A reprieve: but for how long?

No copyright notice as this is just news.

The committee drafting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has adjourned without reporting a treaty to the nations or General Assembly for signature.  This is probably do to Senator Jerry Moran’s effort in obtaining signatures of 50 Senators besides himself against the draft treaty.

Be wary.  The ATT will not go away.  A second Obama Administration will likely push a total gun ban and work by Executive Order.  Justice Antonin Scalia is on board with this.  It is time to assure that anti-gun candidates do not become Congresscritters.


Small Arms Treaty — an open assault on our rights

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl  Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

Within two weeks, President Obama is set to sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The anti-gun movement is awaiting ratification to begin the disarmament of the American People. At present more than 60 Senators are leaning toward ratification of this treaty and the President is leaning on the rest. This is a grave moment because the ultimate sovereignty of the United States ultimately boils down to the ability of the people to repel invasion.

We are quietly celebrating what we call the War of 1812 which James Madison stumbled into. It was the only time a foreign power invaded the United States and burned the government buildings to the ground. It was not the scattered national army, but the Maryland Militia who convinced Admiral Cochrane that the British did not want a war of attrition.

Since 1913 the government has been attempting to consolidate power in Washington as part of a consolidation of national powers under an international body. In 1919 the Senate wisely rejected the Treaty of Versailles (actually the Treaty of Paris signed at Versailles) which placed severe controls on Germany that made life miserable and gave rise to Hitler’s National Socialist movement. This treaty was a bad thing and would not have stopped Hitler even had the United States joined.

After World War II, the mood changed and there was a consensus that the world needed a new international organization. Senator Robert Taft opposed this as an entangling alliance and warned that we would regret this. The U.S. Senate ratified the Charter and the United States joined the nation. At the motion of the Soviet Union, the headquarters was located in New York City.

The location has an upside and a downside. The United States may keep an eye on the goings and comings of foreign diplomats. The high cost of living in NYC may discourage smaller nations from sending too large a delegation. The downside is that it essentially doubles the number of spies with diplomatic immunity and draws heavily on both local and national assets for security.

A disproportionate percentage of UN funding comes from the US, which was, in the latter half of the 20th Century, a great engine of wealth. The US is no longer that mighty engine and is “obligated” to the same level of support and threatened by General Assembly if it does not support organizations like UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). The interests of UNESCO are contrary to the interests of the United States and yet it dictates curricula to the US Department of Education which in turn dictates curricula to the states. The goal is a society indoctrinated in a world view inimical to our own system and history.

Reagan properly cut off US funding for UNESCO, but under Clinton, this country went crawling back apologizing—Clinton also kow-towed at the Western Gate after the Massacre at Tienanmen Square. The whole outlook has been “international.” The Clinton administration signed the Kyoto accords after the Senate voted 95-3 to reject the terms. He also signed the International Criminal Court treaty but never submitted it to the Senate.

Both Bush Administrations were also international in outlook, especially when justifying military adventures.

In the history of the United Nations, UN Peacekeeping troops have a spotty record. In Katanga, the UN Peacekeepers support the Communist leaning Central government of Zaire against the Western leaning Katangan government of Moise Tshombe. In Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) the UN oversaw an election which was won by Bishop Abel Musarewa and Josiah Gummede. The Marxist party of Robert Mugabe stayed at war and the UN, at the insistence of US Ambassador Andrew Young sided with Mugabe and the next election was rigged. Then there was Angola where the Marxist government held power only with the assistance of Cuban “volunteers.” Dr Jonas Savimbi’s pro Western UNITA party held out until George H.W. Bush, in order to curry favor with the UN, pulled support from Savimbi.

During the Rwandan Genocide the primary weapons were machetes. Belgian UN peacekeepers gave shelter to 2000 disarmedTutsis in a school with Hutu Power people outside. Everyone outside were Hutu. The Belgian troops left and the slaughter began.

So now, President Obama is asking us to trust that a UN technical treaty will not have a significant impact on Constitutional rights, namely the right to keep and bear arms. Meanwhile his lackeys have assured the Brady Campaign that it will. Kleptocrat and former Secretary General Kofi Anan has praised the treaty for disarming citizens.

This is a treaty about centralized power, about making the world safe for dictators.

I am of the opinion that if there is a conflict between a treaty and the Constitution itself, the Constitution prevails. We unfortunately have some justices on the Supreme Court who value the consensus of International Law over a written (not “living”) Constitution.

Just in from Senator Moran’s office: http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ContentRecord_id=2b02a67f-2179-41fc-be55-3502163c8510 Senator Moran and 50 others oppose the treaty if it will interfere with Second Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, Kurt Nimmo over at Infowars,com has, through his sources, obtained a draft of the proposed treaty. The language specifies international trade, but this is no problem for the O-Team. In all gun ban legislation, the interstate commerce clause is invoke with the additional language stating that since intra-state transfers may affect interstate commerce they are also reguliated. I have no doubt that the progressives will attempt to clamp down on domestic transfers.

This will include:

  • Reimposition of the 1994 assault weapon ban. There will be no grandfather clause on magazines or weapons in the possession of the population.
  • All private transfers of firearms will have to go through registration.
  • All reloading equipment and components will be registered.
  • Military ammunition will be prohibited to “civilians.” NOTE: The only non-civilians in the criminal justice system are those who are in a custody status and have not had their civil rights restored. Military ammunition includes: .45ACP, .45 S&W (a cowboy action load), 9mm Parabellum, .30-30, .30-06. 6.5mm Swedish, 7×57 Mauser, 8×57 Mauser, .308 Winchester, 7.62 NATO, 7.62 rimmed Imperial, .223 Remington, 5.56NATO, 7.62×39 Combloc, 5.45×39 Combloc and numerous other rounds.
  • Black powder weapons will fall under registration.

Realize that the 51 Senators opposing the treaty will be under extreme pressure from the White House and remember that we expected the Arms Reduction Treaty to go down in defeat.

Compleat Idler

Idler’s kitchen — French Toast

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl

Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

French toast was rare when I was growing up. My grandmother preferred to throw a small can of corn into a few eggs, scramble them and call it an omelet. I do something similar but that’s another meal and another blog I may or may not get around to.

French toast is one of the few times I will get out the teflon* coated electric fry pan. I set the temperature and let it warm up to a constant 320-360 degrees, then start on the prep.

Ingredients are (for two people): Sourdough bread (the staler the better), five eggs, half and half and nutmeg. Butter or spread is also helpful in the pan to get that brown on the eggs.


Sourdough bread is what we use because it has lower glycemic index than the “Texas toast” stuff which appears to be only white bread. I have several recipes to make it myself, but in this instance fresh is not better. And leaving bread out to go stale is not a good idea if you have a Labrador. You can use raisin bread or cinnamon swirl if you like.

Five eggs is what I use, but you can get by with four.

The standard dairy product in our refrigerator is no-fat-no-lactose. You really need milkfat for taste and texture. My preference would be dairy cream, but my cardiologist does not agree. I just pour in what feels right.

Nutmeg was a controlled item at the penitentiary where I retired after serving a number of years in the administration. So that tells me it is a pleasure spice. I keep the spice to one and keep it simple. You cannot overdo the nutmeg—use plenty.

I mix with a fork because it is easier to clean than the whisk. Because I’m using a non-stick pan I use a plastic spatula that will not nick the surface.


While the pan warms up break the eggs into a square, shallow Pyrex baking dish—or whatever you have that fits. Discard the shells. Pour in the half and half and beat until smooth. Then as at least a teaspoon of nutmeg and beat until it is all through the mix.

Grease the pan generously. This is not to lubricate but to add texture to the final product. Dip the slices of bread and toss them onto the pan or a cast-iron griddle if you have a gas stove. Wait a couple minutes and turn. You can add more nutmeg while cooking.

Serve with your choice of condiment: syrup, butter and brown sugar, or jam/preserves.


I put an asterisk after teflon because I have no idea what the latest non-stick is. Having one of those ceramic top electric stoves, I cannot use cast-iron which is the original non-stick surface that you can reseason if you screw it up.

Free Society

Understanding Gradualism and the Dialectic

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl  Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

One of the ways the Progressive Movement has taken over the country is through gradualism. The mechanics are simple. First you capture the education system as the socialists did in New York City in the period 1890-1920. You bring up the younger generations believing the primary values of the Founders were democracy and compromise. This leads toward amending the Constitution to become more democratic as well as more centralized.

To be honest, the framers of the Constitution were concerned with making a working union. They represented states. The word today is used to mean subdivisions of a nation. In 1787 the term referred to sovereign entities. This is why the Senate is a house of the delegates of the various states. They were willing to compromise only as long as their states remained sovereign and only specific powers and responsibilities were delegated to the central government.

The Federalists wanted the Constitution as written. The Anti-Federalists, realizing that the document would be adopted, demanded a Bill of Rights to further restrict the power of the central government. The high school history and civics curricula refer to this as a compromise the Framers worked out. The Anti-Federalists did not consider this a compromise—rather it was a condition precedent to the formation of the Republic.

While the original federalists had disagreements among themselves, they generally pulled together to get the states they controlled to ratify. While the ratification process only required nine states, without New York and Virginia, and to a lesser extent Massachusetts, it was not going to fly. The firebrand anti -federalists were able to set the agenda in those states despite the smooth talk of Hamilton, Jay and Madison. And they would have left the compact were it not for the ratification of the bill of rights.

So here is the status quo in 1792. A federal republic made up of a confederation of 13 republics with very little central power and the funding had to come from tariffs and excises. The Republic was dependent on the states for general governance and for militia to defend. Hamilton lobbied hard for a national army. The Senate resisted. The emergency came in 1798 when President Adams got into an undeclared naval war with France. Voila! An army. Never mind that the national army fell apart in 1814. 1815: We need a larger army.

In the nineteenth century along came Marx who used Hegelian dialect while dismissing Hegel. In Marx’s version history can only move in the direction of communism.

In dialectic there is the thesis. Along comes an opposing idea called the antithesis. As they colllide they merge and the product is called the synthesis. In time the synthesis becomes the new thesis. And a new antithesis (which may be the same antithesis) appears. There another merger and the synthesis is a step closer to the antithesis.

In the Progressive movement the synthesis becomes the status quo. The antithesis is the position of the movement. And the synthesis is the ever to be worshiped compromise. And that is how gradualism works.

In 1934 the objective of the Roosevelt administration was to disarm the citizenry. The first proposal that was shot down (by the Democrats) was a total ban. Remember, the New Deal was modeled on the ideas of Benito Mussolini. Francis Perkins, Secretary of Labor, was the brains behind the New Deal—so much for the idea that women are a moderating force. She had worked toward passage of the Sullivan Law in New York which was introduced by “Big Tim” Sullivan at the behest of some of his old cohorts (he was a street thug before discovering that more money that could be made through graft) who were upset because businessmen carrying handguns were putting a crimp in their robbery business.

Mrs Perkins was on board with the whole panoply of limitations. As it finally got to the bill, an excise was used so that it would not apply to Mr Roosevelt’s wealthy cronies. Ordinary people would not be able to handle the fees and paperwork. While sporting rifles and shotguns were exempted handguns were in the bill. So it would cost about $200 a transfer. Opposition in Congress scuttled the inclusion of handguns—my theory is that the cheapskates in Congress had handguns and did not want to pay the fees. So we got the current Title II registry as a compromise. The excise power of the United States was upheld on a shotgun with a barrel less than 18” when it was “shown” that such a weapon had not been used in the “Great War.”

The Title II registry and excises. The Congress and the Court were more precise in those days. Excises were fees for transfer of property whereas the only taxation powers of the United States were on income. So in 1968 the status quo is the treasury based 1934 Act. The attempt to ban came up with GCA 68 which regulates all transactions through dealers and defining “prohibited persons”–far more than the Constitution allows but far less than the progressives sought. In 1994, a lame duck congress negotiated a ban on “assault weapons,” and high capacity magazines along with a waiting period that has been replaced by an Instant Check System. The cost to the progressives was a grandfather clause on the magazines and the weapons ban and a sunset on both but the NICS check (devised by the NRA) remained. The NICS is a jobs program.

So now the progressives have a status quo of the 1934 NFA with a few tweaks in 1986 which loosened the requirements, but allows no automatic weapons built after a certain date to be traded to the public as well as GCA1968 with the background check. The antithesis or proposal is, as it has been since 1934, disarmament of the civilian population.

Anyone who opposes the progressive program is called reactionary. And that is what the liberty movement has been. It is time to take charge and make the antithesis the total repeal of GCA68 and NFA34. History does not run in a straight line and the progressive movement has no monopoly on the tactics. The bill should be ready by November so it can compete with whatever Obama proposes.

At the very least we should know the methodology of the opposition which has almost accomplished its goals. The time has come when we reverse the track or lose.

Compleat Idler, Preparedness


(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

It has been some time since I went to a Gunshow. According to the folks in Washington and New York these shows are a hotbed of illegal weapons sales. I have made personal purchases from other customers—sometimes a trade. But every dealer has to go through the NICS process.

I very seldom buy weapons but I check prices which are driven by demand.  And a key factor in demand is regulation and rumors of regulation.  Back in the early nineties there was a rumor that ATF would require that primers have a shelf life of no more than six months.  While this is possible, the chemical process would be iffy–the shelf life starts at the point of manufacture.  Existing primers shot up in price and disappeared.  Also, semi-auto weapons have had ups and downs depending on the political climate.

Also there are knick-knacks and coins as well as Pakistani swords and knives for the RenFest crowd.  I brought home some t-shirts for the family that said, “PETA People Eating Tasty Animals.”  There are various political and attitudinal bumper stickers I would not want on my truck if I were a defendant in a self-defense shooting case.

What really makes gun shows interesting are the tools and books.  These are not just reloading and gunsmithing tools but metalworking tools from which can be made machine tools,  My theory has always been that the way out of a breakdown and collapse is the rebuilding of a manufacturing infrastructure–one wind generator and home workshop at a time.  My son steers me away from tables where they have multi-bit screwdrivers, which I am reputed to accumulate.

I really enjoy seeing the used books and coins.  There are a lot of turn-of-the-20th-Century two and four volume encyclopediae that have instructions on manufacturing techniques as well as Kurt Saxon’s books that excerpt them.  Also there are some out of print classics such as some of Ruark’s less than politically correct books.

Coins fascinate me and I might be tempted.  The artwork and history are really important to know.

Writing and diction

Style lesson — Contractions

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

We are creatures of habit. That is pronounced “we’re creatures of habit.” One of the problems with modern English writing is the contraction. And as I looked back through my posts over the past few years, I find that I have been a chronic offender.

It is easy to get that way and back when I was writing for newspapers in the late Pleistocene, contractions were encouraged to save space. And they have antecedents in history and literature. Sam’l Johnson, DHL, had a publisher who saved two letters by using an apostrophe as did Dan’l Webster. I was unable, however, to convince the English department of this.

Back about the end of May, I resolved to correct this lapse in my writing style because I am writing for a general audience and should not rail against those practices I follow. You note that I have not resolved to give up circumlocution or complex sentence structure because I wish my readers to be able to decipher and translate such style—it helps in understanding lawyers, politicians and flacks as well as pedants such as myself.

Part of the problem with contractions is the fact that the contraction of “it is” can be confused with the possessive form of “it.” Actually there are two contractions for “it is”; it’s and ’tis. They are fine in poetry and music. “’Tis” is also appropriate in dialog to enhance character. The possessive form of “it” is “its” with no apostrophe. Or to use them all in one sentence. ‘Tis a sad thing when a machine thinks it’s appropriate to disobey its operator.


More on Anonymity and Retribution

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

This is a little more on the use of anonymity in American politics without going into street names and current literature.

Anonymous was, according to Paul Stubblefield who was my freshman English teacher at DU, the most prolific writer in the English language prior to the eighteenth century.  On the web (s)he seems to be making a comeback.  The use of noms de plume goes back in politics in this country at least to 1722 when Silence Dogood slipped letters under the door of James Franklin’s printing operation.  James’ younger brother Ben had a number of similar correspondents of whom Poor Richard is the best known.  I might go back to Elizabethan times if I accepted the nonsense about Edward de Vere writing plays and sonnets under the name of William Shakespeare, but I’ve read some of De Vere’s work, and he is no Bill Shakespeare.  I am listing here a url to a pdf of an article in the January 8, 1770, Boston Gazette signed by Vindex.  It appears that Vindex is none other than Sam Adams.

The Constitution of the United States was a controversial issue in 1787 when it was submitted for ratification.  There are still writers who consider it a coup d’tat and assert that the Articles of Confederation are the legal founding document, but I have also heard claims regarding the descendants of James VII of Scotland, II of England to the current throne.  As an answer I point out that Cumberland won at Culloden with an army of Scots. The fact is that Cumberland won.  And the fact is that the United States Constitution was ratified by the states.  

Virginia and New York were problematic states.  Jefferson and  George Mason were both master politicians who were able to force a “conditional” ratification on the convention.  New York was a battle ground.  The Federalist faction wrote up a series of arguments which we read as the Federalist Papers like they are just nice essays explaining the Constitution.  They were part of a debate as to what should be the form of government and whether there would be a republic strong enough to ward off the recolonization that England would attempt.  (People in those days knew that England was the power in the British Isles–there was no pandering to the Welsh, Scots and Irish with the namby-pamby United Kingdom language of the twentieth century.)   The name signing the Federalist Papers was Publius.  In addition to anti-federalists there were Tories still loyal to King and Church.  No, they did not all go to the Hudson Bay colony.  Their descendants are still here.  But they were keeping in contact and would gladly have turned in Col Hamilton or Mr Jay.  Mr Madison had already been convicted of treason in absentia.  So the name Publius was used because, let us face it. we are products of the Roman Republic, of the literature, culture and law.

The Anti-Federalist papers argued against doing away with the Articles of Confederation.  They believed in a voluntary compact that would allow them to come and go and to enact legislation that would help them protect jobs in their own state.   So who wrote the Anti-Federalist Papers.   Cato and Brutus were the primary authors.  There is some evidence, though not conclusive, that Col George Clinton was Cato.  Clinton was the governor of New York and a Revolutionary War Officer.  Other names mentioned are Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee.  The latter is not to be confused with Henry (Light Horse Harry) Lee, a staunch federalist.  At any rate, identities were “secret” until after the fact.

The upshot of the conflict between the factions was that New York, like Virginia, ratified the Constitution conditioned on passage of a Bill of Rights.  And that Bill of Rights contains ten Amendments that essentially prohibit federal action or regulation.  Without the input of Publius, Cato and Brutus we might be living under a constitutional government with no limits on its powers.

In my opinion (realizing that everyone who took constitutional law I and II is an expert, and further realizing that the only justice who comes close to my constitutional view is Thomas) the decision in Citizens United did not go far enough and dismantle the Federal Election Commission as well as the regulations it enforces.  My reasoning is that the First Amendment permits no regulation on speech, petition, or the electoral process.  The Congress has power to regulate the selection of electors in the District of  Columbia and the power to regulate local elections in said District and in territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam etc.  Otherwise the only provision for federal interference in state sponsored elections which include elections to the house and senate are the Fifteenth. Nineteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments which guarantee individual rights to vote and are handled by the Justice Department.

There is an argument that in our society with open communication there is no retribution and therefore no need for anonymity.  Retribution goes back to the administration of John Adams, second president of the United States and one of two former presidents to endorse the idea of Massachusetts’ secession, had an enemies list, a number of whom were incarcerated under the Sedition Act of 1798.  There was a similar Sedition Act in 1917 under which a number of anti-war, anti-military ministers were incarcerated as well as a number of opponents of conscription were incarcerated for the duration.  During the War of 1861-65, a number of judges and legislators were banished to the Confederate States of America.  Much anonymous literature was circulated opposing Lincoln and the War.  Specifically, Clement Laird Vallandigham of Ohio was convicted by a military commission and denied a writ of habeas corpus when he was forthwith incarcerated.  Lincoln ordered him transported to the Confederacy in order to prevent him from becoming a “martyr for the Copperheads.”  This did not stem the anonymous criticism of Lincoln and the war.

In the thirties there was a true civil war in Spain.  The Loyalists who considered themselves a soviet and had representation on the Politburo were portrayed as the “good guys” in the American press.  There was an American contingent in the International Brigade called the “Lincoln” battalion and there was at some point some adverse action attempted but the popularity of the cause–celebrated in Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls protected them. There were also Americans  who fought for Franco in the Spanish Foreign Legion, but they kept quiet about their participation in the cause of the Falange because they could suffer retribution at home.  However the choice was not between the Falange and Republicanism but between Falangist Republicanism and the agents of Stalin.

Free Society

I came out–Fighting

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

Let me put this in perspective.  I write as loboviejo because I like the concept of being an old wolf–there is a great deal of wisdom in a council of wolves.  I consider the three little pigs to be feral swine.

There is a great debate going on in this country right now.  We are being led by an establishment that wants to continue the travel into a totalitarian world government with the kleptocracy of the UN Secretariat at the center.   And there are some working specifically for the dictatorship of the proletariat to run this country.  They attack capitalism which has not really existed in this country since the Coolidge administration.

So the Washington Post is covering the DISCLOSE Act debate.  The gist of it is that the Republicans are blocking the transparency needed to make politics accountable.  What they are attempting to block is a bill that would create an “enemies list” for any president.  No amount of spending or advocacy is going to neutralize the inherent advantage of incumbency–the only way for a challenger to get that much coverage would be to get pulling off the heist of the Century and Ben Bernanke already did that.

So the comments are basically the glories of transparency versus the evil Republicans who probably get billions in undisclosed….   Let’s be real.  Harry Reid wants power.  Harry Reid wants to know who is giving money to opponents of his program.  Same with Barack Obama.   Same with any number of incumbents.

So here is my comment.

Here is the deal. There organizations on both sides of the political spectrum who engage in harassment of those they disagree with. Some have been known to enter upon private property to intimidate the family of an executive of a company they disagree with. President John Adams sent thugs to “punish” opponents of his war and even those who dared insult his management style. Richard Nixon had a list of enemies whom he attempted to bring down the powers of the Government on. Abraham Lincoln had opponents jailed.

Anonymity is a tradition in American politics from Silence Dogood and Poor Richard to “an Englishman” to Publius, Cato and Brutus. I see no reason for the FEC to collect an enemies list for whoever gets elected. I will make this easy for the Progressives. My name is Earl Haehl, my blog is loboviejo.com, I am a Republican and I oppose any assault on the Bill of Rights.

Ultimately the fight is one that will go to the side with the most popular support–the Supreme Court has the tradition of Hugo Black opposing any infringement on the first amendment alongside the tradition of William O Douglas who had a much looser definition of necessity.

Compleat Idler

Some Comic Relief

Back in the fifties I read Boys Life regularly. I remember Heinlein and project articles. Most of all I developed a keen sense of jokes.

Any magazine worth reading has a joke page or cartoons.

So, since I am not within range of anyone’s hat, I feel free.

Q. What is the difference between grapes and elephants?

A. Grapes are purple.

Q. What did Tarzan say when he saw the elephants coming?

A. “Here come the grapes.” He was color blind.

Q. How do you get six elephants in a Volkswagon?

A. Three in front. Three in back.

Q. What’s red and green and travels quickly?

A. A frog in a blender.

Q. Why does Prince Charles not wear Fruit-of-the-Loom briefs?

A. Gentlemen prefer Hanes,

You can tell the ad men were involved in the film production when Maj Reno says, “and there lies General Custer with a Van Heusen through his chest,” (I also read Mad Magazine.)

SWIFTIE: “This seems to happen every seven days,” Tom said weakly.

Q. How many road construction workers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A. Three. One to change the bulb, two to lean on their shovels and kibbitz.

William Jennings Bryan would be perplexed. The only place you find “Free Silver” placards is when the animal rights activists boycott the Lone Ranger set.

After Mozart’s death, his ghost would go into music halls and erase the notes from sheet music. It was called de-composing.

The Normans always did executions behind a white sheet so the splattered blood would frighten onlookers—sort of like that 20th Century Norman in Psycho.

Q. Why did the chicken cross the road?

A. She didn’t get hit.

Stranger: Is there a criminal lawyer in this town?

Resident: Ain’t that redundant?

SHAGGY DOG — Robin Hood Rocks

The following story is copyrighted.  (c) 2011 by Earl Haehl.  I prepared it to be educational but I think I should avoid reading Asimov under the influence of energy drinks and tequila.

The term “murder” comes from the murdrum, a tax levied by the Normans on all residents of a shire when there is an unsolved homicide. This was to encourage the residents to cooperate with the Normans to avoid the tax.

It happened that the Reeve (or Administrator) of the shire—from which came shire reeve which evolved into sheriff—and the King’s deputy, Sir Alfred Down were investigating such an occurrence to determine that the victim was a Norman so the tax could be levied. If the corpse were English, it did not count as a person.

On Wednesday the bodies of both Reeve Lacey and Sir Alfred were found flat on their back with arrows through their throats. William, Baron of Barrenshire, a trusted assistant of the King, went to investigate. No one would talk so tax would be double except that the King wanted a neck to be stretched.

They stopped at the Silver Unicorn Pub for what was on draft and as he and his crew walked in, he noticed Robert Locksley (Robin Hood himself) bragging to the barmaid, Maid Marian (late of the Comedia di’l Arte) and her co actor, Tuck the Mendicant about his skill with the Welsh long bow. This was curious as a Norman like Locksley would carry a sword.

William walked up to Locksley and demanded to know if Robert had used his bow on the two victims.

“Yes,” Locksley answered, “and no.”

“The answer is yes or no?”

“But the answer is yes and no.”

“Howso Robert?”

“Simple, Will. I shot the Shire Reeve but I did not shoot Deputy Down.”

Free Society

After November–or Now

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl – Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

This is titled After November What?! The problem is that after the election lethargy sets in and everyone starts talking like the fan who calls into sportstalk radio after the BCS championship game to state that no wimpy SEC team that never played in Lincoln can call itself the National Champion. Everyone who has ever listened to sports talk radio understands this point. And there are thousands of fans that realize that bad calls happen and there is nothing that can take them back. They quietly wonder about next year and realize that there are five or six seniors for whom there will be no next year.

So every election night is like Super Sunday to the faithful—it just drags on like a game between two teams that have decent defense and no offense. And that is what makes it a spectator sport. Every election night, the losing side talks big about the next election. And a few make good on threats to move out of (city, county, state, country). And there will be a few for whom there will be no next time.

The reality of 2012 is that there are two major party candidates who are not defenders of the Republic. Romney does not understand and Obama is openly hostile. They believe in a system where they divide the spoils and they increase the influence of their respective parties. And they have a public that demands entitlements—yes, subsidies on agriculture, protective tariffs, and bailouts are all entitlements.

So I was writing this to talk about after November. What is going to happen? The party pros are going to be working on the next election, it’s the people who will be overjoyed or distraught. The pros are talking about marketing. What message needs to get out to win the election? How do they sideline the nuisances like Paul or Kucinich?

People are not going to be involved until they are needed—the strategy is to formulate the program and get people involved when there is work to be done. This is not a strategy—it is a habit. The establishment goes into sleep mode for three years, then expects to energize like Popeye slamming a spinach flavored AMP and take on the big boys.

Let’s look at it. The Democrats have been at this since Andrew Jackson lost the Presidency in the House of Representatives in 1824. Did he make a concession speech and go into Ostrich mode until September of 1828? No. He got off his duff and formed alliances. He wrote letters and met with leaders including Martin Van Buren who had organized Tammany Hall. 1828 was the year John Quincy Adams and the National Republicans went down in defeat. The main goals of Democrats are winning elections and governing. Since 1913 they have espoused a cogent progressive stance, and while out of power they still actively push their philosophy and agenda with a major consistency and do not sleep. In other words, campaign mode never ceases. And while they have been out of the White House more than in it since 1950 they have kept Congress with few exceptions.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have been in business since 1858 and, despite a run from 1861 to 1909 with two breaks for Grover Cleveland and one for Andrew Johnson, have been the minority party. If you look at American history, it is a hodge podge of defunct political parties—Federalist, National Republican, Populist, Progressive. The Republican Party may follow suit. The reason is that the Republicans eschew full-time politicians as a necessary evil. So the dilettante of the season with the program of the season is nominated—and surprise, it’s the nominee that the establishment wants except when there is a massive movement like Goldwater.

So how does the Liberty Movement take over a party. First, whether Obama or Romney wins in November the Republican establishment can best be described as moribund. It can hang on for one or two more elections, but it is looking back to the glory of Reagan without a sense of what Reagan was about. The Reagan years were not a significant dint in the march of Progressivism. What youth wants is a march to Freedom. And if they cannot get it, they will not put up with the Party.


I am of two minds on Romney. He is a dilettante who has a feeling of entitlement because his father was denied the nomination. His idea of foreign policy is the PAX AMERICANA. He supports the policies of Bush and Obama regarding “the war on terror.” His campaign has resorted to dirty politics for the purpose of making the Convention in Tampa a coronation that will lead to the conquest of Obama. The only reasons I can cast a vote for Romney are: 1) He would appoint some fairly vanilla justices to the Supreme Court whereas without a Republican majority in the Senate and even then a lot of them roll with “history.” 2) He would wake up a substantial segment of the anti-war movement that sleeps while “the chosen one” occupies the house at the juncture of New York and Pennsylvania Avenues.

Remember that our goal is not putting Romney in the White House. He would continue on the path to implosion at a slightly smaller pace—it is even likely that he will serve only one term, leaving Obama out there plotting to pull a Grover Cleveland. The more likely scenario is that a popular Democratic Governor will emerge. Both parties look for the (con)man on the white horse. Our goal instead is to advance the cause of the liberty movement, to bring down the Imperial Presidency and to restore the Republic with its limits on power and its individual rights against the tyranny of the majority.

There is the alternative of a “third” party which has been defined as any party not Republican or Democrat. American history is littered with third parties. The key is to capture the Party without getting sucked in. This means going precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state. It is better done outside of an election year, but you need to start where you are. Remember, the socialists never sleep, the establishment never sleeps. Unless we can take back the Republic we might as well sleep through it and line up for goodies.


This will not be an easy battle. No political battle is. But what is the alternative?

  • The alternative is an evergrowing government surrendering the sovereignty of the American people to the a world government under the United Nations. And it has been politicians who have given over the sovereignty that is not theirs to give.
  • The alternative is a copy of an East Bloc “Peoples Democracy” where your papers are being asked for.
  • The alternative is a national police force where the crimes are interpretations of vague concepts.
  • The alternative is an isolated Presidency, unfettered by the law and advised by commissars.
  • The alternative is an education system where the learning and literature of the past is thrown in the fire.
  • The alternative is the next generation (yet unborn) will have no knowledge of our history.
  • The alternative is a catastrophic failure of all the systems of government with no clue what to do other than beg from the Chinese.

Do we want these alternatives. Or do we want to spread the word, work for the future. Socialists believe in the inevitablity of their cause, that the end of history is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Long ago they abandoned the withering of the state—Marx was a crackpot; it was Lenin and Stalin who determined the course of history.

Are we ready to say no to that dialectic? Are we ready to say “YES” to the struggle for Liberty.