War on Smokers Still Smoldering

Good afternoon, Cattle.

Ann Althouse reminds us that the war on smokers hasn't ended.

The latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, Raising the Excise Tax on Cigarettes:  Effects on Health and the Federal Budget, reminds us that the government looks at us all as cattle.   They raise us for our 'milk', but only keep us around as long as it's profitable for them to do so.  They've been doing this for smokers for the past two decades.  The war on fat has started.  After full implementation of the Affordable Care Act, they'll be monitoring all of us in a similar fashion and charging you accordingly.

May I remind you that the 1998 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, Who Pays for the Health Costs of Smoking? determined that smokers do not appear to impose net financial costs on the rest of society.  They estimated that tobacco taxes have apparently resulted in net financial gain to both the federal and state governments at the prevailing tax rates at the time.  Governments save on old-age medical care, social security, and nursing home care due to the estimated earlier death of smokers.  And that was done at the prevailing tax rates in '98 which were much, much lower than they are today.  And they still want MORE.

Wait til the full effects of Agenda 21 hit and they start moving the population to the gulags.  Much more on that to come, so stay tuned.  Or if you want to do a little research yourself, a good place to start is looking up Rosa Koire and her site, Democrats Against UN Agenda 21.

They've sold our children into perpetual slavery.  Now they want our guns.  Our liberty is under a multi-pronged attack.  When do we make a stand?

Update: 

It appears the CDC isn't done with the shakedown.

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee, 1946

All this crap about gun control and useful idiots like Piers Morgan, who isn't even a real American, leading the Obama deception asking why do citizens need firearms like the AR-15.

How come we don't ever hear about the Battle of Athens which took place in 1946?  Returning WWII vets, some of the first Oathkeepers, took on corrupt local officials to keep local elections fair and honest after State and Federal authorities failed them.  Another account, with similar incidents in other areas, can be found here.

I just found out about it from theoldmarine1 with his posting of this video on youtube.

Keep the faith and hold on to your arms.

ARMAGEDDON - Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn gave a particularly insightful speech (links at bottom) about the decline of America as a world power in various concepts in his book, "After America, Get Ready for Armageddon", which drills down towards the roots of what we see going on today.  In it, he touches on subjects that fit neatly into the categories he has crafted into an acronym for Armageddon:

• A - Addiction
• R - Redistribution
• M - Monopoly
• A - Arteriosclerosis
• G - Global Retreat
• E - Educational Social Engineering
• D - Decay
• D - Disintegration
• O - Open Season
• N - Nuke's Away

In this speech, he talks about many things that I have been highlighting some examples here, but I still fail to capture the intrinsic interrelations as well as Mark has in this speech. 

Take a look, for it's well worth your time.  I'm not going to add anything here in this post, but if you see anything in his speech that warrants additional discussion based on what you know, feel free to leave a comment or two.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Oppositional Defiant Disorder is a childhood pyschological disorder that could lead to Conduct Disorder and/or Antisocial Personality Disorder later in life.  (wink, wink)

Everytime I read the DSM-IV, I'm totally amazed at how they classify natural human traits for the struggle to be free as diagnosable psychotic neuroses.  For those who don't know what DSM-IV is, it's just similar to a diagnostic manual for your car as applied to diagnosing the horrible affliction known as human behavior.

Home remedies for self-medication in adults used to include smoking tobacco and/or marijuana and imbibing alcoholic beverages. 

Psychiatrists and psychologists don't like self-medication for it cuts down on profits from office visits.  Big Pharma doesn't like self-medication, as it cuts into their profits.  Get ready for Obamacare.  And after we're all diagnosed as psychotics, then they'll come for our guns.

Oppositionally and Defiantly yours,

Uncle Joe's Shack

We have a strange slang word , Uncle Tom, in our language that has come to be a slur to mean according to on-line Merriam-Webster: 

1. : a black who is overeager to win the approval of whites (as by obsequious behavior or uncritical acceptance of white values and goals)
2. : a member of a low-status group who is overly subservient to or cooperative with authority <the worst floor managers and supervisors by far are women … Some of them are regular Uncle Toms— Jane Fonda>

That certainly was not Harriet Beecher Stowe's intent, but that is lost on the prevailing attitudes of the heavily indoctrinated minds of today.  Joan Hedrick discusses a little of how it has come about:

Grafted onto the minstrel tradition, the stage versions of Stowe’s novel often portrayed Stowe’s hero as a shuffling, humorous Sambo. 

The Christ-like pacifism that ennobled Stowe’s Tom appeared to many in the increasingly confrontational racial politics of the twentieth century as subservience, or as James Weldon Johnson wrote in 1912, “foolishly good”—behavior that became branded as “like Uncle Tom.”

Stowe’s literary reputation, very high in the nineteenth century, was also declining as modernist critics viewed the work of Stowe and other politically motivated women writers as “melodramatic” and "sentimental.”
 

Such critic's views and the slur that gained acceptance are pure poppycock.  Uncle Tom's overt subservience was simply a survival technique in the face of an unbearable situation.  It's no different than people today swallowing their pride, integrity, and opinions to please their masters and keep their job.

Unequal Justice

David Gregory, a TV news anchorman, is not prosecuted for displaying a prohibited ammunition magazine on a nation-wide broadcast conducted in Washington DC. 

Not so for at least five military veterans who were mercilessly prosecuted to include James Brinkley, an Army veteran and federal employee. 

Others include Marine Cpl Melroy Cort, former Army Specialist Adam Meckler, Sgt Matthew Corrigan, and Lt Augustine Kim (links to stories of Corrigan and Kim are in the story on Meckler).

I'm sure those are only the tip of the iceberg.  These cases indicate there is something very seriously wrong with the convoluted legal system in the US.  That's what it is, a legal system, for there is no justice.

Fun With Numbers - Sexual Psychobabble Bullshit

Every once in a while psychologists come out with another groundbreaking study on human sexual behavior and they generally claim men are more promiscuous than women for such and such a reason with various mating hypotheses trying to relate them to Darwinian theories of evolution.  A recent article in the New York Times attempts to dispel the three most generally held assumptions:

"men are less selective about whom they’ll sleep with; men like casual sex more than women; and men have more sexual partners over a lifetime."

I always considered those assumptions to be pure bunk.  Consider which sex is more likely to have a greater number of partners on average in a population with an equal amount of men to women in mated pairs.  In any such a scenario, for one of the men to be promiscuous with more than one woman then one of the women would also have to be similarly as promiscuous with more than one man.  And for each new partner a man acquires, one more of the women will have to take on a new partner. 

Let's look at a scenario where there's a population of five men and five women where four of the women are totally monogamous with one partner each and the fifth is a hooker who had intercourse with all five of the males for figuring out which sex would have more partners over a lifetime.  You would have four of the five men having two partners each and one of the five with only one partner for a total of nine different partners and divide by five for an average of 1.8 partners each over a lifetime.  The women would be the one with five partners and four with just one partner each for the exact same average of 1.8 partners over a lifetime.  So it's a wash and it always will be.  It is impossible to conclude that men have more partners over a lifetime in a society with an equal population of each sex according to the math.  Of course I'm limiting this strictly to heterosexual relationships or encounters because these studies deal with assumptions to support Darwinian theories of evolution affects our choices in mating and procreation. 

Now where the assumption that men have more sexual partners holds true is that there are no populations in geographically defined areas where the populations of men to women are exactly equal.  The real reason why women tend to have fewer partners on average than men in most modern societies has less to do with women being more selective or that men like casual sex more, but that there are generally more women than men at any given time because women live longer on average and despite that would give them more time to take on additional partners over a longer lifetime, they simply have less opportunity because there is a smaller pool for them to choose from for either prospective mates or casual sex partners.  Thus women on average would by necessity have to be less selective or risk being left out of the mating game.  It has more to do with numbers than the Darwinesque gene search for superior genes theories we're told it has to be.  Sorry, ladies, the odds are just stacked against you.  Similarly, in an isolated society where the men vastly outnumber the women, then one can expect women would on average have more sexual partners in a lifetime than the men and there they can afford to be much more selective.

It's very rarely really what it seems at face value no matter what the experts tell us.  Consider the implications of the pure numbers game, carefully read that article again, and consider how you form your opinions in relation to what the experts are trying to sell us.