Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“20 Republicans set to uphold controversial UN treaty”

Yes. It can happen here.  And it’s going to.  And when it does, it’ll be largely because people like John Roberts didn’t want to be on the bad end of a leftist shaming campaign — and so provided those of us who have shown a willingness to fight for the principles of the founding no legal or governmental recourse to beat back the coup.

Well, except we do have Mitt Romney to save us.  So that’s heartening.

Examiner:

Upon the advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama has confirmed his intention to sign two controversial U.N. treaties — the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) and the so called “small arms” treaty.

Although many citizens and elected representatives are sounding the alarm about the small arms treaty, such as this entry Sunday at the Daily Paul, some political observers note that the treaty is unlikely to pass the Senate. But a very different scenario is developing for the Law of the Sea.

Twenty Republican senators are set to join with Democrats in upholding LOST.

In a breaking update, two of the 20 Republican senators have now indicated they will oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty. One political activist stated that it is important for citizens to call the offices of all 20 to make sure those Senators are on the record with their intent to vote against the treaty. McConnell and Toomey now state they will vote no.

The U.S. Constitution grants authority to presidents to enter into treaty agreements with other nations and entities. But due to the fact that a treaty, if approved, becomes the law of the land, the U.S. Senate must approve by an exact two-thirds majority rather than the simple supermajority of 60 votes. This means that 67 votes are needed in the Senate to approve a treaty.

Most political observers believe that all 53 Democrats in the Senate will vote to approve LOST. And if the 20 Republicans who have failed to indicate opposition to the treaty hold firm, the Senate will have more than the required 67 votes to pass.

The 20 Republicans who are apparently set to uphold the treaty are Enzi, McConnell, Hutchison, Toomey, Johanns, Ayotte, Graham, McCain, Lugar, Kirk, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Isakson, Grassley, Portman, Corker, Cochran, Brown, and Alexander.

In 1983 President Ronald Reagan rejected LOST outright due to encroachments on U.S. sovereignty. Thus, the question arises as to why these 20 Republicans would be indicating support for a treaty that Reagan saw as an international attempt to usurp American sovereignty and thus supersede the U.S. Constitution.

Why, because the era of Reagan is over, sillies!  Either we agree to help the left weaken our sovereignty and fundamentally change our country into yet another democratic socialist outpost on the road to economic collapse, or we risk becoming a regional party. Did you not learn the lessons of 2010 — specifically, the defeats of Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell?

The small arms treaty, on the other hand, is facing a much more difficult task in gaining the approval of the Senate. Although it is possible to muster 67 votes to approve, too many Democrats are facing reelection in states where gun rights are important. Democrats now have a 53 seat majority. Even if all of the Democrats voted in favor, 14 Republicans would have to join them in order for the measure to pass.

In an election year during a period of time in U.S. history when citizens have indicated in various ways that they oppose any more gun control in any form, it is difficult to imagine 14 Republicans voting in favor of such a treaty.

But as indicated by Forbes Magazine such assumptions are premature. Some senators are always loathe to oppose any treaty signed by a president for the fear of negatively impacting U.S. prestige on the international stage.

Thus, conservatives have sounded the alarm about the treaty to make sure citizens pressure their senators to vote no.

A look at some of the provisions of the treaty will reveal why many conservatives are alarmed. By international law all citizens in the United States would find it more difficult to purchase firearms due to tough registration and licensing requirements. The sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic firearms would be banned. And an international registry of gun owners would be created, which many gun rights enthusiasts view as a precursor to a worldwide ban on gun ownership.

Using the United Nations to enact strict gun control measures on Americans could be what Obama meant when he stated months ago that his administration is working on gun control “under the radar.”

Several things:  first, I’m tired of hearing the “pragmatists” tell us to stop worrying our un-nuanced little heads about certain UN treaties designed to weaken our sovereignty because they can’t possibly pass the US Senate even if a President signs on to them.

Instead, I want to hear them outraged that the President signed on to them in the first place — and that many Democrats will vote right along to surrender ever more of our sovereignty to a body of unelected bureaucrats, many of whom routinely condemn democratic countries and bolster despotic regimes.

Second, I want to see the GOP use such treaty agreements — signed onto by leftists masquerading (with the help of many in the GOP as centrist pragmatists who’ve merely adopted the wrong policies and the wrong time) — to inform the American people about the actual aims of the progressive left:  a weakening of US sovereignty in service of the end of a global nation-state paradigm.  Which is to be replaced by transnational progressivism.  More, to inform the American people that the progressive left has overtaken and is now running the Democrat Party — that, by today’s standards, JFK would be considered an “rightwing extremist” by people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Of course, such hyperventilating conspiracy-mongering abuses the creases on the trousers of many of our thinking establishment betters.  So such candor will never be adopted.   Instead…

Be shamed.  And be quiet.  Just eat your peas and let the masterminds do their jobs.  Hobbits.

 

 

 

139 Replies to ““20 Republicans set to uphold controversial UN treaty””

  1. JHoward says:

    That sound you hear is the right’s establishment press spinning the left’s prayer wheels with a style and verve that makes them a wholly distinct mindset!

  2. McGehee says:

    I wish I could say Isakson is a disappointment, but that ship sailed no later than 2007.

  3. cranky-d says:

    There was a time when I would have expected the Supreme Court to reject the gun-ban treaty as unconstitutional.

    That time has passed.

  4. happyfeet says:

    Portman is a leading veep candidate, no?

    You expect this sort of shit from Meghan’s coward daddy though and I thought Kirk was still in a vegetable-like state but maybe he got better.

  5. Kirk is much better, rehab and all that.

    I am hopeful that they do not have enough votes…now. To think this could even make its way up during an election year. Times have changed.

  6. McGehee says:

    Senate Republicans hear Obama say “do-nothing Congress” and suddenly find that not only are their pants brown, but also their socks and shoes and office carpets.

  7. OCBill says:

    They don’t call him “Ogabe” for nothing. In related news, the individual right to bear arms was only affirmed by a 5-4 vote last time around. Roberts is now deciding whether the right to bear arms should be reinterpreted as the “right to bare arms” which only speaks to whether individuals can wear short sleeves in public.

  8. Squid says:

    Push comes to shove, and the people who think there is no right to bear arms are going to find themselves at a severe disadvantage when they try to impose these beliefs upon the unbelievers.

    Part of me hopes that they try. ‘Twould make the distinctions between the two sides hard to ignore. A little clarity would be useful in these muddled times.

  9. Enrak says:

    I think you should be more careful what you wish for Squid.

    No one is immune to bullets.

    And should things come to pass as you desire, life will return to NBS tres rapidment. I’d rather just vote for Mittens.

    On topic – I emailed my Senator. Who, of course, is one of the 20 (18?). Argh. People’s Republic indeed.

  10. Squid says:

    No one is immune to bullets.

    This, actually, is a big part of the reason why I think the side with overwhelming superiority in firearms and ammunition is likely to prevail. And I’m just saying that I’d prefer an outright coup to the continuing slow boil we’ve seen for the past 90 years. The former will induce a reaction, whereas the latter just brings everybody closer and closer to the shackles.

  11. leigh says:

    I’ll insert the obligatory plug for Squid Brand ™ pitchforks and torches as well as Cranky™ Cudgels.

  12. Enrak says:

    The Civil War was not something we want to emulate IMO.

    People die in war. And usually, all the “right” ones that die don’t make up for the wrong ones.

    YMMV.

    The other thing is, I don’t think we truly know which way the army/police forces will break. Police are unions and they have first-mover advantage. Most of the army is overseas and will likely be too paralyzed to move when it counts (seeing as they still believe in oaths and whatnot). I don’t things will work out as nice and clean as what you seem to be suggesting.

    My vote is to try and work within the best system mankind has created yet.

  13. Squid says:

    How would it come to a civil war, Enrak? My point is that if the gun-grabbers go full-on in their efforts now, we’ll have a couple of million guys reply “molon labe, kemo sabe” (well, maybe not that exactly, but something along those lines). The totalitarians wouldn’t dare proceed against that kind of opposition, and we might finally be able to pull the masks off our leftist would-be masters.

  14. Squid says:

    As to first-mover advantage, we’re up against a force that has thoroughly infiltrated and subverted the education system, the news media, and pop culture in general. Given the circumstances, I think open confrontation with the civilian police would actually have the better chance of success. We’re sure not winning a lot of battles against the disinformation machine.

  15. Enrak says:

    I so confused. I think I just misunderstood ya Squid.

    Good luck to you. I’m utterly defenseless. Though I know some Tai Chi that could knock a few of those gun grabbers out cold.

    No, wait…I only know how to make Chai Tea. :(

  16. palaeomerus says:

    Kay Bailey is retirining and in full “fuck you tea party” mode. What a bitch. What’s McCain’s excuse? His daughter put him up to this?

  17. sdferr says:

    The question I wonder over Enrak, is, where do the fascists voluntarily cease their onslaught, and why? What persuades them from within themselves and their absurd theory of government that they’ve finally achieved their goals (to set aside anything we may have to say to them, which as we’ve seen, they’re most apt to ignore)?

  18. palaeomerus says:

    Facism is a direction, not a destination.

  19. Enrak says:

    We can’t reason with true fascists. But I hold out hope that the majority of Americans are just not paying attention.

    The old rational ignorance thing.

    We just have to convince ’em that the “rational” part no longer holds!

  20. bh says:

    Something I was wondering after reading Walter Williams column is if classical liberal jury nullification might be an extremely useful tool for us.

    Want to enforce an unjust law with jury trials? Seems like there is an opening a mile wide for us there.

    We simply have to change our perspective here. Law and order were positives before. Are they now? I’d say not.

  21. bh says:

    (As a matter of simple math, 1 in 12 is 8.3%. That seems like something we can routinely achieve on the enforcement side when we can’t reach 51% on the policy side.)

  22. Enrak says:

    The odds of being able to find 1/12 people that are willing to practice JN are much lower than 8.3%. ;)

  23. I thought the last remaining selling point on losing more slowly was that we were losing, wait for it, more slowly.

  24. Enrak says:

    And all trends continue forever right?

  25. cranky-d says:

    Why don’t you state what you think should be done, Enrak?

  26. McGehee says:

    And all trends continue forever right?

    Civilizations have tended, from the beginning, to grow through struggle until they prevail, and from that moment on they decline and die.

    That’s not a trend. That’s an observed cycle.

  27. Enrak says:

    I don’t claim to have all (any?) the answers. I merely object to a cast-off let’s go to the mattresses statement. That was intended to be a measure of last resort.

    One would think a blog filled with people that respect the military, and know their military history, as much as this blog does wouldn’t be so enthusiastic about the prospect of actual armed conflict in the U.S.

    I don’t know what y’all should do. I plan on giving money to candidates I support, supporting Tea Party or Tea Party-like candidates, pressuring my own representatives, and voting/getting others to vote. I’m also stocking up on food, water, medical supplies, and I have a go-bag and a place to go. Should SHTF. (no guns – cause of that whole people’s republic thing)

    Hopin’ for the best, preparing for the worst.

  28. Enrak says:

    Good point McGehee.

    I’m already writing a proposed new constitution for my son to take with him to the moon/Mars. :(

    A harsh mistress, but at least not a master!

  29. Squid says:

    And all trends continue forever right?

    This trend started with Lincoln, accelerated with FDR, redoubled with LBJ, and continues to the present day. The closest thing to pushback we’ve seen in all that time was a brief pause during Reagan’s administration, and Rick Santelli’s rant. What’s worse is that our opponents have used their past successes to completely dominate the playing field, to the point where most of our countrymen have no understanding at all of just how much they and their forebears have allowed Leviathan to grow.

    We can try to correct the miseducation of our neighbors. We can try to pressure our lawmakers to voluntarily relinquish the powers their predecessors amassed. We can try to appoint judges who will force the Legislative and Executive to give up those powers involuntarily. That’s what the Tea Party and its sympathizers are trying to do, though they’re fighting against an entrenched political class that will fight them tooth and nail, and will use their allies in the media to misrepresent the reformers and cast them in the worst possible light.

    I do agree with you that the trend cannot continue forever. What we’re arguing about is the means to reverse the trend. My earlier assertion was that a premature lurch into totalitarianism on the part of our smug Leftist overlords might possibly be enough to awaken our neighbors and induce them to push back and reclaim the liberty that is their birthright, notwithstanding the common slander of the Tea Party. I feel that a popular uprising of that sort could smack down the machine, starting a preference cascade that would effectively dismantle the disinformation machine that the Left has nurtured for 50 years or more.

    The alternative is to let the money run out, and hope that the Left is unsuccessful in its efforts to capitalize on the ensuing chaos. This, I believe, is the option that results in far more death and destruction than the scenario I advocate for above. Far better that a million Americans stand up and say “Hell, no” before the cities burn and the populist orators turn their hungry mobs upon the countryside.

  30. sdferr says:

    I don’t see enthusiasm Enrak. There may be, on the other hand, a grim sort of recognition beginning to set in, preferences be damned. There’s the rub, as the other side has a say.

  31. happyfeet says:

    I have several cans of soup plus a firearm and a flashlight

  32. cranky-d says:

    So, no solutions of your own, but snipe at everyone else’s as unworkable or unimaginable. Okey dokey.

    In your world do we all roll over and play dead if they say they’re coming for all semi-automatics, because we will still have bolt-actions, lever actions, and revolvers? Is there a line one can draw and say, “This far, and no further?”

    So far you have not made your position clear at all, except to say that many of us are wrong in even suggesting resisting government overreach by the threat of force of arms as a possibility. I doubt anyone would want it that way, but what does one do when the other options are exhausted? We aren’t there yet, but we can see it from here.

  33. Enrak says:

    Cranky, my well-named friend, please do me a favor and go back and read what I wrote. If you still feel I’m a troll or whatever feel free to use that trollhammer.

    I have been lurking on this site for close to 10 years and I am beginning to realize why I don’t comment. You claim to be open to different ideas but y’all are pretty cranky when you actually hear ’em.

  34. Enrak says:

    Can anyone else see what Cranky stated I wrote in what I actually wrote?

  35. LBascom says:

    We aren’t there yet, but we can see it from here.

    We will know when the time arrives (listen up Hillary. Do you want a civil war?)

    When it becomes evident we are being disarmed. That will be the do or die time, because once we are disarmed, it’s too late.

    My hack is, it’s not going to be set piece war. At least not at the beginning. The beginning is going to be individuals defending their rights selflessly, with no army to their left or right.

    There’s going to many George Zimmermans in the future, if you’re one, don’t plead out. That’s to be the first battle we have to win…keeping our own individual courage.

  36. cranky-d says:

    You claim to be open to different ideas but y’all are pretty cranky when you actually hear ‘em.

    Bullshit.

  37. LBascom says:

    I have been lurking on this site for close to 10 years and I am beginning to realize why I don’t comment.

    Delicate skin?

  38. RI Red says:

    I’ve been at “grim determination” since the summer of 2009. The 2010 election gave me some hope that the ballet box was still an effective tool; the Left’s totally ignoring those election returns diminished a lot of that hope.
    If the 2012 election is not a resounding rejection of Obama and what he stands for, then I will be beyond grim determination.
    Trend analysis and a recognition of human nature leads me to believe that Leviathan will not dismantle itself (led by either current party). And the sheer size of the nation at this point does not lend itself to true (r)epublican government.
    I’m grimly satisfied that half a dozen states have refused to implement RobertsCare/ObamaTax. The various states are now more suitably-sized to govern themselves as republics (even so, Texas would equal five or more proper-sized units). I would hope that active 9th and 10th Amendment fortitude would create a climate for a peaceful transition to a re-ordering of the Union.
    So, enrak, I don’t think that the bullet box is everyone’s default position here. It truly is a measure of last resort. But the resorts before getting there are few at this point.

  39. happyfeet says:

    it starts when you’re always afraid – step out of line the man come and take you away

    plus he takes your soups

  40. cranky-d says:

    One would think a blog filled with people that respect the military, and know their military history, as much as this blog does wouldn’t be so enthusiastic about the prospect of actual armed conflict in the U.S.

    This proved you don’t pay attention to the comments here. If you did you would already know that no one here wants an armed conflict. Being hectored by someone who hasn’t introduced himself well is likely to be met with a response that person won’t like.

  41. LBascom says:

    You claim to be open to different ideas but y’all are pretty cranky when you actually hear ‘em.

    Projection?

  42. sdferr says:

    Enrak, it seems to me that Squid’s initial thrust [“Push comes to shove…”] is reasonable enough to consider, rather than to be dismissed out of hand as an enthusiastic embrace of a repeat of the American Civil War — so to that extent cranky-d is on to something. Squid, doesn’t want to ‘go to the mattresses’ (whatever that means), I don’t think, but less does he want to continue on the path we’ve trod now round-about a century, a path glimpsed by de Tocqueville as far back as 1845. And there’s part of the problem, isn’t it? That is, that some of these political motions can be seen before they arrive? And that here again, what we may be seeing, even if only dimly at this point, is just such another slow motion event grinding along.

  43. RI Red says:

    sdferr, I’m pretty sure it is no longer a slow motion event. Too many elements of the perfect storm coming together now.

  44. happyfeet says:

    romney will save us Mr. red just like he saved the olympics

    it’s how he rolls

  45. sdferr says:

    You’re right RI Red. Withdrawn, save from the relatively unimportant long view of the thing, say from 1909ish through the election of Obama. Thereafter, I’m with ya: the acceleration is breathtaking, and ongoing.

  46. RI Red says:

    It’s the Mann “Hockey Stick” of political climate change. Except the data hasn’t been fudged.

  47. newrouter says:

    the beat goes on
    “It could impact us tremendously since we’ve only got two agents up here now for 26 counties,” Potter County Sheriff Brian Thomas told FoxNews.com.

    Potter County, in the Texas Panhandle, would be affected by the planned closure of the Amarillo station.

    Thomas said that while his area is far from the border, it’s still a major “corridor” for illegal immigrants — and he said his office depends on Border Patrol to respond to their calls.

    “I can’t hold a carload of people out there on I-40 for eight hours while somebody comes from El Paso,” he said. “I mean, that’s just crazy.”

    link

  48. LBascom says:

    so enthusiastic about the prospect of actual armed conflict in the U.S.

    I’ll admit, there’s been a time or two when someone sounded a little enthusiastic for the prospect of violent conflict. I noticed however, it was always in the context of John 13:7: That thou doest, do quickly…

  49. Enrak says:

    So many attacks so little time.

    LBascom – can you provide some evidence where I have been cranky?

  50. Enrak says:

    Where did I say this cranky-d?

    So, no solutions of your own, but snipe at everyone else’s as unworkable or unimaginable. Okey dokey.

  51. Enrak says:

    Delicate skin?

    Guilty as charged.

  52. Enrak says:

    Sdferr – your last comment was spot on. I just read squid’s initial comment as enthusiastic, which I acknowledged was a misread. I just don’t want everyone to give up on the constitutional methods yet.

    As someone who has second-hand experience with the high cost of war, I’m not ready to give up on alternatives.

    P.s. really? You didn’t know what I meant by ‘go to the mattresses’?

  53. LBascom says:

    can you provide some evidence where I have been cranky?

    Your quote in my comment immediately above this quote? To wit:

    One would think a blog filled with people that respect the military, and know their military history, as much as this blog does wouldn’t be so enthusiastic about the prospect of actual armed conflict in the U.S.

    Course I was giving to the benifit. I coulda said pissy instead of cranky…

  54. cranky-d says:

    Where did I say this cranky-d?

    So, no solutions of your own, but snipe at everyone else’s as unworkable or unimaginable. Okey dokey.

    You didn’t say that, Enrak, I did.

    I already excerpted the relevant passage in a comment above.

    Did I go too far in my statement you quoted? Probably. I guess you sort of stated your solution, which is pretty much more of the same that we’ve been doing to little effect. However, you have a high degree of presumption coming in here a few days ago with your positions relatively unannounced and then today hectoring us for ours.

    I have the distinct feeling you’ve commented here before under a different name, because your pattern is similar to others who’ve passed through here.

  55. Enrak says:

    Cranky – its hard to take you seriously when you call ‘bullshit’ on being called cranky.

    Since when does one have to introduce oneself to comment on a blog?

    I think y’all are what I’m going to call “troll-scarred”.

  56. Enrak says:

    I have commented here before Cranky. Rarely but over time it has added up. Not my fault you don’t remember me. Think the first time was during the Thersites dust-up.

    I have never commented anywhere in the blogosphere under any other name than Enrak. And you won’t have to work real hard to figure out who i am should you care to.

  57. sdferr says:

    “P.s. really? You didn’t know what I meant by ‘go to the mattresses’?”

    Well, in my defense, while I’ve heard the thing of course, it comes to me from a movie, so far as I recollect, so I’m loath to assume I actually get the thing entire — and fiction!, poetic license! (like I should know what the poets know).

  58. Enrak says:

    Oh, and I ain’t passing’ thru. ;P

  59. cranky-d says:

    I don’t give a fuck if you take me seriously or not. Seriously. I certainly will not take you seriously from now on, because you have not demonstrated that you should be taken seriously. Perhaps you can change that.

    You are also being a condescending prick. That is not an endearing trait.

  60. cranky-d says:

    By the way, I was calling bullshit on your claim that we’re not open to other ideas. It’s quite obvious I’m cranky, that’s why I chose the handle.

    Reading is fun-damental.

  61. Enrak says:

    :(

    You haven’t said one kind word to me cranky, so you’ll have to forgive the crocodile tears I’m shedding.

    And tone is hard to convey sometimes. I will certainly take the blame for conveying Condescension when I meant to convey playful nose-tweaking.

  62. Enrak says:

    Sefer – comes to me from the same movie, so maybe I don’t know the entire…neither. Or nor even.

  63. cranky-d says:

    I mean, I own the URL and everything.

  64. LBascom says:

    when you call ‘bullshit’ on being called cranky

    Cranky didn’t call bullshit on calling him cranky, but:

    You claim to be open to different ideas but y’all are pretty cranky when you actually hear ‘em.

    Bolded to show the challenge .

    Since when does one have to introduce oneself to comment on a blog?

    When you first meet a new group, do you always immediately assert your rules?

    I think y’all are what I’m going to call “troll-scarred”.

    Yeah, I’m calling…

    Moby!

  65. Enrak says:

    By the way, I was calling bullshit on your claim that we’re not open to other ideas. It’s quite obvious I’m cranky, that’s why I chose the handle.
    Reading is fun-damental.

    – am I the only person who thinks cranky missed my point?

    If so I really am a terrible communicator. Which means my wife was right, argh.

  66. happyfeet says:

    obama’s mother used to hide her food stamps under the mattresses for so he wouldn’t take em and spend them all on hydrox cookies for his choom friends

  67. cranky-d says:

    I didn’t miss your point, Enrak. You missed my point.

  68. Enrak says:

    When you first meet a new group, do you always immediately assert your rules?
    I think y’all are what I’m going to call “troll-scarred”.

    When did I assert my rules lbascom? I just don’t remember having to introduce myself to comment on a blog before.

    And I’ve seen the term, but what the hell is moby?

  69. cranky-d says:

    In other words, you thought the “bullshit” was over you accusing me of being cranky, and you responded on that point.

    Anyway, I give up, so you can declare victory if you like. At this point I’m boring everyone else to tears.

  70. Enrak says:

    Really? My point was that you named yourself cranky and then objected to being called cranky. (by saying bullshit if I recall correctly).

    Yours was that I didn’t understand that you named yourself cranky intentionally?

    My post wouldn’t make much sense if I didn’t understand that. Or am I misunderstanding your understanding of my understanding?

  71. Enrak says:

    Okedoke cranky, then what were you calling bullshit on?

    And there are no winners here, only losers.

  72. sdferr says:

    Yeah, I hear ‘mattresses’ hf and instantly think “a nap would be nice”. But then so would a hydrox or two right about now.

  73. newrouter says:

    choom chums seemed more like dorritos dudes for munchies remidiation

  74. Enrak says:

    Lbascom, that challenge was intentional. Twice in the last three days I have been intimated to have an intent that I don’t think is supported by what I actually wrote. That intent is always assumed to be trolling rather than honest inquiry or objection.

    I have seen a ton of trolls pass thru these here armadillo-infested parts. So I stand by my theory. I think some y’all are troll scarred.

  75. Enrak says:

    And do you really feel that objecting to war-enthusiasm (misinterpreted tho it may have been) is “hectoring”?

    Who is being thin-skinned now? Winnky-face

  76. LBascom says:

    Well, let’s just say it’s attention grabbing when someone claims to be a long til lurker, then suddenly becomes bold, but with a social clumsiness dealing with long time regulars.

    I don’t know, after all, Jeff linked your chart. I never heard of you before then.

    You just have a familiar style. Troll scarred, or troll sensitive? Your assumption on that I also find interesting.

  77. LBascom says:

    time lurker, not til.

    and instead of assumption, pre-emptive assertion.

  78. Enrak says:

    Argh -what assertion?

  79. Enrak says:

    And social clumsiness is my middle name.

    Plus, I shall bother shamelessly from another movie in reference to your questioning of my lurker status:

    “Who would claim to be that, who was not?”

  80. cranky-d says:

    I SAID what I was calling bullshit on. It’s right there in my comment at 5:07. Lee even put up a post explaining his reasoning on it at 4:55, which was spot-on.

    By the way, how would I NOT name myself cranky-d intentionally? Did someone force me to take the name? Call me cranky all you like. I call myself cranky all the darned time.

    Sheesh.

    Look, just read what Lee is saying. I tend to agree with most of it. He’s a lot more measured than I am.

    If you really plan on commenting here, you need to read all the comments from the person you are addressing, and not just cherry-pick them and ask for a repetition of what has already been said.

  81. cranky-d says:

    Frak it. I meant the comment at 4:53, not the one at 5:07.

  82. LBascom says:

    Argh -what assertion?

    That the reaction you got to your comment was due to ‘troll scarred’, rather than the actual argument.

    Made you come off as emotional.

  83. Enrak says:

    One would think a blog filled with people that respect the military, and know their military history, as much as this blog does wouldn’t be so enthusiastic about the prospect of actual armed conflict in the U.S.

    That’s the only thing I wrote that is bold/objectionable. And it was in context of my misinterpretation of squids post. And some follow-on comments that read similarly bloodthirsty.

    But many of you have posted with a chip on your shoulders that seems to come from the assumption that I am merely a troll and not to be bothered with. I expect I’ll get the same reaction the next time I dare comment. Whatevs. I enjoy Jeff’s writing so I won’t be going anywheres.

  84. Enrak says:

    I am emotional. But this is the second time I’ve been bitten trying to post an honest thought or objection. I’ve been wrong in some ways on both posts, but I haven’t once been a troll or even posted like one.

  85. sdferr says:

    Y’know what was cool about Hector though? Homer’s profound respect for him, and derivatively, the Greeks’. Though the enemy, he commanded admiration. This is sometimes said to be the birth of the peculiarity of Greekish abstraction.

  86. cranky-d says:

    My knowledge of the classics is severely lacking.

  87. newrouter says:

    i’m sensing victimization

  88. Enrak says:

    Cranky – I did miss that. I’m on a frickin bberry. Apologies. And, not that it matters, I said y’all were cranky. I never said you weren’t open to other ideas. I really have read this blog AND the comments here for some time.

    Let’s face it, I’m an incompetent commenter. I had one minor point to make, based on a minor misinterpretation on my part. The rest was just me having fun reacting to y’all. I shall resume my prior lurking. Even though this will certainly doom me to the halls of thordom.

    Lemon-out!

  89. Jeff G. says:

    Everybody shake hands and be friends now.

  90. cranky-d says:

    That was the declaring victory part, right there.

    Just in case no one else noticed.

  91. cranky-d says:

    If you say so, Jeff, I will try.

    Enrak, comment away. I will leave you alone from now on.

  92. Jeff G. says:

    No need to go back to lurking. I’m sure now that the air has been cleared a bit things will be fine.

  93. Enrak says:

    I guess I suck at lurking too.

    I thought I was declaring defeat. And I’m not slinking away insulted. I just truly suck at commenting, both in making my argument and conveying tone.

    I feel that my point was addressed more than adequately by peeps like sdferr and McGehee. There’s no more there there.

  94. sdferr says:

    Bryan over at the Tatler linked a vid of Nolan Ryan hitting Robin Ventura with a pitch, then proceeding to pound Ventura’s noggin when Ventura charged the mound. It’s good stuff, worth a watch.

  95. Jeff G. says:

    Commenting is a skill that needs fine tuning. Especially here, where there are lots of wicked smart folks patrolling the comments, on the lookout for mobys and the like. The more you do it the better you get at it.

    Unless you’re happyfeet. Then it’s a crapshoot that often depends on whether or not he’s having his period.

  96. Pablo says:

    You’re all assholes. I love that about you.

  97. LBascom says:

    I’ll shake, but back off, I ain’t a hugger.

  98. Dan Knowles says:

    Folks, the article missed something important…
    It’s not as simple as 2/3 of teh Senators voting…it’s 2/3 of Senators present. Very important to keep that in mind. All they need is to pull some tricks. This group will stoop to that level.

    The Military has plans for civil unrest, dating back to ’06.
    http://info.publicintelligence.net/USAMPS-CivilDisturbanceOps.pdf

    “Warning Shots will not be fired.”
    Re-education camps are mentioned.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/army-manual-outlines-plan-to-kill-rioters-in-america.html

    I don’t think much of Prison PLanet in general, but I came to it via another site. Read the synopsis and then the document. It’s all in there and it’s scary as hell.
    Combine w/ NDAA ’12…
    Gays and illegals being let into the military, which also has a huge gang problem, and all being told, via MSM, we’re evil racist bigots.
    So many other factors, too numerous to mention here, but I’m sure most of you have seen enough.
    Think we’re ‘gonna vote our way out of this? You’ re delusional.
    Not armed? You’re a subject.

    Enrak @2:14 You’re “system” hasn’t functioned properly for quite some time, my friend.
    It will come to a civil war.
    Wishing it away only serves teh enemies of Liberty.
    (p.s. speaking “reverently” of Liberty makes me a potential terrorist, didn’t ya’ know?)

  99. RI Red says:

    Can we now get back to the topic at hand? I’m feeling veritably bloodthirsty.
    Actually, I’m thinking about confluences of events. Maybe I need to make a list of all the existential threats to the republic. Because they seem to cross all sorts of lines.

  100. Pablo says:

    Speaking of events and crossing lines, this is weird.

  101. geoffb says:

    July 27th 2007 and June 5th 2010. And now this summer.

    The two comments are complementing our host which is fine.

    For my own part, Enrak, I have a hard time figuring out at times just what position you are arguing. In that thread with the jobs numbers your comments were a mess format wise and without links to where the numbers came from. This was my initial impression and once formed it becomes the lens through which every later comment is viewed until enough that refute the initial impression have been read and understood.

    Communicating through just text is hard because until you have a goodly amount to go from interpreting that bare text is a fraught endeavor. Also there is the fact that elbows are thrown around here, sometimes to help get a handle on the job of divining intentions.

  102. LBascom says:

    Gays and illegals being let into the military, which also has a huge gang problem, and all being told, via MSM, we’re evil racist bigots.

    I KNEW those gay battalions would be the death of us! And the gang bangers flowing through basic! Scandalous!

    Seriously, Pablo, about those civilian exercises; a couple of years ago a guy called the local talk show claiming to be a vet that was involved in something like that. As I remember, it was billed as crowd control exercises, and he manned a road block. Bottom line, he was very disturbed by aspects of the training.

    I have no doubt the top tier have contingency plans in place, rainbow warriors aside.

  103. Pablo says:

    Via Popehat, something relevant and something not. The latter is much more fun.

  104. Pablo says:

    I have no doubt the top tier have contingency plans in place, rainbow warriors aside.

    But do they have the hearts and minds connected to the fingers on the triggers? Related: my nephew left for boot camp at Fort Benning today. Also related: my gun safe got more crowded and more Rooskie yesterday. Diversity!

  105. RI Red says:

    So, Pablo, a Mosin-Nagant or an AK variant?

  106. LBascom says:

    But do [enough] have their hearts and minds connected to the fingers on the triggers?

    I don’t know, but there will be some. Don’t expect just brandishing a weapon to be enough, if the shit goes down.

  107. Pablo says:

    Mosin Nagant. Wicked old school. Bayonet and everything. If the flag goes up, I’m still grabbing my Mossberg.

  108. Danger says:

    Man looks like a cleanup on aisle present post;)

    Let me just start by saying that Cranky-d isn’t really cranky…

    Unless you’re referring to the Jack Lemmon, Walter Mathau, Grumpy old men or Waldorf and Statler the muppets funny kind of cranky;)

  109. palaeomerus says:

    “Everybody shake hands and be friends now.”

    Or dress up like bears and yiff.

    BTW I give really bad advice sometimes.

  110. Pablo says:

    Lee, I was taught never to point a weapon at anything I wasn’t prepared to shoot. I still subscribe to that. And I suspect that when the shit hits the fan, it will start in the cities. I’m not in a city. I would be astounded if stormtroopers ever made it out my way. I suspect they’d be turning long before that happened.

  111. RI Red says:

    I just loves old school, but US right now – 1911, M-1, Black
    Rifle, etc. But my local Retailer of Death (TM) has Mosins real cheap. Next on the list.

  112. Pablo says:

    It kicks like a mule. If you get one, get this. You’ll be glad you did.

  113. Danger says:

    “In that thread with the jobs numbers your comments were a mess format wise and without links to where the numbers came from. ”

    Enrak,

    Here’s what I do: If I can’t find something I’m looking for I just ask geoffb and if it exists he finds it.

    In fact, the Internet tried to hide something from Geoffb once, so he just crossed his arms and stared at it.
    Fifteen seconds later; the internet coughed up the info along with the location of Jimmy Hoffa’s body and the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop (the world may never know but Geoffb does;)

    Then it threw it’s wallet at him and ran away screeming like a little girl.

  114. LBascom says:

    It’s an interesting question, were martial law declared, how many soldiers would stand against grass roots popular revolt. I suspect a depressing number would.

    I too live outside the city. I imagine in the hills, while the shit went down in the cities, our biggest worry would be thieves, looters, and other such vermin.

    Best know your neighbors.

  115. Pablo says:

    Having good sight lines is nice too.

  116. Danger says:

    and yes, when the internet does it, screaming is spelled with two e’s;).

  117. LBascom says:

    Yeah, and that Mossberg is good inside the wire, but artillery is good too. You know, something that kicks like a mule and establishes a wide perimeter.

  118. geoffb says:

    Danger is much too kind, but one hell of a Hall Monitor DI.

    Enrak, please keep up the comments.

  119. Pablo says:

    Enrak, please keep up the comments.

    Yeah. We’re a cynical bunch because if you’re not cynical, you’re not paying attention, trolls be damned. But my bullshit meter isn’t pinging.

  120. LBascom says:

    Enrak, please keep up the comments.

    Yeah, I take back the moby thing, thanks to geoffb. Sorry about that.

    Just a caution, PW is full contact. Ya gotta defend your stance or you go home sore.

  121. Danger says:

    Ok,
    That’s it for me, Outlaws!

    But KEEP FIRING!!!

    (you too Enrak, just adjust your sights a little and account for windage Mr!)

  122. cranky-d says:

    After a bit of drinking, I wouldn’t change anything. If I see something that does not ring true to me, I will sometimes attack, and I will keep it up until I’m sure my point, if it exists, has been made.

    This place is my one safe haven in a world gone mad. I will not let it be infiltrated. If I’m wrong I hope to be proven otherwise. I would be very happy to be proven wrong on commenter Enrak. Perhaps I’ve already been proven wrong. Calmer heads than mine seem to think so, and their judgement has proven sound in the past.

  123. LBascom says:

    Well cranky, speaking for myself, I’ve been hasty in judgement before. I gave leigh a real hard time when she first started commenting, but now, a scant six months or so later, I can almost stomach her. I mean, she’s not much more annoying than a mosquito in the bedroom after lights out.

    KIDDING! (waaaay more annoying…. KIDDING AGAIN!)

    Anyway, I’ll give the guy some slack on Jeffs say so, and geoffb’s verification that he’s commented in times past.

    Don’t mean I won’t giv’em a hard time if he deserves it though…

  124. guinspen says:

    whether or not he’s having his period.

    Whether or not?

    Beware the littleredschoolhousefoot.

  125. leigh says:

    It’s only because you’re secretly in love with me, Lee.

  126. Enrak says:

    Apologies to everyone that reads this. I can’t not post it. I am a weak, weak, man.

    This place is my one safe haven in a world gone mad. I will not let it be infiltrated. If I’m wrong I hope to be proven otherwise. I would be very happy to be proven wrong on commenter Enrak. Perhaps I’ve already been proven wrong. Calmer heads than mine seem to think so, and their judgement has proven sound in the past.

    “infiltrated”? – this is a blog, no? they are kinda designed to be infiltrated. I’m pretty sure our host isn’t going to ban me, as he tends to pretty open, even to actual trolls. So what are YOU going to do? This is silly. Even if I AM a troll or a moby (whatever the f*** that is) there’s not much you can do to keep me from “infiltrating”. I already have.

    *blarghargharghl*

    and…

    Boo!

    P.S. I ask for no ‘slack’ or quarter. I’m happy to take a beating if I’m wrong, which I was (and you may note that up until Cranky-d posted it was a respectable conversation sans the obligatory internet dick-waving). This:

    One would think a blog filled with people that respect the military, and know their military history, as much as this blog does wouldn’t be so enthusiastic about the prospect of actual armed conflict in the U.S.

    Was the only comment I made that could be considered presumptious or “socially clumsy”(on a blog comment, really?) up until that point. And I fully admit to being overly sensitive on this point, but I have a good reason for that.

    I was mostly just surprised by the automatic assumption that I’m a troll from my very first comment. So what if I didn’t source my data ? When asked, I answered. And yes, some of my formats were messy, because my html is teh suxxor. But this isn’t a peer-reviewed journal for crying out loud. Please note that the metric I posted in that first comment is suddenly everywhere. And the reason my “argument” was muddled was because I didn’t HAVE an argument. I was looking at that employment/population ratio and I was surprised that Obama’s record was as close to Bush 43’s as it was. During the conversation, those that took me at my word and the data itself convinced me that Bush was a bad, bad comparison. I wasn’t looking to make a point. I found an interesting (or so I thought) statistic and wanted to discuss it with people that I consider smrt. Nothing I’ve read so far has disabused me of that notion. Though I stand by my “troll-scarred” comment.

    Oh, and geoffb, you missed this, and I think there was one even earlier but I’m not sure the archives go back that far. I also participated in some of the fiction discussions, which I miss. I’ve been lurking here since 2002 believe it or not as you wish. I’ve learned a ton. I know what hermeneutics means! Yay me!

  127. McGehee says:

    Though I stand by my “troll-scarred” comment.

    I don’t know if the implication of “-scarred” sits well with me. The place has indeed been besieged from time to time, sometimes by those whom we would not ordinarily expect to be foes. As a result we’re all hypervigilant in our own ways, which in some cases work more constructively than others.

    Enrak, I don’t think you need to keep defending yourself. If anybody makes you think you do, just tell them what I swear to God I’m going to have printed on t-shirts and sell to make my fortune: “Your opinion has been recorded, and will be ignored in the order in which it was received.”

  128. geoffb says:

    I wasn’t trying to be comprehensive but merely confirm your one provable assertion, that you had commented here in the past. I also left out, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and a couple I remember, here and here, and did respond later but didn’t remember your handle now 4 years later as you only seem to comment occasionally and only during the warm months.

    The search engines are still catching up with the archives from when PW went down as it is rebuilt. Pub archive still doesn’t exist except by using the Wayback machine.

    I’m not sure about troll scarring but there has been some new revelations of methods of trolling used by the left which have come to light during the whole BK-NR thing. One of which, claimed by NR, is that he sets up multiple accounts at each site and post comments every once in awhile to build a background.

    These handles are left in this semi-dormant state until some piece of disinformation is to be spread and then activated to do so even if that means burning the handle, making it useless from then on.

    I do not think that of you.

    If html is the problem one solution is to use Firefox and get this addon which puts up a toolbar to make html easier in comments. h/t and my thanks forever to topsecretk9 for that info.

  129. […] being obnoxious about it. Likewise, take the time to thank those Senators standing against LOST. Protein Wisdom has more. // tweetmeme_style = […]

  130. RI Red says:

    geoffb, do we technological commoners have the ability to search the pw archives? At some point I should probably search my postings to see how much treason I’ll be hung for.

  131. Danger says:

    Ok,

    I’m establishing a new Outlaw rule:

    Never doubt Geoffb’s internet-fu. Thought everyone knew that but sometimes ya just gotta document things;)

    So just to recap for the memory-challenged:

    Rule #1. Outlaws never quit
    Rule #2. Team outlaw isn’t Team R
    Rule #3. It aint Team Hot Air either
    and Rule #4. Dont doubt Geoffb-fu!

    You Crackers Trackin Me?

  132. leigh says:

    Chuck Norris’ link-fu is weak sauce compared to geoffb’s.

  133. geoffb says:

    One way is in both Google and Bing type in this –

    site:https://proteinwisdom.com/ “RI Red says”

    Then use the find function in your browser set to RI Red says on each page. to see your comments.

  134. RI Red says:

    Damn, geoffb, too easy. I thought there was a secret handshake or something. Thanks.

  135. RI Red says:

    And I only got as far as Mobies being dicks.

  136. LBascom says:

    You can see how my radar pinged.

    Yeah, that was radar, not scarring.

  137. LBascom says:

    I’ve taken the trouble to click on all the comments geoffb linked @10:24am, and am persuaded to full confidence in Enrak.

    Enrac, you can take that to the gas station, and for only a dollar more, you can buy a lotto ticket.

    Good luck!

  138. […] Read~> “20 Republicans set to uphold controversial UN treaty” 07.10.12 & Law of the Sea Treaty: Bad for American Energy Policy 07.09.12 & U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms 06.07.11 International Gun Registry!?!? Are they kidding?!  […]

Comments are closed.