this way.  Thanks to my Second Amendment freedom, I own a handgun (quit sniggering).  Now imagine that I went to Britishland and was arrested for possessing a handgun, because that’s streng verboten over in Airstrip One — and I don’t mean arrested for carrying a handgun in the UK (which I wouldn’t do, because I’m not stupid), but for possessing a handgun in my home country.

That sounds ridiculous, of course.  But if it’s ridiculous for the Second Amendment, it’s equally ridiculous for the First.  That my fevered rantings are available to oh-sensitive Brits and Europeans via Teh Intarwebz is just one of those things;  it may be inconvenient to the Powers That Be, but them’s the breaks.

I could be arrested Over There for pointing out on this blog Over Here that a whole lot of Muslims seem to be child molesters — using as examples, oh, the Rotherham grooming gangs who systematically raped non-Muslim minor girls, or the fact that Iraq just lowered the female marriage age to 9 years old — which wouldn’t matter to the “authorities” because that’s considered “hate speech” against a group of people and is subject to punishment.

Yeah, well fuck you, your fascist “hate speech” laws and your tender sensibilities.  If you fuckers think you’ve seen hate speech before, I haven’t even begun to hate.  You totalitarian thugs.

And no, I won’t be frightened by the threat of arrest.  If I feel like going over to Britishland or France to visit my friends, I will, and be damned to you.

Here’s the above-mentioned Mrs. Jones:

“It was actually quite scary. It made me think I best just keep quiet for the rest of my life, because you just can’t say anything these days.”

Yeah, well I’m not like Mrs. Jones.  Your pissy little laws don’t frighten me, and nor do your Stasi-wannabe enforcers.  I’ve been threatened by apartheid-era Afrikaner secret police, and to be frank, your petty little enforcers don’t impress me.

Sorry if I’ve pissed in your morning porridge, but say hello to my freedom of speech, you bastards.  And yes, I do own a handgun.