Monthly Archives: August 2016

The Second Clinton Impeachment?


Mike Adams at Townhall:

Clinton is guilty of more serious crimes than those of her husband prior to his impeachment. Next year she will have been placed in office by accepting a series of bribes – some of which have been funneled through her private “charitable” foundation and illegally used to fund her campaign for the presidency. If that is not an impeachable offense then no offense is impeachable.

Impeaching President Hillary Clinton for corruption is impossible.  If she is elected, it is a stamp of approval for all the things she has done, that are well-known now.  The Democratic Party apparently endorses the graft, the serious lapses in judgement, and the lying.  A significant portion of the American voting public seems willing to do the same.

 

Yup, This Guy Has it Covered


The details are from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but if their facts are straight, here’s a guy who ticks a lot of boxes:

Lets see:

  • Still and moonshine
  • Reuben DeHann

    Pot

  • Online medicine business in holistic healing (link)
  • Made 2.7 million dollars over several years
  • Has not filed a tax return since 1997
  • Has a bunker with multiple rooms
  • Bunker accessible through secret false wall in his house and a ‘hinged stairwell’
  • Built bunker without building permit
  • Threatened the zoning people with a million dollar fine if they came on his property – payable in gold
  • Weapons – 70 or more
  • Three silencers.  Two were homemade.
  • Lots of food.  Tanks for thousands of gallons of water.
  • Membership in church nobody has heard of
  • Says he shouldn’t pay taxes
  • Wrote to the IRS saying he shouldn’t pay taxes
  • Offered to charge the IRS for his tax advice
  • Gave up his U.S. Citizenship
  • Renounced his portion of the national debt
  • Illegally modified weapons
  • bomb making materials
  • Claims membership in Native Tribe nobody has ever heard of



I do not know if he has a small group of loyal followers, or if his home is called a compound, or if he owns a jacked up pickup.  I do not know if he has typed a manifesto. I’m pretty sure this is what keeps liberals awake at night.

I know some of the things on that list sound like a good idea.

Links:

Justice Dept. Press Release

Southern Poverty Law Center

Manly Men Chop Down the Environment


Not protect it.  According to ‘experts.’

Washington Post:

Researchers have known for decades that women tend to beat men on environmental metrics. They generally use less fuel and energy. They eat less meat. They’re more concerned about climate change.

James Wilkie, a business professor at the University of Notre Dame, wanted to understand what drives this gender eco-friendliness gap. After years of exploring psychological bias, he and his colleagues developed a theory.

Healthcare policy, too.

 

“Men’s resistance may stem in part from a prevalent association between the concepts of greenness and femininity and a corresponding stereotype (held by both men and women) that green consumers are feminine,” they assert this month in the Journal of Consumer Research. “As a result of this stereotype, men may be motivated to avoid or even oppose green behaviors in order to safeguard their gender identity.”


Maybe manly men intuitively understand that the pencil-necked geeks who are behind the environmental movement are clueless about the environment?  Perhaps manly guys have experience with quazi-male enviro-daffodils preaching about global warming, overpopulation and loving the Mother Earth.  Maybe masculine guys are prone to be critical of societal pressures to change everyone’s behavior based upon shaky science.  

Maybe the environmental movement should work out more.  


“Stereotypical feminine behavior and attitudes are more in parallel with taking care of the environment,” Wilkie said of the findings. “Male traits tend to conflict with this idea of maintaining a nice environment for other people.”

Wilkie blames stereotypes. People who care about the environment are perceived as nurturing, gentle caretakers. Pop culture says they’re barefoot hippies with long hair and flower crowns. That image clashes with traditional masculinity.

Or maybe, traditional masculine males have met guys from  the environmental movement, and have judged them to be pompous jerks.

 

When Somebody Has No Good Reason For Limiting Your Rights…


…they usually cite the excellent experiences of Europeans.

We should let our kids drink wine at dinner, because of the French. Long holidays and government pensions?  It works for the Greeks!  



Now comes the argument for hate speech laws…from a junior at the University of Austin:

In more than 80 percent of European countries, including Germany, France and the United Kingdom, hate speech is largely prohibited and subject to criminal sanctions. These countries prove the ability and efficacy of such laws, but unfortunately the discussion of how and even if they can by implemented domestically usually stops when the First Amendment argument, a favorite of racists and bigots, is raised.

[Jefferson, Madison and others liked it too! — Dave]

Law professor H.W. Perry has been traveling Europe to deliver speeches about the wide gap between the U.S. and other countries when it comes to freedom of speech.

“Some of the European states have pretty robust protection of freedom of speech,” Perry said. “Particularly Germany has laws that balance free speech with claimed rights of human dignity.”



“Pretty robust” is not my goal for freedoms.  

I won’t copy some of the hundreds of mean tweets that a Hollywood actress is said to have gotten, but here’s the follow up sentence in the article:

Such unnecessary and hurtful words lend nothing to potentially improving the actress or movie, and instead seem aimed purely to do emotional harm.

Yes.  But emotional harm isn’t the same as physical harm, or unfair financial harm, or any of the other things which would prompt a mature person to seek redress from the government.  I have emotional harming experiences every day.  It helps to have a loving family, and a dog.  

What is it about our younger generation — and for Europeans for that mastter —  that makes them so willing to turn to the government as censor?  

Colin Kaepernick is a Racist @$^%&^;! but Not a Bad American


Gus Bailey:
Oh, don’t be fooled; just because he’s half black doesn’t mean he can’t be a racist.  His deeds and words back me up: “… I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed.”  Just who the hell is oppressed around here?  Who is being denied their right to speech?  Their right to freely associate?  Their right to petition the government for redress? 
I’ll admit that there are certain pockets of America where due process is under some stress and strain.  I would argue that the social contract is under more stress and strain in those same areas.  Apparently Mr. Kaepernick would rather I didn’t make note of the co-location of the sparks of Blue on Black homicide with the raging inferno of Black on Black genocide.
Thing is being a racist moron doesn’t make you anti-American. 
Colin thinks there’s problems with America.  He feels that he needs to bring attention to the problem.  Not a dishonorable motive.  He has chosen a very high profile medium and method for his protest.  Nothing illegal, or immoral, but verrrrrry sure to get folks attention. 
My problem is that he insists on viewing the situation through racially ‘tinged’ glasses.  The result is that he is failing to fight to save the dozens of lives of young black men because he can’t accept that those same young black men seem to be the problem.

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color…”
“To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”  –Colin Kaepernick



Update:

So, I’ve been thinking and listening and watching. There’s a lot of hullabaloo about some clown on the San Francisco Football team. It seems that folks are debating whether we should debate whether this football guy is right or wrong for not standing up for the national anthem. That’s a stupid argument. It’s a free country, he can be a racist feminine hygiene product all day long if he wants. However, doing so in a flamboyant manner won’t change the fact that he’s a flaming racist. — Gus

Fixin’ to Sue Somebody


In my part of North Carolina, there is a unique phrase which seems to mean “I am preparing to be about to do something.”

Fixin’.  

As in “I’m fixin’ to crank up the engine.  Hold my beer.”

It does not mean getting ready.  It’s close, though.

It actually is what happens the moment before, the moment before you do something.  Fixin’ describes the mental process which precedes actual preparing to do something.  People who are fixin’ to leave are actually still on the couch.  People who are on their feet are leaving.  



For the last couple of years, Bill Schmalfeldt has been suing Sarah Palmer of BillySez, getting ready to sue Patrick Grady and/or Paul Krendler…or he has been facing Peace Orders for his activities online.   

Yet he written, then has shuttered up, dozens of websites, Twitter accounts and podcasts. A lot of it about Sarah and Paul.  He might have some copies of his writings, but I’ll bet most of the evidence is gone the moment he makes a decision to erase it. His copy anyway.

“So…the yutes commenced to spoliating?”

You might say Bill has been fixin’ to sue Sarah Palmer and Patrick Grady in Federal Court for a long time. I wonder if that’s what lawyers mean by “likely litigation?”

From Practical Law:

The knowledge that evidence is relevant to pending or likely litigation gives rise to a duty to preserve that evidence. Failure to comply with this duty may result in sanctions.

 




Of course, I’m not a lawyer, because the LSAT was very hard that year.  But I do know that lot of litigation can come down to trust.  Who can you trust? I’d be unlikely to trust someone who publishes certifiably nasty things online, and then deletes the stuff.

Bill has also stated that if other people have copies of his Tweets, podcasts and comments online, why…that’s proof the material isn’t really gone. Again – hard LSAT, not lawyer – I’m pretty sure that the volume of material which others have stored is actually evidence of Bill Schmalfeldt deleting potential evidence.  Evidence for a Federal Lawsuit he knew was likely for a long time.

‘Cause he’s been fixin’ to sue these people for years.

 

 

 

So, I Decided to Put Up Some Violent Imagery to Demonstrate My Frustration…


Bill Schmalfeldt has been advised by his attorney to NOT comment on a lawsuit.  This must feel a bit like being told not to itch that scratch… You know, the one right there between the shoulder blades.  

Bill Schmalfeldt’s latest:

I just deleted a 1,000-word post in which I refuted some remarkably stupid allegations made by a person I am suing in Federal Court.
While proofing the post I had to ask myself, “What’s the point I’m trying to make here? If this incredibly stupid person being sued for making incredibly stupid and defamatory remarks wishes to dig in deeper by accusing me of faking my Parkinson’s disease, thereby throwing gasoline on an already raging fire, why would I interfere?”
If this person wishes to ignore even the most basic advice any lawyer would give to someone being sued, that being “don’t give the Plaintiff any more ammunition to use against you,” why in the world would I refuse to accept delivery of the pallets of ordnance being delivered free of cost?
If someone is that dim, that bereft of common sense, that deluded about the nature of the allegations in my complaint that he or she would voluntarily hand the metaphorical baseball bat wrapped in metaphorical barbed wire to my attorney to be used to bash his or her metaphorical head until it is a pulpy mass of metaphorical bone and brain tissue, who am I to tell this person that he or she overdid it with the barbed wire?
Screen Shot 2016-08-29 at 7.56.50 PM




I took nearly the entire post, as Bill Schmalfeldt cares very much about context.  If I quote just a tiny bit, we might miss the nuancy contextual threat thread of the post.  If Bill figures I have violated his copyright on the post, I’ll consider editing.  Frankly, it’s worth the potential legal trouble to simply document in complete detail what just got published. The art was in his original post.
What is he talking about in the post?  Here’s the funny thing:

Sarah Palmer at BillySez has apparently NOT been advised to stop writing about Bill. She quotes his online material, including the stuff he spoliated.

Image result for baby diaper

Mommy.  I spoliated another diaper.

Spoliation is the destruction of evidence.  Bill Schmalfeldt has destroyed much of his online writing over the past few years — to the point that he probably doesn’t know what he really has said.  
Sarah does.  And as she publishes and comments on the psychology and pathology of Bill Schmalfeldt, he stews in his own juices.  Just like our little fellow on the right.

And so, he publishes a post with violent imagery, in response to someone he is suing, who has already convinced a judge that he is a threat to her, after his lawyer has advised him to avoid commenting at all about the case.


When will Bill Schmalfeldt’s original post be spoliated, and the heartfelt but inappropriate venom hidden from view?  I’m not a betting guy, but probably it will disappear sometime around the time Bill’s attorney reads his morning email on Tuesday.

I think he has ignored the most basic advice any lawyer would give to someone being sued suing someone, that being “don’t give the Plaintiff defendant any more ammunition to use against you…”



Long ago,  I offered Bill Schmalfeldt valuable advice.  He has not taken it, and won’t take my advice now.  I’ll try again.

Follow your attorney’s advice.