Tag Archives: Alex Jones

Keep the Crazy Away from Sharp Objects & Sharp Comments

Turning in gunsI’m strongly in favor of keeping the mentally ill away from firearms and I’m coming around to approving any policy that keeps crazy ‘journalists’ away from a keyboard, too. Case in point is Salon.com writer Arthur Chu. His rant titled “It’s not about mental illness: The big lie that always follows mass shootings by white males” makes Alex Jones sound like Dr. Phil.

Chu and Solon appear to be angry because most of America has a handy rule of thumb for predicting mental illness: Any white loser that goes into a prayer meeting at a black church and indiscriminately shoots nine people in the belief the killings will spark a race war — is nuts.

Besides, everyone knows if you want to create widespread civil unrest it requires a white cop to shoot a black suspect in self–defense while the suspect resists arrest.

Chu begins, “I get really really tired of hearing the phrase “mental illness” thrown around as a way to avoid saying other terms like “toxic masculinity,” “white supremacy,” “misogyny” or “racism.”

He’s more concerned with how the insanity manifests itself than the underlying mental illness. This is like criticizing coverage of Jack–the–Ripper for not pointing out his poor surgical technique.

The Charleston shooter was manifestly a crazy racist. The description has the advantage of being accurate without making the rest of white America, and gun owners in particular, responsible for the deaths.

Chu does have the distinction of being the first soft–on–sanity leftist I’ve encountered. He complains about the lack of “serious policy proposals for how to improve our treatment of the mentally ill in this country,” but he wants to exploit the mentally ill to remove guns from the law–abiding sane.

He contends that pointing out the crazy component of white mass shooters is only an excuse to begin a reign of terror among the mentally ill by requiring them to undergo treatment and possibly recover. “Elliot Rodger’s (Isla Vista) parents should’ve been able to force risperidone down his throat. Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech) should’ve been forcibly institutionalized. Anyone with a mental illness diagnosis should surrender all of their constitutional rights, right now, rather than at all compromise the right to bear arms of self-declared sane people.”

Since Rodger’s score was three killed with knives and three killed with guns, confiscating my guns wouldn’t have prevented his spree. And Cho was so nutty a professor wanted him banned from her classes before he started shooting.

The mental health component of preventing gun violence is to bar gun ownership to anyone who’s been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution. Second Amendment rights can reinstate after five years and a doctor’s clearance.

But logical consistency doesn’t matter when the end goal of the left is to control guns by confiscating guns.

To Chu calling someone mentally ill is like pulling a gun on them, so to speak. “When you call someone “mentally ill” in this culture it’s a way to admonish people not to listen to them, to ignore anything they say about their own actions and motivations…”

Sure, just ask Kathleen Willey how that works.

But why any sane person would want to listen to Seung–Hui Cho’s ranting is a mystery to me and that goes for all the rest of the mass shooters and their manifestos.

The entire piece is so full of straw men that the column constitutes a fire hazard, but I think his solution to the problem is getting rid of white men and privately owned guns.

Chu appears to believe that the white, oppressive culture that is America today — President Obama, call your office — broadcasts subliminal messages picked up by the most vulnerable among us, who aren’t crazy, just indoctrinated.

No credit is ever granted to white America. “And hundreds of years of history in which an entire country’s economy was set up around chaining up millions of black people, forcing them to work and shooting them if they get out of line? That’s just history.” The only problem with that is slavery in the US lasted less than 100 years and 400,000 Union troops died to remove that stain from our nation’s honor.

Finally, in full frothing–at–the–mouth mode, he concludes, “We love to talk about individuals’ mental illness so we can avoid talking about the biggest, scariest problem of all–societal illness.”

The entire piece reads enough like a manifesto to make me hope Chu isn’t a gun owner himself. The rational among us can be thankful that outside the fever swamp of Salon this screed will have little influence and we can mark Chu as a Bernie Sanders voter who thought the finest moment in recent history was the Occupy movement.

IRS Insider Exposes Federal Reserve Coup and IRS Fraud

YouTube Description:

Joe Banister is the first and thus far only IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent ever to conduct, while serving as a special agent, an investigation into allegations that the IRS illegally administers and enforces the federal income tax. He respectfully reported the results of his investigation to his IRS superiors, up to and including the IRS Commissioner. Rather than address the legitimate concerns raised by one of their own distinguished investigators, his IRS superiors suspiciously refused to address the chilling evidence of IRS wrongdoing raised in his report and instead encouraged him to resign from his position. Observing that IRS management intended to cover up the deceit and illegal conduct alleged in his report, Banister chose to resign from his position so that he could report his findings to the American public. In effect, Banister had to resign from his position in order to abide by his oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Birther Nonsense

While I’m not a fan of Stand Up! with Pete Dominick on Sirius XM, he’s always good to get the center-left angle on politics.  In addition, I’m a self-diagnosed politics junkie who was stuck in the wonderful Beltway traffic so I guess you can say I didn’t have a choice in the matter.  Pete’s guest, John Avalon, made a critical point today stating how significant Mitt Romney’s nomination really is to American politics.  He is the first Mormon to be nominated by a major party and the first non-protestant to be nominated by Republicans.  This comes after Mitt’s pervasive hammering surrounding his not so stellar conservative credentials.  The base may have been skeptical about him, but in the end, they choose him over the other clowns who vied for the Republican nomination. However, the mainstream media is not pushing that narrative.  Instead, they’re focused on Donald Trump’s birther nonsense.

Now, I know we should all focus on the economy and other key issues in this upcoming election, but this birther issue does get under my skin.  First of all, it’s beyond absurd.   Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural born citizen” who is eligible for the presidency.  Even Andrew Breitbart thought this whole charade was a losing issue.  No one cares! No one cares because the narrative these people are trying to push is not grounded in reality.  It is something akin to an Alex Jones “theory”, who feels that al-Qaeda is an arm of the U.S. intelligence network, or a person who has watched Three Days of the Condor, The Manchurian Candidate, and The Parallax View one too many times.  No doubt shady stuff occurs in Washington, but birthers are so ludicrous it makes me want to hug them in empathy.

My first taste in blogging was for Western Journalism, which reports heavily on the subject.  I cannot bash the folks at Western Journalism too much, since some of them are very professional and cordial, but as the months progressed; I found myself unable to be associated with an organization that peddles, excuse me, this gross propaganda concerning Obama’s eligibility.  It’s been three years folks.  If you haven’t been able to convince the base, the heavyweights in the conservative media, and the American people, you probably don’t have the “explosive find” which you regard as the holy grail of political malfeasance.

Furthermore, like liberals, birthers get agitated, petulant, and downright nasty when people dismiss them and their ideas.  It is a temper tantrum on steroids. An excerpt from a piece on Western Journalism detailed the open letter Breitbart’s Senior Staff released surrounding their legitimate vetting of Obama which, needless to say, didn’t bode well with this writer.

Andrew Breitbart was never a ‘Birther,’ and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of ‘Birtherism.’”

Reading this makes me want to ask in bemused wonder:  How old are you?  (I could, of course, ask the same question of Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levine, Neal Boortz, or Glenn Beck – who are clearly much older to a man.)  But seriously, how immature – or insecure, at least – must one be to be so concerned with what the cultural elites think of them?  Young Ben Shapiro (twenty-eight, and reportedly the youngest nationally syndicated writer in the country) went to Harvard Law. One wonders if he had been president of the Law Review if we would have ever seen one of his publications…but I digress.  Joel Pollak…sure enough, went to both Harvard and Harvard Law – just as I had expected.

While I must congratulate the two on emerging from that milieu with any non-collectivist values, it seems that neither of them escaped with a penchant for identifying and confronting the Alinsky staple of marginalization…or, they accept the practice so fully that they simply can’t bear the thought of being on the receiving end thereof.  Well, grow up, boys!  If what Media Matters says about you is a concern (and it clearly is), then perhaps you should choose another line of work.

I think someone misplaced their pacifier.

The real comical element about this whole movement is that there is no concrete legal definition of the term “natural born citizen.”  They have no cornerstone.  I’ve always thought that the term applied to any citizens born on American soil.  Indeed, I would stand corrected. Byron York wrote a great piece in The Washington Examiner since the rude resurrection of this issue thanks to Donald Trump, who Geogre Will aptly called a bloviated ignoramus last Sunday.  York wrote:

The Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States, but it does not define the term. The Supreme Court has never clarified the issue, but there is a law, 8 U.S. Code 1401, that spells out in detail who is a citizen.

The law uses the phrase “citizens of the United States at birth” and lists categories of people who fit that description.

First, there are people born inside the United States. No question about that; their citizenship is established by the 14th Amendment.

Then there are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both American citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, at least two of them after age 14.

Since they are all “citizens of the United States at birth,” the question is, does that also mean they are “natural born citizens” in the constitutional sense?

Birthers believe a natural born citizen is a person born to two parents who were citizens of the United States at the time.  Hence, the reason why birthers have Marco Rubio, the crown prince of the Tea Party movement, in their crosshairs if he should ever be chosen as Romney’s running mate.

Well, according to Theodore Olson, Bush’s former solicitor general:

“My conclusion would be that if you are a citizen as a consequence of your birth, that’s a natural-born citizen…[Olsen] defended John McCain in a 2008 lawsuit alleging McCain was ineligible to be president. McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 while his father served in the U.S. Navy there. Even though the area was under American jurisdiction and both McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens, some Democrats alleged McCain was ineligible to be president. McCain won the case, if not the presidency.

The law is really quite lenient, especially for those born outside the United States. If a child were born today in, say, Kenya, to a Kenyan father and an American citizen mother who had lived in the United States for at least five years, at least two of them over the age of 14 — that child would be a “citizen of the United States by birth” and be eligible for the White House.

However, this hasn’t stopped people like Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, who vociferously pushes the birther issue and has gone on record to say Rubio is ineligible for the VP slot due to his parents not being citizens at the time.  Washington lawyer Matthew McGill, who York cites in his column, states  “I am not aware of anyone who has contended that someone could be born in the United States and be a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment and nevertheless still not be a natural-born American citizen…if he is born in the United States, his parentage is not of consequence.”  No to mention that there is incontrovertible proof that Rubio was born in Miami, Florida.

In the words of John Adams, “facts are stubborn things.” Barack Obama is eligible for president, he is the president, and now we must focus all of our efforts in voting him out of office come November.  We have no time to theorize absurd notions about the “origins of his birth.”  This is time to get serious about the fate of our republic and our economy and we have zero time for sophomoric conspiracy theories whose footnote page is no longer than a kindergartner’s book report.  However, this is a free country.  You have every right to keep your opinions, no matter how insane, but I intend, along with other serious conservatives, to do everything possible in order to restore honor and dignity to the White House.  It’s game time and birthers have come unprepared.  They’re still coming down from their Paxil binge.