America, love it or leave it. – Amanda Green

America, love it or leave it. – Amanda Green

I first heard that saying when I was growing up. It was the time of the Vietnam War. It was a time when the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum and the anti-war protests were going strong. Think flower children, hippies and Haight-Ashbury. Peace and free love.

Until reality set in.

I won’t say that I support the Vietnam War but I do support the troops who fought in it. I resent like hell the way they were treated when they came home. If the Korean War vets were the forgotten ones, the Vietnam War vets were the maligned and hated ones. At least on the surface and by the vocal few.

Despite all we’ve seen and heard about the American public being anti-war during those years, that’s not exactly the case. Yes, there were a number of folks who were. But there were also those who supported the war, or who at least supported our troops. It was from these men and women I first heard the chant of “America, love it or leave it.”

Most of my life, that phrase has bothered me some because it is an all or nothing sentiment. It has often been aimed at people who might love America for the most part but hate one specific thing about it. Besides, America is one of the few countries where you can voice your opinion without fear of being jailed – or worse. (Yes, yes, I know there are exceptions and that our free speech has eroded but we still have more protections that most countries.)

However, the last few election cycles have almost made me change my mind. When I see pouty, whiny Hollyweird-types ranting that if their candidate for president doesn’t get elected, they will give up their citizenship and immigrate to Europe, I find myself saying, “Have fun. Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.” When I see media-types, especially those who grew up in one nation but have spent their professional lives here, making a living because of our free press guarantees, whining about election results because their party of favor didn’t win, I feel the need to suggest that those media mavens return to their countries of origin and see just how far their sort of “journalism” gets them there.

But today, when the initial crying as a result of the Republicans ousting so many Democrats on state and national levels should be dying down, I see a post from someone on Facebook lamenting how they are now seriously considering leaving the country and giving up their citizenship because of all the gun lovers and women haters here. Yes, the glitter is strong with that one.

And I am having a strong case of, if you don’t like the way the popular vote went – since the thrice-damned Electoral College wasn’t involved – then maybe you should move to another country. Maybe there you will find enough of the glittery ones to make a majority and give you your social justice warrior haven.

This person probably believes like another post I saw earlier this week that lamented the fact that Texas now has a governor-elect who has already promised to sign into law open carry as soon as it comes to his desk. For those in Texas – like me – who have no problem with open carry, we don’t worry about the opposition filling the bill with so many items Governor-elect Abbott can’t get behind that he would veto the bill. Why? Because the Texas governor has something the President doesn’t – line item veto. It really does solve a lot of problems. Although, as Governor Perry can tell you, it can also lead to a few.

Anyway, back to the post about guns. This person, and it wasn’t the same poster who wants to leave the country because of all the gun lovers and women haters, lamented the fact that so many more criminals would now be on the streets with guns. After all, the open carry states would mean all the bad guys would be packing. The solution? Why let’s outlaw all guns except for the military and law enforcement. Oh, but they went further. They wanted to limit those guns too. If we were to do that, they reasoned, then no bad guys would have guns and gun violence and violence against women would go down.

All right, quit laughing. It isn’t nice to make fun of those who are challenged in the critical thinking department.

The rationale, and I hate to call it that, behind the belief that making it illegal for a private citizen to own a handgun because then the criminals wouldn’t be able to have handguns eludes me. These are criminals. They are not going to follow the law. They will buy guns through the black market. They will trade them for drugs. They will have guns but the innocent won’t. And guess who will lose in that scenario.

But this person, so firm in their belief that those supporting Open Carry would bring about open warfare on women by every man – and I guess woman, although that wasn’t said – who owned a gun, is ready to leave the country. There is an evil here, or perhaps just an ignorance, they believe. We aren’t civilized enough. There’s too much testosterone.

No, what there is, is too much independence and independent thought.

Maybe I’m just getting crotchety in my old age, but I’m tired of folks threatening to leave the U.S. if something they don’t like doesn’t change. It reminds me of a kid on a playground stomping her feet and threatening to hold her breath until she gets her way. Well guess what, boys and girls, this is a country of individuals. That means there very well be things happen in an election you don’t like. It means you can even voice your disgust at what happened. That’s what Freedom of Speech is all about.

However, you don’t get to demand – and then expect – change to happen just because you don’t like something and say so. Your threats to leave the country have no impact except on those who care for you. What sort of example are you setting for your children when you talk about fleeing something that you don’t like instead of working to change it?

But wait. I forget who I am talking about. These are the folks who rarely consider the consequences of what they want. It makes them feel better to whine and whinge in public, joining their voices to their GHH and SJW sisters (of the male and female variety). They want things their way but don’t think about what would result if they suddenly got their wish. As much as folks make fun of the ideal of Galt’s Gulch, there are times when I’d like to see what would happen if the rest of us did just sit back and let the GHHers have their way for a bit. How long would be before they started turning on their own?

So here’s my advice. Think about what you’re saying before you hit that enter button on your social media site. If you whine about how America hates women and loves guns and then you say how much you have always wanted to live in NYC but are afraid to now, think. Right now, New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Under the poster’s rationale, that should make it an attractive place to live. But no. Because America loves guns and hates women.

If that’s the way you feel, I’m sorry for you. I happen to appreciate the fact that I live in a country where women can and do hold office. I appreciate and applaud the fact that I live in a country where I get to vote for those I want in office and all I have to do is show a photo ID. I don’t have to be a land owner. I don’t have to be male. I don’t have to belong to the “official state party”. All I have to do is get my butt down to the polling place and vote.

Of course, I won’t get started on the Electoral College because that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish as far as I’m concerned.

Let your voice be heard. But if all you’re going to do is whine and whinge about how unfair things are, then go inside and take a nap. Leave it to the rest of us who are willing to work for change to do so. Of course, you might not appreciate what we’re doing, but that’s on you for not standing up, rolling up your shirt sleeves and working just as hard as the rest of us.

Don’t like it. Leave it and try to find some place better. We’ll still be here when you decide to come back.

265 thoughts on “America, love it or leave it. – Amanda Green

  1. I’ve seen a few of those interviewed on TV, saying things like “If Bush wins a second term, I’m moving to Canada.” which made me think “If Canada is so Superior, why don’t you move now?”

    As for the Electoral College, If you think of it in terms of how things worked before the 17th amendment, it makes a certain amount of sense. We’re not one nation, but a Union of States (If you’re talking to a lefty, you can make a comparison to the European Union). The States each vote for who they want to be President, and then the results from the states are weighted by how much representation they have in the legislative branch.

    So those states that divide up their electoral votes are basically voting themselves out of influence in one of the most important elections in the country.

    1. Yeah, those had me wondering the same thing. Maybe it’s because I’m older or maybe those folks are whining more after this last election, but my tolerance for their histrionics is much less than it has been.

      Your point about the Electoral College is good. But it also points out why the EC is out of date. Of course, in a world where publishers can’t give authors accurate sales counts but relies on something like BookScan for sales figures, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that we still use something as antiquated as the Electoral College to elect our president. Shrug.

      1. Amanda just think about what would happen if we went straight popular voting for President. How many votes would show up in Chicago? Or even places like Washington state.

          1. I second this. I may not think the electoral college is perfect, but it is certainly a heck of a lot better than a straight popular vote, and I can’t come up with a better system without bigger flaws.

            1. The way it’s currently used is kind of obsolete– it needs to have way, way more votes involved, so that you can’t so easily game the system by focusing on one or two population centers– it’s ridiculous for rules for those who have to take a two-hour trip to reach any fastfood place to be made by those who can’t take a ten minute walk without going past one. The massive number of baseline assumptions that a lot of town folks make cause my head to hurt. (My assumption was something along the lines of “of course they can figure out that things are different in different places”– my notion of town living was a lot more accurate than theirs of country living….)

              The system itself is good, it just needs to be “updated” to closer to what it was originally.

              1. Others have argued that limiting the House of Representatives to 435 seats is a greater error than the 17th Amendment. Living in the state which repeatedly sent Jesse Helms to DC in spite of Democrat control of the legislature and Governorship I am inclined to find myself in sympathy.

                Complaints that a 1,000 seat House would be unmanageable fall to the “feature, not bug” argument.

                1. If you go back to the Founders original numbers, it’d be closer to 10,000 now.

                  And we’re reaching a point where a virtual congress (that meets electronically) might actually be possible.

                  It’d have the added attraction of keeping the representatives in their home area, and out of the rarified atmosphere that is Washington DC.

                  1. That’s why it’ll never happen. No congressman wants to be within arm’s reach of an angry electorate.

                2. Complaints that a 1,000 seat House would be unmanageable fall to the “feature, not bug” argument.

                  *eyebrows go up*
                  So we can manage to count every single individual vote in the nation, but not those taken in among a tiny fraction of that number who are being paid for voting?

              2. ” it needs to have way, way more votes involved, so that you can’t so easily game the system by focusing on one or two population centers”

                Which was the reason it was set up in the first place. I agree with you, it could use updating*, but it is a far cry better than popular vote.

                *my problem with that is that every time I find a product I like, they immediately come out with a “new and improved” model that removes all the features I liked to make room for bells and whistles I don’t need or want. 😦

                1. Ditto on what “updates” usually do for me– which is why my “solution” is basically “update it to what it was further back”– it’s like advancing to the rear!

            2. I can. Each state gets one vote. Ties are decided by the House of Representatives.

              (California and New York can go blank themselves.)

          1. I know Amanda said that the Electoral College is a whole nuther issue, but could one of you point out the flaws? I honestly don’t know what you guys are considered deeply flawed, I’m not being facetious.

              1. Okay, I’ll read that when I get back, I’ve got to leave also; but before reading it, part of my point was I don’t think that a straight popular vote is the best way.

                1. Unless I am remembering completely wrong, the electoral college was set up in part to keep a straight popular vote from determining everything. It means that the President has to be popular in a wide rage of areas instead of just, say, Chicago, Los Angeles, and the Philadelphia to Richmond corridor.

                  1. Sort of. It was a compromise set up to keep the more populous States from easily forcing decisions on the rest of the country, while still allowing them more influence than the tiny States.

                    1. Potentially relevant article from the American Spectator’s blog:

                      By F.H. Buckley on 11.9.14 | 1:37PM
                      Students of the Framers’ 1787 debates over the Constitution will recall that the country came close to splitting apart after the Connecticut Compromise in July of that year. And what was the compromise? It centered over whether states should be equally represented in the Senate, or whether they should be represented according to their population, as in the House of Representatives. The small-state delegates won that one, giving us equal representation by states in the Senate, prompting some large state delegates to contemplate a walkout.

                      For many years this was thought to shape American politics in an important way, and in fact probably did so. With equal representation by states, the Senate was perhaps more isolationist and certainly more sympathetic to farmers. We also saw more pork, in the shape of government offices and military bases, in places such as West Virginia and Alabama than we would have otherwise.

                      One message from the election last week, however, is that the Connecticut Compromise might matter less in the future than it did in the past. In 2015 the Senate will be 53 percent Republican, the House 56 percent Republican. In other words, the difference in the principle of representation doesn’t matter much when it comes to national politics.

                      That’s been happening for some time now, and there are a couple of reasons for it.

              2. Sorry, Cedar, but none of those criticisms constitute significant flaws, much less deep ones. Mostly they reflect upon the fecklessness of allowing contemporary liberals to engage in serious activities. The pointless gestures cited — the Minnesota and DC electors recent futile gestures — are unlikely to occur in any election where those votes matter and near certain to not occur with Republican electors.

                The third exception, that of the Virginia delegation, is notable for having happened ONCE, and then at a time of deep political division in this nation. Sure, we no longer hold ourselves a union of The States, granting primary fealty to the Union of the states, but that does not reduce the fact that subsidiarity dictates administration of government is best distributed as far up the governmental stream as possible.

              3. I’m reluctant to go with a popular vote. If you do, it’ll take states (like Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska, the Dakotas and the like) and basically strip them of any influence in the electoral process.

                In effect, it would disenfranchise them by taking away any ability at all to influence an election.

                California, however, would be come extremely popular. The coasts, Chicago – MAYBE Texas, depending on how many people say “Hell with this, I’m moving…” – but flyover country would be screwed…

                1. Under the current system Wyoming and the Dakotas are screwed, but for a different reason. They, along with places like Texas and California, are ignored because they’re reliably for one party or the other. The party they support takes them for granted and the other party writes them off.

                  I would propose requiring all states do what Nebraska does: the statewide winner gets two Electors and whoever wins a Congressional district gets one Elector.

                  This would strengthen the EC’s bulwark against fraud (sorry Cedar, but voter ID won’t eliminate fraud. It makes it more expensive, and thus less common, but any system can be hacked and politics is a large enough prize to warrant the effort). It would also move the Presidential contests from swing states to swing districts, which are far more numerous and geographically diverse. On the other hand it would strengthen gerrymandering, but I would argue that ship has sailed and is in international waters breaking out the stripper poles and roulette wheels.

            1. I am in the middle of inputting edits but the short answer is, there are some states where their electoral votes are not tied to the popular vote in the state. In other words, the delegates can vote for who they want. Also, iirc, there are some states where it is an all or nothing — and I admit I could be wrong here and I really don’t have time to go look it up. I will when I get this project out the door later today.

              However, the thing is — as Cedar points out below — automation makes it very easy to count votes within just a few hours of the polls closing. And, like it or not, I do support voter ID laws. If we have to prove who we are to get a driver’s license or to cash a check or to buy a gun, why shouldn’t we have to prove who we are to vote?

              1. Just putting this out but the electoral college is part of what makes us a Republic, the other was State appointed Senators. The electoral collage was put in place not because we could not easily count the vote but because it was meant as a check against tyranny of the majority.

                The electoral collage meant to vote their conscience not vote the will of the people.

                We are not and were never meant to be a direct democracy.

                1. True democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting who is for dinner. Something no one in their proper (I almost said right) mind would want.
                  It is called the tyranny of the majority, like when 51% of the electorate vote to tax the other 49% for welfare and obamaphones. The electoral college is not the only protection remaining, 2/3rds majority votes for some issues by the Senate still stand; however, the State election of Senators is indeed the way the legislation was meant to work. The people’s house, and The states senate. Much of the crap with common-core, 55 mph speed limits, medicare, 21 year old drinking age, obamacare and others would be less likely if the states had a say in the matter. Instead the states see do what we say or we cut all funding. What little protection the filibuster used to provide has been destroyed by Harry Reid, the Chicago Mob’s left hand man. The House also protects us from the tyranny of the minority. Something caused by North and South Dakota having as many Senators as New York and California. The Electoral College, in addition to existing to give the horses time to reach Philadelphia, try to balance these two issues. CA and NY have lots of votes and people, but those corn fields in the Dakota’s, a smaller more insular population have to agree in what is good for the country.
                  Our system of Government is far from perfect (examine the current administration for that), but there is little evidence that any system is better.
                  On the unrelated issue of open carry, Virginia has had open carry for all of my life, and I have never seem a problem arise from it.

                  1. True democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting who is for dinner. Something no one in their proper (I almost said right) mind would want.

                    It might be well elaborated by switching in more predators and prey for interests– you have wolves, coyotes and bears voting against sheep, cows and chickens.

                    In one area they each have two votes to represent their interests; in the other, it is tied to raw numbers. By raw numbers, the specific interests of the sheep, cows and chickens cannot get ahead, even for just their area, because each of the other prey-groups has different interests

                    And this metaphor is eating up way too much time. 😀

                    Basically: /amen, popular vote is evil.

                    1. Popular vote isn’t evil. It just needs to be deployed at the proper times and for the proper amount of people. Referendums, state representations, etc.

                      Of course, it’s also true that many states used to have senators elected by the state legislature, that sort of thing. You can mess around with the proportions of popular and representative voting.

                    2. If it wasn’t for the 17th Amendment Republicans would of had a Majority in the Senate in 2010.

                    3. That seems a stretch — no telling what the make-up would have been of the 67 senators held over, nor what effect of senatorial appointment might have had on state-wide elections. It does seem clear that had the GOP not had nominees like Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell they would have had a better chance. You might as well say that we’d not have had Obamadon’tcare except for the DOJ shenanigans railroading Alaska’s senator Stephens or Arlen Specter’s turning his coat. Of course, no way Scott Brown gets the Massachusetts seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, nor does Illinois deliver senator Kirk in 2010 …

                      The more interesting question is what effect repealing the 17th Amendment has on state elections? Does it help a party gain control of the state government in order to appoint a senator, or does it help maintain control for the party which has sent one to DC?

                    4. Sorry, I can’t seem to find the Article.

                      But iirc. We gained control enough state legislative bodies and state Governors that the Republicans would have by appointment control of the US Senate. Oh well, to lazy to do the math myself so you could be right v

                      The last question is indeed an interesting one. I’m going to hedge my bets and say a little of both.


                    5. Sharon Angle was actually a very good candidate, I’m still ticked at the NRA over their endorsement of Reid. Granted they are a one issue organization and I believe they are correct that they should endorse candidates strictly on that issue, but Angle was every bit as strong a pro-gun supporter as Reid (who has since swapped sides on that issue, big surprise) and I thought as a single issue organization when both candidates are equal in terms of that issue neither should be endorsed over the other.
                      Hey, how did I get on this soapbox?

                      Anyways, as I started to say, Sharon Angle was a good candidate who lost to “landslide Harry” due to election fraud. I believe the NRA’s endorsement of Reid made the difference not in giving Reid the election, but in causing the election to be close enough for fraud to be able to make up the difference.

                    6. I thought as a single issue organization when both candidates are equal in terms of that issue neither should be endorsed over the other.

                      Amen. Especially in a case where it should be obvious they’re lying.

                      I can kind of see it as an attempt to show that they’re really all about that one issue, but a simple “Both X and Y are acceptable/great/horrible on the issue” would work.

                2. This. We are a Re-effing-public, thank G-D & the Founders. The fact that we can (we can’t, but for the sake of debate I will stipulate that we can) accurately count individual votes is no reason to make the Chief Executive Election a plebiscite.

                  Calling the Electoral College obsolete, a dinosaur, an antiquity is not an argument. The solution to our nation’s problems is to return power and authority to the states, not to give up altogether and reduce state governments to administrative sub-entities.

                  We have seen the face of direct democracy, in France and in Wisconsin. THAT is what democracy looks like, and it is U.G.L.Y.

                    1. It cracks me up when people are for states’ rights in some things, but then get upset over some states Doing It Differently. States should be able to determine their own systems for allotting their electoral votes. As long as nobody changes their system the day of the election, only the people of that state have any right to complain or like their state’s system.

                    2. I second both RES and suburbanbanshee, and I don’t think RES disagrees with you suburban.

                      About half the states have their electoral colleges set up where the people casting the votes on them do NOT have to follow any guidelines from the voters they supposedly represent. I think this is wrong, but I should only have a say in whether it is right or wrong in the state I am a resident of. After all that is the only electoral college that could be misrepresenting me. If you want your state to have an “electoral collage meant to vote their conscience not vote the will of the people” as Statist Josh (is that a statist view?) does, that is the right of you and your state to decide.

                    3. Oh heck yeah, I’ll second suburbanbanshee and bearcat on the principle that every state should have the right to weave their own basket for their trip. While I might (and in some conceivable* cases, absolutely would) detest, deplore, despise and denounce a state’s actions in so choosing I would concede they were acting within their Constitutional prerogative — and use that action as basis for calling for amending the Constitution.

                      *e.g., say California voted for Romney in 2012 by 60 – 40 but Governor Brown and the Legislature instructed, advised, directed and ordered their electors to cast their ballots for Obama. I try never to make the mistake of confusing contemptible, despicable, outrageous and corrupt for illegal or unconstitutional.

                    4. One Nit Res, in the situation that you’re suggesting, Moonbeam (acting alone) won’t be violating the Federal Constitution but likely would be violating California Law.

                      Of course, it would be a different matter if Moonbeam had the support of the California Legislature as they could change the relevant California Law to allow the switch.

                      Of course, Moonbeam and the California Legislature might give their instruction without making the change to California Law but I doubt that even California’s Courts would throw out a lawsuit against them for violating California Law.

                    5. Bearcat,

                      No it’s not a statist position it’s a founding principle. You want a real world example of a failed or failing direct democracy look to California.


                3. Also, the difficulty of passing laws is designed in, so that a passing fad can’t become the law of the land. Gridlock is a feature, not a bug.

                4. The Electoral College is the only thing lending a shred of protection/representation/influence in the Presidential contest to the small, mostly flyover, states who feed the world and populate the U.S. military and preserve the best of the culture that saved Europe – twice! – from the rapacious coastal urban insanity (also Chicago, that carbuncle) … imagine if we always had a leftist as President, with no hope ever of having someone saner …

                  1. Simplest argument for retaining the Electoral College: its abolition is endorsed by The Left.

                    What is the last “good idea” they’ve had?

                    1. Um… well… just give me a few years, I’ll think of some…oh, yeah! The Alaska Pipeline!

                      No, wait, Agnew was the final vote on that… okay, I got nuttin’.

                    2. And a good rule of thumb for some issue’s morality is the stance of the ACLU — they’re usually on the side of evil …

                    3. ACLU is not evil, they will fight for anyones right to be stupid.

                      It’s called freedom.

                      The left just uses them to better effect.

                    4. No, they don’t. They, for instance, don’t stand up for your children’s right not to be attacked at school

                5. I was also going to point out that originally, you weren’t voting for President, you were voting for the Elector in your district, because they were trusted to become informed and make the best decision. Most of them would declare who they intended to vote for, but they were not required to vote that way.

              2. Re: the Electoral College.

                In NO state are the electors required to follow the popular vote in their state. But the nature of how the electors are selected pretty much guarantees that they will cast their EC ballots consistently with the state popular vote. (If you require explanation of that it can be provided, but it is simpler if you just accept my word or do your own research.)

                In a very few states the EC votes are distributed according to the winning of Congressional districts, with winner of the state popular vote receiving the two senatorial electors. This is a legitimate option within the principle of our Republic and anybody who claims to know what would be the effect of this will undoubtedly tell you other lies as well. It strikes me as highly unlikely that the People’s Social Democratic Republic of California would authorize the diversion of their vassal subject conservative districts against the popular will.

                Support for voter ID is irrelevant to the distribution of Electoral College votes. The Electoral College is not about accurate vote counting, it is about being organized as a Republic.

                1. any state can select any method of electing electors that it pleases. State legislators can pick ’em. They can draw lots. Whatever.

                  1. As I recall it, each party in a state submits a slate of electors, with the popular vote determining which slate is sent to the Electoral College, either in full or in proportion according to the state’s rules. Any party submitting a slate of electors that would disregard the party affiliation of its candidate deserves to lose. No elector who would vote for a candidate with significant known disqualifications for public office (e.g., forged birth certification, widely acknowledged corruption) deserves citizenship in this Republic.

                    There may be no requirement that electors be nominated by their parties. Perhaps they can be selected as for jury duty, but I gravely misdoubt any state political party would cede such power readily.

                    1. I have a pet fix for the Electoral College—

                      Take New York as an illustrative example: population 20 million, just under 11 million “active” registered voters, with 29 electors. The ballot should list each party’s proposed slate, with instructions to “vote for any 29”. Tally the votes.

                      Here’s the important step, and one I have not seen proposed much: Every elector-candidate may transfer all or part of the votes cast for him to any other.

                      When that’s all done, the 29 elector-candidates with more than 373,360 votes get to vote for President.

                2. Indeed, back to the old electors-on-horseback, the candidate they were elected to represent may be die between the popular vote and the electoral college (I believe in early December). Also, although we haven’t seen much of this in modern times, if there are 3 or more parties that split the votes, the electors typically vote for their appointed candidate the first time, but afterwards, their duty is to elect someone president, possibly a ‘dark horse’ president that wasn’t one that was even running.

              3. There are a lot of reasons why a pure democracy is a bad idea. However, I believe Winston Churchill summed it up better than anyone else,”The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

                Maybe The Electoral College could use some updating, but I would be extremely hesitant to change something that has, mostly, functioned well in the past.

                1. Before I’d be happy about changing the electoral college or any basic constitutional mechanism, I’d like it to be ascertained that at least 25% of the electorate alive at the time the changes are being approved would be capable of discussing, for 3 minutes, without repeating himself, the arguments in favor and against the original principle. If this message thread were a typical sample of people’s comprehension of the issues, and they decided they want something different, I’d be okay with it. Nervous, but okay.

                  1. There is always room for improvement. I’m just not sure that any improvements made would be worth the risk of changing something that is so important and has proven effective.

                    Plus, usually when the government tries to “fix” or “improve” something it goes horribly, horribly wrong.

          2. Do you not think a corrupt government, such as Chicago, Philadelphia or California, could not successfully manufacture false IDs in quantities sufficient to matter? Does voter ID preclude vote fraud in states where the voting is conducted entirely through the mail? Think you there are no nursing homes in Florida or Arizona where helpful aides assist the elderly in selecting their votes?

            1. I have an insufficiently evil imagination? I will cheerfully grant you many points in this debate. Yes, I want a republic, not a democracy. But I also want my vote to *mean* something! Can I have my cake and eat it, too?

              1. Sure, why not opt for light beer while you are at it? Tastes great* and less filling.

                The trouble with such things was demonstrated by Olestra.

                *Only applies for certain values of “great” — your mileage may vary and no warranties written or implied are offered.

              2. Your vote does mean something. The electoral college decides who will be President, but YOU decide who will be an Elector.

            2. RES, from where I sit, that comment shows you do not understand either the goals or the end result of any security system.

              It is NOT and never can be to eliminate all possibility of wrongdoing. If someone wants something, whether it’s your silver or votes or top secret info, they will get it. All that any security system can do is raise the requirement for skills, time, and money so that the gain isn’t worth the cost, or, possibly more important, to ensure that the law abiding know they have been robbed and then decide how far they are willing to go for retribution.

              Yes, all your scenarios are possible. However, if they manufacture false ids, the id numbers have to be inserted into the system…. tracelessly. The nursing home staff must be carefully vetted to make sure no one with a conscience ever works there…. and that the law doesn’t require the assistance process be witnessed by an election judge from each party… and no votes not handled through that process are counted.

              I could go on, but I hope the point is clear: eliminate what you can in advance and detect the rest.

              1. Sirrah, you misapprehend my point. It is simply that the presumed ability to accurately vouchsafe the IDs of voters is not a panacea sufficient to preclude the advisability of other safeguards.

                All of the instruments of vote manufacture which I have asserted are well known yet all the same they occur. The Electoral College serves to make them less likely to effectively tilt an election, that is all. The principle in play here is that of the firewall and ought be employed in combination with voter ID..

                1. “possibly more important, to ensure that the law abiding know they have been robbed and then decide how far they are willing to go for retribution.”

                  Which was the point of this phrase from the original post. The more people see that the ballot box is irrelevant, the more likely they are to start reaching for the cartridge box. See Battle of Athens.

        1. (*nods*) One advantage of the Electoral College is that it compartmentalizes corruption. Think of the extra deck space that would be available on an ocean liner if it didn’t have bulkheads. The owner of the White Star Lines did, and overruled his designer — and so the Titanic sank.

          1. The Titanic did have watertight bulkheads below decks, and the ship was designed with enough reserve bouancy to stay afloat with five compartments completely flooded. That’s one of the reasons she was billed as “unsinkable”. Why, she’d have to graze along an iceberg at speed to open enough compartments to cause the bulkheads to be over topped, and the odds of that are…oh.

      2. I have a total devil-you-know feeling about this. Stick with the EC, God only knows what will be rammed in to replace it.

          1. The South depended on a horrific evil, used its electoral muscle to push the north around for eighty years, and overrode the rights of the Northern States to treat slaves as contraband and seize them from their owners. Then, when it looked like the North was getting enough voting muscle to push back, the South said they were going to, metaphorically, take their ball and go home.

            Maybe they had some technical justice on their side, but they were soooooooo asking for a stomping.

            1. Let’s not get into discussing the American Civil War. Those discussions can get nasty very very fast.

            2. The morality of the southern economy is not what’s in play but I do like your “squirrel!” Approach to distract from the actual statement.
              In 1860 the federal government used force of arms to end any motion of state’s rights. After that any state that gets ideas above its station knows it’ll be slapped down by the full weight of the US armed forces.

              1. Please drop this side-line. I think Sarah (or her moderators) should decree the American Civil War a banned subject of discussion. These discussions quickly turn hot.

                1. Any discussion of state’s rights must include the ONLY instance in the entire history of the United States where any state actually persued its rights.
                  Makes no never mind to me if you want to drop it. But you must drop the entire subject. It is farcical to expect any sort of debate of you hobble your opposition. That’s what SJWs do.

                  1. Did you take lessons on how to be a Jerk or does it just come naturally to you?

                    I asked politely for you and the other person to drop the ACW sideline but you appear to want to be a jerk.

                    Well, I’ve tired of Jerks and it does not matter if they’re a SJW or not.

                    The ACW is a subject that generates more heat than light and I getting into the mood to flame you if you continue to be a jerk.

                    1. We were calmly discussing state’s rights and you took it upon yourself to intervene. It appears sir that you wish to control the discussion without adding anything of value. Name calling is beneath you. If you wish to flame go ahead.
                      Maybe you’ll grace me with your private email so that each and every topic may be cleared by you. Or would you rather discuss the subject like an adult.
                      Yes, like you, I can be a jerk. Not in this case. There is no way to discuss the transfer of power from the States to the federal government without referencing the war of 1860. This isn’t about the war’s causes or morality. The fact remains, no matter that you would squelch it, that the federal government changed the power dynamic when it invaded Virginia.

                    2. Js, Paul was merely advising you that by long-standing instruction of the site Mistress the ACW is a closed subject, producing (as Paul aptly noted) much heat and little light. It is not that he doesn’t enjoy the topic, it is that he was attempting to advise you of House Rules.

                      Besides, the South initiated armed insurrection by firing on Fort Sumter. 😛

                    3. Those Union forces were served a proper notice of eviction, and offered transport back to the Union. Most of the Union forces accepted, and were treated honorably. The forces at Fort Moultrie, however, seized the more defensible Fort Sumpter. The Yankees took and held land not theirs, and attempted to reinforce themselves in that position. It was stopping the attempted delivery of armaments and supplies to the Union forces at Fort Sumpter that were the first shots of the war. (If you don’t count Bleeding Kansas and John Brown’s raid.)

                      This was an act of war by the Union. This is the first time in the ACW that the North would exploit propaganda to their benefit (and the detriment of the Confederacy), but it’s far from the last.

                  2. The South tended towards state’s rights only when it wanted to. See, for instance, the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, the shenanigans surrounding the Lecompton Constitution, and the absolute bonkersness of the Dred Scott decision.
                    Also, secession was never a right in the Constitution.

                    1. Of course they attempted to manipulate the laws to their advantage, as did Massachusetts and Maine during their succession crises. The gun control lobby does it now, with home rule versus federal law manipulations.
                      I would argue that secession must be viewed as the final right to say “No” to the feds. Any at will contract can be dissolved by either party. In effect the same premise would allow congress to vote New York out of the Union.

                    2. The War Between the States as Drak said is a tarpit subject around here (he and I have went rounds on it before, as well as a bunch of other people) whether I think it is germane to the discussion (I do) doesn’t matter, Sarah has asked repeatedly that it not be brought up.

                      However I think I can address this statement, “Also, secession was never a right in the Constitution.” without discussing the War.

                      Secession was an assumed Right, the Constitution was NOT intended to provide a complete list of rights, rather it was supposed to be a blanket guarantor of rights with exceptions and modifiers listed. The Amendments (first ten are called the Bill of Rights for a reason) did list a limited number of rights, usually with reasoning (a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state) behind why they were particularly listed. In fact the 9th Amendment specifically says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” meaning that the Constitution is NOT granting just those
                      specific rights it addresses.

                    3. Granted the Right of Secession is not denied in the Constitution, the question remains unaddressed in the Court. There are many rights which might be asserted which are nonetheless invalid and deserving no respect from the Federal government until tried at law.

                      N.B., by addressing the general question of unenumerated rights this discussion does not tread into the Forbidden Swamp.

                    4. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.

                    5. The process for that resumption being undefined it was a) not necessarily binding or b) a procedure requiring orderly execution through the Court.

                    6. Secession is rather explicitly mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
                      And the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves all powers not expressly granted by the Constitution to the respective states, or the people thereof.

                      So yes, secession was a right.

                  3. Any discussion of state’s rights must include the ONLY instance in the entire history of the United States where any state actually persued its rights.

                    Only? ONLY??? Poppycock. Such a statement betrays a gross ignorance of American history and neglects the pertinent fact that the pursuit of that right was by anti-constitutional means. The rejection of Reconstruction and imposition of Jim Crow were both instances of States Rights’ pursuit, right up until Brown v Board of education.

                    The motion to table this specific topic, The War of Southern Secession, has been made and is hereby seconded. Pursuant to long-standing venue convention and decrees of the mistress of the site, I propose this thread be deemed closed and that further discussion along this line be considered for the Ban Hammer of Temporary Suspension.

                  4. Any discussion of state’s rights must include the ONLY instance in the entire history of the United States where any state actually persued its rights.

                    No, it doesn’t, in part because that is not the only expression of state’s rights.

                    Frankly, if you are so blinded as to think it is, you’re not worth listening to on the subject anyways.

      3. It depends on how you feel about State’s Rights. Whether you’re a Federalist or not. If we’re still a union of states or if states are just administrative districts of the Federal Government.

      4. Back in my younger days, I used to oppose the Electoral College.

        Then the 2000 Presidential election happened, and I quickly realized that without the EC, we would have had 50 Floridas, as Dems in Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Philly, Miami, etc. all stuffed a few million dead people votes in their “revised” totals. Maybe the GOP would grow a backbone and do the same in kind (yeah, probably not; Marquis of Queensbury only for them). But that’s the scenario in which nations die.

        I’ll take the lesser evil of the EC. Maybe those Founding Fathers weren’t quite as dumb as I’d thought…

    2. One argument I’ve never seen advanced in favor of the Electoral College is how it amplifies results beyond the margin of error. I mean, we all know how Florida in 2000 is a rallying cry in regards to recounts; when you bring up the population numbers the margin of error is correspondingly larger. Imagine the debacle of nationwide recounts after a close popular vote; each area could go one way or the other quite clearly, but one side could try to scrape up enough votes to win on an individual basis if the EC were not in place.

      1. I pointed that out to people in 2000 and 2001, that without the electoral college we could have Florida times fifty. But my favorite recommendation for it is that it supports the benefit of having many states to choose from by keeping less-populous states relevant in presidential campaigns. Otherwise the candidates could spend all their effort at increasing their votes in the high-population states and ignore the low-population states.
        My biggest objection to our presidential election system wouldn’t be the EC, but the scheduling of primaries. IMHO that should not be done every time with NJ and Iowa coming first, but in a rotating schedule, perhaps 10 states each Tuesday for five successive weeks, with each week’s list chosen to represent different geographic areas.

        1. Who’s going to enforce that?

          The Democratic Party tried to “arrange” the timing of the primaries (for the 2008 primaries) but at least two State Legislatures disagreed with the arrangement and held their primaries at the “wrong time”.

          The Democratic Party Convention was “interesting” that election because some in the National Party Leadership didn’t want to allow the delegates from those states to chose the Democratic Nominee.

          It was especially fun when some of the candidates campaigned and/or were on the ballot in those states and others didn’t campaigned and/or weren’t on the ballot in those states.

          IIRC Obama had delegates from those states and Hillary didn’t have delegates from those states. [Evil Grin]

          1. A big part of that problem stemmed from the fact that most of Obama’s delegates had been selected in party caucuses rather than through primaries. This method strongly favors those campaigns able and willing to turn out their voters at a specified time and place and (at least according to multiple reports) turn away the opposition’s supporters.

            More details can be found at any of the various blogs (e.g., — see below) established back then by disgruntled Hillary supporters communicating their resentment of the Chicago Way.

            re: HillBuzz
            from the site history [edited to excise excess links]:
            Founded and edited by Kevin DuJan while working on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008, Hillbuzz has evolved into one of the Internet’s most heavily-trafficked political humor and punditry sites, attracting close to 40 million readers in its first four years. Hillbuzz offers DuJan’s unique perspective as a gay man, Cleveland Ohio native, former Democrat and Tea Party activist, along with commentary and illustrations from several undercover Conservative and Independent contributors. Kevin DuJan has been interviewed by CNN, MSNBC, Inside Edition, the Associated Press, Politico, RealClearPolitics, and USA Today, among others, and Hillbuzz has been featured by Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin,,,, and a number of prominent political websites and academic journals.

            DuJan began volunteering for Democrat presidential campaigns in high school, and so far has campaigned in nearly 30 states. But the 2008 campaign, and the misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton by both the Obama campaign and the mainstream media, transformed DuJan from a lifelong Democrat to an Independent and ultimately into an out and proud Republican.

            Hillbuzz gained wide readership in Conservative circles when Kevin DuJan’s open letter to George and Laura Bush was featured on Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio show and web site in November of 2009. In the letter, DuJan and the other contributors to Hillbuzz—all gay men living in the predominantly gay “Boystown” neighborhood in Chicago—apologized to President Bush and First Lady Laura Bush, saying, ” we didn’t appreciate you while you were in office, but we thank Heaven we’ve wised up and can see the good you are out there doing, under the radar, today.”

            DuJan, a development consultant and freelance ghostwriter, has created a community on Hillbuzz that allows Americans of all political stripes to interact and get to know each other in a respectful, irreverent, but always pro-America environment. His goal is to help Conservatives defeat Leftists with “choose your own adventure”-style political activism.

            1. I was embarrassed on behalf of the state chairs of the Hillary and Obama campaigns at their caucus. Neither one of them had any idea what their chosen candidate’s actual positions were, only about how supporting them made them feel.

      2. Interestingly, in the 2000 election, I seem to recall Arizona was even closer than Florida, but nobody challenged it. Maybe because they didn’t have crooked Democrats in charge of the election machinery.

        And of course the libs seem to forget that there was an additional recount that the media basically paid for that went over all the ballots by the method Gore wanted, and Bush still won. Waste of money by the media since they didn’t get the result they wanted, so they didn’t report it much.

        1. there was an additional recount that the media basically paid for that went over all the ballots by the method Gore wanted, and Bush still won.

          And IIRC from that report, there was one method by which Gore would have won… a recount of ALL ballots with strict adherence to what votes counted (“hanging chads” etc.)

          Of course, the Gore campaign would have never requested that scenario, because it offers less chance to game the system.

          1. Actually, I don’t think any of the legitimate algoreithms (heh) would have produced a Gore win in that final count, which is why it was buried.

            1. Albert Gore has the singular distinction of being less of a statesman than Tricky Dick. At least Nixon cared enough about the country to accept the results in 1960, even though he had a legitimate complaint.

        2. I recall they kept finding boxes of ballots in warehouses in Arizona, and they were mostly Gore ballots (shocking, I know.) but when even that wasn’t enough they dropped it without doing recounts. Not sure if Arizona laws are different on recounts, they couldn’t find a sympathetic judge, or they didn’t have enough crooked Dems in charge of the election machinery, but they ended up dropping Arizona without challenging.

          1. Heck, they found four boxes of ballots in the courthouse basement of the county I was living in in the Midwest. No one would admit to knowing anything, and since it was after the election had been certified, they were destroyed rather than being counted. It was strange.

    3. I don’t believe any of them did move to Canada, or elsewhere. I’d say they’re all talk, but there’s that 10-ton load of bad feelings and hate of their chosen “others”; can’t forget that.

    4. Now that I’m thinking abut it late at night, I have direct line ancestors who did the love it or leave it thing and moved (back) to Canada. At the outbreak of the Revolution. They drifted back into New York several years after cessation of hostilities.

      That said, if you have decalred you’re going to leave if X takes place, and X takes place and you don’t, well, any line you draw after that is meaningless, because you didn’t make good on your first threat. You’ve shown you are not a serious person, and shouldn’t be taken seriously by anyone.

  2. In addition to NYC one should also look to those bastions of strict gun control, Chicago and Washington D.C. Both have for several years had complete bans on all handguns and severe restrictions on long arms. Those are finally being struck down by 2nd amendment challenges, but we still have a significant stretch of time to examine and see if their efforts had the intended effect.
    For those unwilling to devote the time to research I would point out that Chi-town and D.C. have for those same years vied with each other for the title of gun death capitol of the United States. Funny in a sick sort of way how those lousy criminals just insist on ignoring those laws ain’t it?

    1. I’ve always been a bit amused at how low the incidence of home-invasion robbery is, here in Texas. Something about how there may be enough small arms in the average neighborhood to fit out a small European country may have something to do with it.

      1. Or the fact that in Texas it is legal to shoot somebody for stealing your property, unlike many states where you have to be threatened to use deadly force.

        1. To be very clear on this, they have to be in the process of stealing it.

          You do not have the right to go over to the guys house and kill him to reclaim your property that he stoke last weak.

          Your property is considered an extension of your life and liberty.

          1. Which makes sense, because you could always get the wrong person that way, whereas, if they are in the process, it’s nearly (I won’t invite someone to find a counter-example by saying completely) impossible to determine the wrong identity of the thief.

        2. You can also use deadly force to protect others and their property… which makes sure there’s risk even in robbing the empty house.

          1. Didn’t a Texan fellow do that for a new-ish immigrant family that had some huge reason to be out of town– death in the family or something?

            They were making a big deal about how he was “hunting minorities” because the criminal who got shot was one… until the family whose entire livelihood he’d defended, simply because they were neighbors, showed up on TV. (I want to say they were from Thailand or something?)

            He knew the neighbors by sight, he knew the guy packing a TV out of the window wasn’t one, and he knew that he had a case for defense of property when he confronted the idiot from his own land…..

      2. There was a guy in Wichita Falls (a largish Texas town) a few months ago who broke into a home only to have the homeowner attack him with a spear. Seems the homeowner was into historical reenactment or the SCA or something along those lines (don’t recall which). As well as being an expert in several martial arts. The video on the news showed the trail of blood the burglar left on his way out the back door.

        1. Several of the guys in my uncles’ Celtic group have a habit of storing their weapons in the same closet as their home invasion bats, and there HAVE been instances of the wrong handle being grabbed when one hears A Strange Noise outside in the middle of the night.

          One of them resulted in the folks involved gaining two big jugs of gas from the guys who had been siphoning it out of all the cars on the block and hadn’t expected a battle ax and sword…..

      3. I remember reading, with wry amusement, that the “arsenal” of weapons at the Waco compound mean that the Branch Davidians were LESS well armed than the average Texan.

      4. Home invasion is a crime that is very rare anywhere that private citizens can be assumed likely to be armed, because it is one of the riskiest crime a criminal can commit if his victims have any power to resist. All the victim’s territorial instincts are roused in his defense, and the fight is on his own familiar home ground. This is the classic crime that gets a criminal killed, and usually with the approval of the authorities.

        If the victims can be assumed to be unarmed, however, it’s a fairly safe crime to commit. The crime occurs in private and is difficult to notice from outside the victim’s residence; and the criminals can attack with surprise. And they, of course, are armed.

        1. Only one in seven burglaries in America occur when the occupants are home, as opposed to every other in Great Britain. Burglars explain it quite simply: that’s the way to get shot.

        2. Houston ended up with a slew of home invasions right after the Katrina refugees arrived; they tapered off after about three months and several demonstrations of why Houston ain’t Nawlins.

          1. True. But you still have to jump through hoops to own them. I have no doubt that our brief era of relative firearms freedom won’t last beyond the next Liberal majority, but it’s still a good thing.

          2. Most Canadians I have known own them as a matter of fact; but very few of them are legal. Even if you jump through all the hoops, and are permitted to have one (very difficult, time consuming) you STILL have your name on a list as a handgun owner, and in addition to having to continue to jump through hoops regularly to continue to own said handgun, they can decide to change the law at any time (like the next liberal won election) and then they KNOW to come straight to you to confiscate said handgun.

    2. It is worth considering that in NYC, where gun ownership is almost as highly restricted as the Progs wish, the Libs are in High Dudgeon over the use of Stop-and-Frisk police procedures which are intended to enforce those restrictions.

      Coherence is apparently not a Liberal virtue.

        1. They don’t…. against the hood. They want to disarm the largely law-abiding middle class who might effectively revolt.

        2. By punishing you after the fact when you use your illegal weapon. Like we used to say in the Air Force: “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. What you do is make his wish like hell he had.”

    3. Side note; I was living in Wonderland On The Potomac during several of the years when the media was calling it The Murder Capitol. During at least one, and I believe several, of those years deaths by gunshot in the city proper were exceeded by traffic deaths caused by deer in the overall merto area.

      Not sure what that proves, other than a severe deer overpopulation problem.

  3. I’ve long felt we should have a Department of POETIC Justice that would send these people letters saying that, in accordance with their wishes, their citizenship has been revoked and they have 30 days to leave the country or face deportation.

    Of course it would be unconstitutional to punish free speech by doing that, but this is why it has to come from the Department of Poetic Justice: no one would actually follow up on the letter in any way, because it’s purely Poetic Justice.

      1. I once looked into what it actually takes to renounce one’s US citizenship. Apparently it’s a long and involved Bureaucratic process. I proposed a faster one. Burn a Flag in public. That, I think, gives MUCH more symbolic meaning to the gesture, don’t you think?

        1. Erm … scouts, flag retirement … burning or burying are the only proper methods, or so I was taught …

          1. The difference between respectfully placing it on a fire, vs holding it aloft, waving it while it burns, throwing it down on the ground and stomping on it, which is how protesters do it, should be obvious even to a casual observer.

          1. Oh, they’re free to do it, but this speech has a specific, legal meaning. And I think it makes the gesture that much more significant….

            I mean, they say they’re making a statement, we’re just clarifying what it is.

          2. The real irony is that once it was declared a protected right, flag-burning really decreased as a practice. It was a way to get arrested.

              1. “Fighting Words” has been replaced with “Hate Speech” but “Hate Speech” doesn’t apply to hateful speech directed toward Conservative Christians, Conservatives, Libertarians, Whites, Men, etc.

                On the other hand, if SJWs disagree with you said, it’s “Hate Speech”.

                1. By the way, probably not where “if you don’t love it, leave it” originated, but probably the first place I heard it is in the chorus of this song.

  4. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

    – Theodore Roosevelt

    1. Thank you. I saw this quote framed at the Menger Hotel when I was at Worldcon last year and have been trying to find it ever since.

      1. It’s usually referred to as “The Man in the Arena” or not as often as “The Critic” and is from a speech Teddy Roosevelt gave in France in 1910 on what it meant to live in a republic. Entitled “Citizenship in a Republic”

        There is some deep irony in this. As he is one of the Progressives that started us on this road we are on, and is one of the cautionary tails of people that believes he has the right to use government “Help” the people. I like Teddy he was a good man just doing what he thought was right and doing what his morals dictated that he should do.

        If you want to read the whole speech you can find it here:

        Click to access maninthearena.pdf

        Someone mentioned a poster, and If you are looking for one, one can be found at Art of Manliness website store, just put this here as FYI.

  5. There has been a push to split California into 5 or 6 separate states. It is much favored by the more conservative individuals, and abhorred by the lefties. If not for the conservative side, California would be in even worse financial trouble.

    1. Splitting a separate state about five miles wide along the coast the length of the state would solve most of Cali’s problems. For everyone else. That strip would quickly implode, not to mention get very thirsty very quickly.

      1. ehh, Los angeles is bigger than 5 miles and needs to go with the coast. Frisco is more than 5 miles wide, and Oakland and Sacramento need to go with it, too.

        1. I think the usual solution is to copy off of tradition, and put a line somewhere down the center of the Cascades, split it in two on the left about mid-level, and split the other side in thirds at the bend and somewhere around Death Valley.

          Sucks for the folks on the left of the Cascades, but doesn’t selectively remove all of the Coast’s natural water sources.

          1. The Sierra Nevadas? Run the split down the western side , west of the central valley, then move it over so the Santa Clarita valley is west of it, and run it along the northern edge of the L.A. Basin until you hit the border with San Bernadino, then down. Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, and all that along the coast, they can keep.

        2. Frisco? Do you mean the one in Texas or the one in Colorado? There’s no Frisco in California. And don’t you dare lump Sacramento in with the Bay Area. It’s more farm than you’d think, and if you split off the coast areas, some of the imports would go back from whence they were sent.

  6. My biggest complaint about those who whine that they will leave if their side doesn’t win is that they never do. There appears to be some form of selective liberal alzheimer’s that affects the worst offenders. They disappear for an all too brief time, then pop back up, still in place, and ready to take a flying leap at the newest cause du jour.

    1. Johnny Depp did … moved to France. Then France being France in this day and age, with its nightly car-B-Qs and muslim (er Asian Youths) unrest et al, he decided you know, maybe America under GWB wasn’t such a bad place to be and moved back.
      Madonna lives most of the time in England. But she was rather vocal to other US folk escaping the Evil GWB that if they got real sick, or got preggers, best go home to get that “horrible healthcare” and not suffer through even the pay services over yonder..

    1. Noticed that when I came for a visit several years ago. I was in a car with my sister’s family and my mother. At the time I had a full beard and longish hair, so I didn’t fit with the group. Apparently, I looked like a smuggler of some sort, since we had to pull over and let the border guards search the car. Luckily, nothing was found, and we went on our way.

      1. I think you guys sending us Lt. Col. Sinke to be a US Marine was pretty nice. Especially after we sent you guys all those draft dodgers at the same time.

        That one video talking to him at the War Memorial was kind of a tearjerker.

        “Because we’re comrades-in-arms, eh.”

  7. I’m still waiting for George Soros to make good on his threat/promise to renounce his wealth and join a monastery if GWB won in 2004.

  8. Amanda, if you want an example of how quickly the GHH turn on each other? Send a pre-operation male-to-female transsexual lesbian into the “safe space” for cis-gendered lesbians at a place like Wiscon.

    But only bring popcorn if you feel like it.

  9. I like to joke in Canada we have the Conservatives (the not quite socialist party), the Liberals (the pretending not to be socialist party) and the NDP (the very socialist party). But the last few years we’ve had a more conservative government than the US, which I think has never happened before in the history of either country.

    1. Yah, I noticed that. It is as if there is a required balancing of the continent.

      But give credit to Mark Steyn and whassisname, Steyn’s editor, for pushing back against the Speech (and thought) Police. That surely helped slow the slide down the Left chute by alerting many to what was happening.

      Y’all still don’t spend enough on your military, however superbly trained they are. No Army ought have to hitchhike to the Front.

    2. You forgot the PQ. Also known as the Liberals’ wet dream. They successfully destroy their own province year after year as the actual Liberal party steps aside to let them time after time.

  10. “Maybe I’m just getting crotchety in my old age, but I’m tired of folks threatening to leave the U.S. if something they don’t like doesn’t change.”

    What I’m getting tired of is them failing to follow through on their threats. I’m still waiting for Rosy O’Donnell and Michael Moore to move to France like they promised.

    1. Michael Moore is waiting for the next Republican presidency to revive his career. You’ll notice he’s been very quiet during the Obama years.

      1. well, not heard much from him since Iowahawk showed his stupidity then Bill Whittle made a video from Daves post:

        Math is hard
        note the comments …even with the point made in spades with facts and figures, the leftoids cannot grasp how stupid their ideas are.

    2. I share their dismay over living in a polity so unappreciative of their enlightenment. We are not worthy of them and it would serve us right if they renounced their citizenship, the sooner the better.

      You do notice that it is only the Progs who want to levy an exit tax?

      1. The irony — I have been wrassling with a prog who was defending the Berlin Wall.


        “The Wall has had nothing to do with freedom and no freedom. It had to do with the Western allies who won the war trying to economically ruin the new Eastern German state in the dawn of its beginning.”

  11. Something I’ve been thinking about for several years now.

    If someone wants to live under Euro-socio-fascism (and many on the Left appear to want that since they’re trying their best to turn America into that) they have their pick of countries. What they claim to want is available in any number of places.

    For those of us who want to live under limited government according to Constitutional principles, this is it. As poorly as it meets those ideals these days, it’s the only thing that is even within shouting distance. For us, there’s no place else to go.

    As Ronald Reagan said in a 1964 speech, “If we lose freedom here, there’s no place left to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

    I have encountered folk from the Left who have claimed that if I didn’t like government I should go to Somalia. Apparently they are incapable of comprehending the difference between “failed state” and “limited government under Constitutional principles.” I have sometimes reflected that one could, possibly, use a place like Somalia as a starting point to build that Constitutional government. It wouldn’t be fast and it wouldn’t be bloodless, although with the benefit of historic hindsight we could probably give the natives a better fate than the American Indian endured. And maybe I could even get such a ball rolling. I’m not much myself but I know people who know people if you know what I mean.

    But really, would the Euro-socio-fascists allow it? As soon as any such attempt even began to look like it might succeed, they’d be in with overwhelming force to “save Somali Culture” or some such. (And the people I know also understand this which is why it would never even start–why waste the effort?)

    And so America remains the “last stand on Earth.”

    1. I was planning on making this point after reading through all the comments, but this is a perfect comment to respond to, with this very point.

      Although I was never able to find the original exchange, I once read someone quoting an exchange on a forum somewhere:

      Person A: If you like guns so much, why don’t you just move out, and start your own country, where guns are legal?

      Person B: We did! Who the hell let you in?

      If you think about it, our ancestors desired freedom. They wanted guns. They wanted freedom of religion and thought. They wanted to be left alone. Heck, they wanted limited government and low taxes! We can see all of this in both the Declaration of Independence, and in the Constitution, by observing all the things that pushed us to take up arms, and all the things we wanted to protect the government.

      And now we have people who want to take all of this away, and if we don’t like it, they tell us to “start our own country”, or “move to Somalia” (which, incidentally, is doing better than when they had to suffer under *Communist* government!) or somesuch. The reality is that there are plenty of governments that such people can go to, that they would consider “paradise”, but there’s only one place in the world that, compared to the rest of the world, actually *is* paradise…and these people want us to become more like the rest of the world, rather than just move there!

        1. I can’t take credit for it, because I remember reading someone else describe it, and he got it from a forum somewhere else. I have tried googling for the original source, but I cannot find it.

          It’s something that stuck with me, though; I’d be more than happy if you (and everyone else, for that matter) stole it, because it’s something that certainly deserves to be spread far and wide! 🙂

    1. Had I the time and energy, I would put together a small Conservative/Libertarian activist group to go around to this sort of celebrity twit during election years, confront them on camera, and ask them to sign a contract to the effect that IF what they are scheming about doesn’t fall out as they wish they are obligated to leave the U.S.. And then, if they declined to sign, I would tell them, “In that case, since you have shown that your are unwilling to suit the action to the words, I believe that I am justified in telling you to SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE.”

      I would then post the video on YouTube.

  12. “Leave it and try to find some place better. We’ll still be here when you decide to come back.”

    Oh, hell no! We’ll be here guarding the borders to keep you out!

    1. Shhh. Don’t tell them that. Think about the fun we could have using them for target practice. Of course, no SJWs would be hurt. Swear.

  13. I’d either need my own nation, or I’d possibly consider living on the Isle of Man but otherwise, I’ve no other destination I’d prefer … well maybe Belize.
    I prefer Texas, Hopefully Michigan gets fixed, maybe Wisconsin gets fixed as well. (there is an outside chance my job could move to WI. Whether I live there or back home in Da Yoopee would depend)

    1. Found at Urgent Agenda blog, directing attentiion to this Weakly Standard profile of Scott Walker in WI:

      The key to Walker’s success was his performance among middle- and lower-income voters. Walker won those earning more than $100,000 by 20 points, just as Mitt Romney had in 2012. But he won voters earning between $50,000 and $100,000 by 17 points; Romney only won them by 1. Those earning less than $50,000 Walker lost by 9 points—whereas Romney lost them by 25. As reporter Molly Ball pointed out in the Atlantic earlier this year about that last group, “whether Democrats win these voters by a 10-point or a 20-point margin tells you who won every national election for the past decade.”

      There is serious hope for that state although there will always be an entrenched interest group that feels entitled to support absent productivity. We could debate whether this is commendable for the components comprised of the government bureaucrats and the professoriate, but that is an issue for an other discussion.

      Don’t think it hasn’t escaped notice that decertification of the Teachers’ Unions has reduced layoffs of teachers.

        1. Sorry — it was an offhand comment in an article I read several days ago. Searching on the question produces (as you would expect) highly mixed results, but the crux of the argument seems to be this point made in a NY Times (admission against interest always helps) article:

          Many Wisconsin officials are grateful for the flexibility and authority the law gives them, while public-sector workers say it has reduced their living standards and sapped morale. But government officials and government employees have no dispute on this point: It has fundamentally changed the dynamic between them.

          Act 10, [Walker] argues, allows local governments the kind of sensible flexibility he lacked as county executive. And it helps communities and school districts save money to avoid or minimize police or teacher layoffs.

          All over the state, public executives are exercising new authority. Instead of raising teachers’ salaries, the Mequon-Thiensville School District, near Milwaukee, froze them for two years, saving $560,000. It saved an additional $400,000 a year by increasing employee contributions for health care, said its superintendent, Demond Means. And it is starting a merit pay system for teachers, a move that has been opposed by some teachers and embraced by others.

          Ted Neitzke, school superintendent in West Bend, a city of 31,000 people north of Milwaukee, said that before Act 10 his budget-squeezed district had to cut course offerings and increase class sizes. Now, the district has raised the retirement age for teachers and revamped its health plan, saving $250,000 a year. “We couldn’t negotiate or maneuver around that when there was bargaining,” Mr. Neitzke said. “We’ve been able to shift money out of the health plan back into the classroom. We’ve increased programming.”

          James R. Scott, a Walker appointee who is chairman of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, which administers the law regarding public-employee unions, said that “as a result of Act 10, the advantages that labor held have been diminished.” He added: “It’s fair to say that employers have the upper hand now.”

          The question would seem to revolve on the issue of how many layoffs would have occurred absent Act 10, and what harm would have been inflicted by increased taxation to fund the costs.

          Teachers unions typically exercise disproportionate leverage in contract negotiations, usually bringing in professional negotiators to represent the local, agents who negotiate such contracts every week matched against local school boards who negotiate every third year.

      1. With Madison and Milwaukee you have to deal with the Sewer Socialism and Unions. Unions are waning as they no longer represent their members best interests any longer. Sadly, I think Sewer Socialism will always be there.

  14. I’d let see those folks held to their promises it would be so nice to hold a little party wishing them fair winds, a safe voyage and good luck in their chosen country (assuming they would be allowed to immigrate)
    OTOH The only “problem” with the Electoral College is that idiotic one-candidate-gets-all nosense. The balance between popular vote and states interests only works right when ALL Electoral Districts votes are counted as cast…
    Too many voters in California and other states have been disenfranchised in presidential elections for decades, with their district voting for one candidate and being counted for another.
    Those first 535 votes need to truly represent the folks in each congressional district with the remaining 100 reflecting state legislatures interests.
    My state’s three votes may not be very influential, but MY vote influences 0.3 % of the total instead of 1/130,000,000 of a popular vote election (0.00000008%)
    We’re not a Democracy for good and sufficient reason, and the Office of The President is a little too critical to turn into a beauty contest.

  15. If we were to do that, they reasoned, then no bad guys would have guns and gun violence and violence against women would go down.

    Hm, so if we outlaw shoes that woman who was kicked to death outside of a club in California wouldn’t have been killed, too?
    (her attackers were female; IIRC, they weren’t charged with murder even though they kept kicking her after she was on the ground, unconscious, because they couldn’t prove WHICH kick actually killed the victim)

                  1. Look, if we’re going to impale people, let’s at least not use short stakes. I mean, come on, if you’re going to use a short stake why not just flay them alive?
                    Some people…

  16. I think the (original) “love it or leave it” option was in response to those who, like the folks annoying you, were pulling the abusive spouse trick– “I love you as long as you do exactly what I want.” (With the practical outcome, unknown for a great time, that it’s impossible to actually meet their standards. You always fail to make them happy, and must be punished.)

    1. Having the advantage of not only living through that period but having been (if only slightly) politically active, the “Love it or Leave it” slogan was a) proclaimed by many brain dead idiots incapable of any argument more sophisticated b) a response to those members of American society who, in word and deed, proclaimed their utter disdain for America’s traditional values c) those who used it as shorthand for calls to stand in defense of their nation, correcting it when wrong but acknowledging the fundamental virtues of our system d) other. Your estimation of how the distribution fell was largely a function of where you stood.

      At its best it was a call for commitment to the political relationship in which we stood, to addressing our flaws in ways that reflect our love and respect for our nation, rather than in manner destructive of the mutual respect necessary for continuance. When one side of the debate thoughtfully spelled our nation’s name with a “k” the other side reasonably doubted their commitment to the relationship’s survival.

  17. I think the leftist jihad against the private ownership of guns comes down to their belief that only the centralized state is authentic and legitimate. Individuals, in their view, lack legitimacy and therefore should not be allowed to usurp the power of the state.

    1. Personally, I think that the Leftists despise the Second Amendment because it applies to All Those Peasants. They are at least dimly aware that their vaunted superiority is founded on quicksand, and the only way to secure it is to have an all powerful State that they control.

      What they won’t see, because it would underline their supreme inutility, is that an all powerful State would quickly be taken over by somebody ruthless and violent (Stalin, anyone?) who would then move to liquidate them as annoying nuisances.

  18. Actually, I like it. I haven’t heard it in years, but that’s what we need to say to the SJW’s when they want to change things in their image.

    “Love it or Leave it”. “Don’t let the door hit you on the ass.”

  19. I live in an area where I occasionally see someone open carrying. It’s always a pistol properly housed in a holster on a sturdy belt … and it’s always a middle-aged man, usually with a little bit of spread but not much, who looks like he might be LE or retired military. Maybe I’m psycho, but I get a warm feeling from the sight, a sense of gratitude that someone is willing and prepared to stand between me and the big bad wolf. I don’t understand the folks who get tizzified form the thought it laying eyes on such a sight … ??

    1. Somewhere on Chris Byrne’s blog he described open carrying a scary black handgun and no one noticing. He also had a Blackberry, cell phone, and something else in a holster on his belt, and people’s eyes just slid right over the firearm. OTOH, if you use a custom Dragon leatherworks holster with red, white and blue rhinestones, people might raise their eyebrows.

      1. I don’t doubt that. I only notice when they’re carrying like LEOs carry, with the rather high placement on the side … I’ll miss anything more subtle. I just don’t spend that much time looking at people’s belts … urk …

        And I would love to see that holster!

    2. My husband and I occasionally open carry at a local smoothie place after practicing our draw at a nearby range (reward for a job well done), and it’s just a starting point for conversation.

  20. “The rationale, and I hate to call it that, behind the belief that making it illegal for a private citizen to own a handgun because then the criminals wouldn’t be able to have handguns eludes me.”

    Actually, I’m pretty sure they believe either that if private ownership of guns were outlawed there would either be no guns available (under the misconception that evil America makes all the guns in the world) or that drugs and maybe slaves are the only thing that can possibly be sold on the black market. (This is probably because they have never produced anything to be sold, and so they don’t understand just how much easier most items are to sell black market than in the government sanctioned market.)

  21. For the duffuss’es in the romo ( me…)
    what is a GHHer? I know SJW (Social Justice Warrior) but GHH is new to me.

      1. Kate may have been the first for that usage. However, her testimony is that originated from commentary about certain Romance novels. Specifically, ones where the heroine goes after a cad or a PUA, same difference, and he follows her, as if she laid down a trail of magical glitter.

        1. So, out of idle curiosity I did a google search of “Glittery Hoo Ha” and (along with some others) came up with this;

          Basically, a writer has created a situation where a nice woman beds a womanizer (who has recently bedded a Sexy Movie Star, One Each) and, for the story to work, he stays. She couldn’t see why this would work, and was told about GHHs as a literary convention.

          I’m a little annoyed that the worker couldn’t see what struck me as fairly obvious;

          Since her character isn’t a Dim Blonde, but an educated and scholarly woman, she might just be the first women he’s bedded since he got mentally old enough to notice who isn’t a self-absorbed twunt. I’m sure he’s bedded nice girls before, but probably when he was little more than a boy himself. His recent experience is with a Sexy Movie Star ™. While some women are just Star level beautiful AND nice, it’s rare. Being Star level beautiful and sexy is work, and the women likeliest to undertake that work can be self absorbed to an amazing degree. Oh, sure, not all of them. But we’re telling a romance story here, not trying to pen the Great Novel of the New Realism.

          Sex is easy to come by. Companionship is rarer.

          1. I recently saw an article on JLo (whoever that is) blaming her failed marriages on her diva ways. A serious relationship is difficult to maintain under the best of circumstances; living with a person who has an entourage — hair stylist, trainer, wardrobe adviser, financial adviser, advice adviser G-D knows what all else — has to be a particularly challenging endeavor. Especially as the entourage is likely to see you as a potential threat to their situations and have every reason to tell The Star what she (or he, as circumstances might be) what she (yadda-yadda) wants to hear.

    1. In a more 60s/70s parlance, “Earth Mothers of both sexes.” (High School English teacher used that one– liberal as can be, but very low tolerance for foolishness.)

  22. Some people have almost pointed it out. The state legislature doesn’t need to take the popular vote into account at all when selecting electors. In fact, there is no requirement at all for a popular vote to be held for the President under the Constitution. If every state allocated it’s electors as Maine and Nebraska do, odds are we’d see a string of Republican presidents for a while. If any state DIDN’T hold a popular vote for President, and the legislature simply appointed the electors, the next state election would see a new legislature.

  23. Unlike any other country in the history of the world, America was founded on a basis of ideas: that we can throw off tyranical government; that governments are tyrannical when they don’t respect *individual* rights; that everyone is supposed to be equal before the law, but should be free to do as they will otherwise; etc.

    Now, we are going to debate what should or shouldn’t be individual rights, and whether or not we are doing enough to preserve rights. If that is what you are doing, and you aren’t doing it in a way that would attack our fundamental rights (government controlled medicine, for example, violates our freedom of association, among other things), then go for it.

    But there’s a class of people who wish our rights would just go away, so they could create the Perfect Society in their Own Image, often modeled after the Paradises of Europe and Asia. It is these people to whom I would say “America: love it or leave it!” because they don’t love what it is that makes America so great. If they like Europe so much, there is nothing preventing them from moving there.

    Well, maybe one one thing: the bizzarre and complicated passport and visa system established by nations to conrol the movement of individuals, as established at around the time of WWI. But, hey, these guys support such things, don’t they? It’s only a taste of the bureaucratic interference that would await them in such countries (and that they are so diligently trying to bring here)!

  24. Although I believe it should be legalized, I’m not wholly sure I agree with open carryas a personal option.

    I’d rather that any assailant of me or mine, God forbid, not realize I was armed until they were bleeding on the ground. Open carry might dissuade an assailant, but if he knows I’m armed and elects to commit violence against me it just gives him a further degree of the initiative he has already assumed.

    1. Freedom

      You should have the choice. Who is in a better position to know and determine what level of risk one takes on you or your government.


    2. Open carry is mostly useful so that those carrying concealed aren’t breaking the law if they inadvertently reveal the weapon.

      1. Yep, it dissuade assailants, of course there is no way of knowing how many it dissuades, although I would guess it is a lot. There are undoubtedly bound to be a fair number of criminals that don’t think, I’m going to mug that guy, and then see you are carrying and change their mind, but rather they see you are carrying first, so it never even crosses their mind to mug you. But yes the greatest advantages of open carry are 1) it is unnecessary to have a permit to open carry in many places where it is required to concealed carry. 2) as you pointed out a concealed carry person is not breaking the law if they inadvertently reveal their weapon. Part and parcel of this, I have often left my house carrying concealed, and returned later carrying open, for the simple reason that it got hot out and I stripped down to a t-shirt, since every pistol I currently own is full-size, concealing them while in a t-shirt and jeans is problematic (“printing” is usually considered “concealed” but there are some cops I have heard claim it is not). Of course the reverse applies also, if you leave the house carrying open, remember if you put on a coat when it gets cold, you are likely now carrying concealed. 3)by far the most common reason I carry open, I carry a ultralite 44 as backup whenever I am bear hunting, and often enough for other hunting, I will be packing that or another pistol. I put that on when I get up in the morning, I don’t want to have to take it off if I stop for gas, or stop to grab a gallon of milk at the grocery store on the way home, etc.

        The bottom line is open carry is a freedom issue, regardless of whether you think it is a good idea or not, whether you would ever practice it or not, you should have the freedom to choose that option if you want.

        I do carry open a fair amount in the summer, simply because it is less hassle than attempting to conceal whatever I happen to be packing, but in the winter I usually always throw a coat or heavy shirt on and am therefore packing concealed. I like not having to worry about either option, and luckily live in a state where I don’t have to, and have only ever been hassled by one person (the neighbor lady who used to run the local gas station, she has since moved back to California where she belongs) occasionally someone may ask me what I am packing, or how I like that particular gun, but most of the time nobody here gives a second glance to an open carried pistol.

Comments are closed.