Multiculturalism – Where ‘zero tolerance’ unity of thought results in diversity of skin color

As some of you may be aware I have a younger family member who lives with me while she attends college.  She is a sharp cookie, and although she does not agree with me on every issue, nor I with her, we do agree on a good number of philosophical points.

Frequent readers know that I detest affirmative action and quotas for pretty much any use.  I have taken a little heat in the past for my comparisons regarding the amount of “diversity” on TV and in advertising and the actual demographics of this nation.

I am reminded of the South Park episode on the South Park flag:

The episode begins with an argument about the South Park town flag. It depicts four white figures hanging a black one on a gallows. The blatant racism incites Chef's indignation and leads him to believe that the whole town is racist. The Children are eventually given the job of redesigning the flag and when they unveil it, it is a multicultural flag of different colored stick people holding hands…with a black stick figure on the gallows. 

Chef and the rest of the adults find out that the children had not even noticed that the flag was racist, thinking that the issue at hand was capital punishment. Chef realizes that, when the children looked at the flag, they only saw five people, with no regard to their colors, and is touched: he realizes that, in believing the whole town racist while throwing the slur "cracker" around, he was being the racist one. . Chef delivers the moral of this story: his inclination to anti-racism almost made him a racist himself; perceiving things according to race leads only to further racism.

In our world today we have “forced diversity” where diversity becomes un-diverse.  Everybody seems to have a dance card they have to fill with their “black” friend, and their “gay” friend, and their “asian” friend.  We’ve become hyper-racist to the point none of you probably pulled up short at my insertion of “gay” into a discussion on race.  That is how bad it has gotten, if you are perceived as anti-homosexual, you are also a racist.  Never mind being anti-homosexual being wrong; how did that become race based?

Look at the Lefty bomb throwers; they are the ones attempting to marginalize the entire TEA movement because "we are all a bunch of white raaacists”.  The term racist is used to completely discount every issue.  Don’t agree with the President?  Racist.  Don’t agree with AZ’s immigration law? Raacist!  Don’t agree with unlimited welfare? Raaacissst.  Don’t support green initiatives?  Racist.  Vote *gasp* Republican?  raaaaacisssst.

If your grassroots group is not a uniformly multicultural multi-ethnic melting pot (actually the less white people the better) then you absolutely positively must be racist.  

We all fall into this trap.  The white demographic in this area of the country is around 75%, therefore 75% of all the people in any given group ANYWHERE around here could be assumed to be caucasian non-spanish.  Instead, unless we can show a picture of just how many skin tones were at a Rally, we are apparently proven to be Racists.  To hear the loons tell it we are all marching in sheets carrying burning crosses.

It has gotten to the point that even advertisers are beginning to poke fun at our hyper-racialism.  The new ads for the young ladies kotex has a beautiful young lady stating that she was picked to be the spokesperson because of her beauty and her indeterminate ethnicity so as to appeal to a wider audience..and blah blah blah…

What this does is point out that there is a LOT of thought given to race when products are designed and advertised.  I refuse to believe this sells more feminine hygiene products, cheeseburgers, or even TV shows.  But do believe the more we market to groups and the more we divide people up and check people off the worse the situation becomes, not better.

When I was a kid I watched Family Ties, not because they were white, but because Michael J. Fox was fantastic as Alex P. Keaton.  I watched The Cosby Show, not because they were black but because it was a great show.  When I was young I watched The Jeffersons, and Diff’rent Strokes, and Sanford and Son, and the Dukes of Hazard, Magnum PI, A-Team, Knight Rider, Simon and Simon. I got older and watched Arsenio Hall, not because he was black, but because he was better than Leno or that other idiot, for a while. I watched In Living Color instead of Sat Night Live.  I loved Home Improvement.  Color did not play into my TV watching habits, quality of the show and its relevance to me or its entertainment value did.  On another note, I can promise you, I never bought (or begged my mom to buy) a happy meal because of the color of the little kid in the commercial (usually it had more to do with Lego’s), ditto with breakfast cereal.

Little Cousin’s point was, when diversity just happens, it is diversity.  When Diversity is forced, it is someone else’s opinion of diversity, and I will add, it is certainly not the product of any diversity of thought.  Until the never-sufficiently-to -be-damned Liberal left quits using Racist as every other word, as a be-all and end-all to any disagreement, we will never be post racial.  We must not allow them to drag us into showing our “diversity” credentials at every turn.  I think from here on out the proper response to any cry of RAAACISSST should be, “that is absurd, how dare you bring race into the argument in order to obfuscate the true issue, I will not devolve into that type of hateful rhetoric, you debase yourself” – and if nothing else, they will just call us stoopid while they try to google the definitions to “obfuscate”, “devolve”, “rhetoric”, and “debase”.

Multiculturalism – Where ‘zero tolerance’ unity of thought results in diversity of color, welcome to 21st century Amerika.

-KOOK

Puerto Rico, Estado Numero Cincuenta Uno, Segunda Parte

  Like that title? I am just practicing, trying to remember my Espanol.

So, Following up on Yesterday’s Post,  Puerto Rico – A New State full of Potential Progressive Voters, the House voted In Favor, including 50 of our closest allies  (Distance is relative, remember, Mars is the next closest planet to earth but still a long long… long way from us) the Republicans, to ‘reaffirm’ Puerto Rico’s right to self determination.  A right they have had for six decades now. Let me be clear® I am not against Puerto Rico becoming a State, not if that is really what the People IN –IN-Puerto Rico want.  Heck, it looks like it would be just an abs-o-lutely fantastic place to visit: The article below is actually from a LeftStreamMedia Source and it almost tells the whole story, of course without any outrage over the bills most ridiculous affront to common sense and ethics to come out of Washington, well in at least the last 24 hours:

Bitter debate ensues as House approves bill that could move Puerto Rico to statehood

  The House on Thursday approved a bill that could move Puerto Rico to statehood - exposing a rare and bitter rift between New York members from the island territory.

Bronx Democratic Rep. Jose Serrano ( THIS GUY is one of the worst, he is the one that always pushes the bill to remove presidential term limits) backed the measure, calling it a vital step to ending colonial rule, even as his usual ally, Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-Brooklyn) blasted it as a "disgrace," "shameful" and "appalling." (thank you for that, Nydia)

The measure offers Puerto Rico - a U.S. territory for 112 years - a two-step vote.

The first would ask whether Puerto Ricans -

including those living in the States - like the current territorial commonwealth status or if they want change.

If the vote is for change, a second vote would ask what change they want.

"For the first time in 112 years, the Congress of the United States will ask the 4 million American citizens (A huge Liberal Voting Bloc) in Puerto Rico what they wish their relationship to the United States to be," said Serrano.

Velazquez and Harlem Rep. Charlie Rangel, whose father was Puerto Rican, said the measure was a backdoor move to a statehood vote on the island that has failed three times in the past. –OH MY GOD, Charlie Rangel said something bordering on common sensical…  I expect to see unicorns any moment now…

"It is baffling that the statehood option, which lost in 1967, in 1993 and again in 1998, is now allowed to scheme its way to victory," Velazquez said.

Before the debate, the bill had offered three options for change: statehood, independence or an independent "free association" like three other former U.S. territories.

Velazquez argued that if keeping the current status was no longer on the ballot, statehood - always the second choice in the past - would win by default.

She favors a Puerto Rican constitutional convention.

Velazquez managed to win an amendment to add keeping the status quo to the choices.

"We restored some fairness to a badly flawed process," she said.

Still, Serrano was so pleased he wielded the final gavel, hammering it down with a wide smile.

mmcauliff@nydailynews.com

 

Arriba La Raza! Viva La Reconquesta!

-KOOK

Women to Start Serving on Submarines.

FOXNews.com - Women to Start Serving on Submarines, but Not Everyone's On Board

Read the whole article here.  I am not a misogynist, or a bigoted sexist.  Women can and do perform 99% of all jobs in the world as well as men, and the opposite is true as well.  But I feel this is a severely ill conceived, bad, idea, below are some excerpts from the article.

Another exclusive "men's club" is about to go coed: The U.S. Navy will soon allow women to serve on submarines…

Quotas and basically Affirmative action, which I am always against.

…But now, with the introduction of its new Trident guided missile submarines -- subs as large as the defensive ballistic missile submarines but outfitted to carry out offensive missions -- the Navy says it finally will be able to offer women both privacy and a viable career path.  (-because the Navy is here for you, not the other way around)

85 Mk VII Mod 0 Torpedoes …Check

5000 rounds ammo ball type .30 Ca….check

128 MkII Mod 3 Life Preserver Orange….check

3 Officer, Junior Grade, Female…check

Just one more piece of standard equipment.  “Well captain we have almost all of the staff figured out, but we still need to fill the ship’s  standard complement of women”  And once those three are on board, If I were a woman I think I would always wonder ‘am I here because I was good, or because they needed three females per boat?’

Because a junior officer's room was designed to bunk three people, the Navy plans to admit three women -- two junior officers and a senior officer -- onto each of its eight Trident submarine crews by January 2012.

They will have to share a bathroom with nine men, but the Navy says the crew will use a simple reversible sign to indicate who is using the facilities, enabling both sexes to get the privacy they demand. No modifications required.

…The Navy hopes the penalties for "fraternizing" -- ranging from fines to dismissal and two years' confinement – will ease some of those concerns.

…One issue [the navy] is dealing with is whether the policy will carry over to the enlisted ranks, where more than 80 sailors, some as young as 17, sleep nine to a room and share two bathrooms.

"To bring women enlisted on board we'd actually have to make modifications to the ship," he said. "I can't tell you exactly what they would be, because although we're beginning to look at this, we really haven't gone far enough down the road to determine which submarines we're going to put them on and how we're going to make sure they have privacy."

The Navy says it isn't having a problem meeting its recruitment goals for enlisted sailors, so it has time to explore the issue. And it sees no better starting point than admitting female officers…

It is just simply not a smart idea.  Who does it really benefit? 24 women in the entire Navy?  Does it really increase the Navy’s capacity? I smell a rat, there is a politician at the bottom of this somewhere.

Ladies, I love you, and I value your contributions, and I am prepared to be yelled at for this… So go ahead

-KOOK

Puerto Rico – A New State full of Potential Progressive Voters

Ok, here is the quick and dirty History of Puerto Rico.  Puerto Rico lies nestled right between Haiti/Dominican Republic and the British Virgin Islands.  It is in the same island chain as Cuba.  To get it in your mind right, Cuba is closest, then then Haiti/Dominican and then Puerto Rico.

 

Christopher Columbus landed on the island, which was inhabited by Amerindian Natives, in 1493 on his second voyage and claimed it for Spain.  Spain had it as a colony until the Spanish American war, in 1898 the United States invaded.  The US got Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba, the Philippines in the Treaty of Paris.  They began their relationship with the US as a territory governed my Martial Law, two years later moved to mostly self governed using systems virtually identical to a State’s, In 1917 all the inhabitants became citizens of the US, they began having popular elections of representatives and gained a US style Judicial system, Under Truman they got a regularly elected governor and other trappings of statehood including non voting representatives in DC, this had the effect of changing its’ status from Territory to Commonwealth or “Free Associated State”.  All of this was paving the way for a vote for statehood, currently three different plebiscites or votes have been taken by the people and all three have failed to win enough votes to make Puerto Rico our 51st state.

Why?

Well it probably has a lot to do with getting something for nothing.  To put it another way, why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?  They have all of the benefits of statehood, with fewer taxes. 

Enter The Zero Regime…

There is a bill up for vote today to support Puerto Rico’s right to self determination.  This is on the face of it, nonsense.  Puerto Rico already has that right and has expressed itself three times to remain as it is.  BUT, just like Yesterday’s post on Amnesty and Illegal Immigration, granting Puerto Rico Statehood would win many many Liberal Progressive voters.

You doubt it?

The UN is heavily involved in the push for a change in Puerto Rico’s status.     From 1952 to 2007, Puerto Rico had three political parties which stood for three distinct future political scenarios. The Popular Democratic Party (PPD) seeks to maintain the island's "association" status as a commonwealth, and has won in referendums on the island's status held over six decades since coming under U.S. control.  The New Progressive Party (PNP) (catchy isn’t it?) seeks statehood. The Puerto Rican Independence Party seeks independence.

The real clincher on this one is this:  apparently in the bills that will follow this “nonbinding” vote today is a provision to allow people born in Puerto Rico but currently living in the continental US to vote on Puerto Rico’s status.  Read it again, a US citizen, born in Puerto Rico but currently living in, say, Illinois, will be able to vote in the self determination vote for Puerto Rico.

According to the latest estimates 70%  of Puerto Ricans cannot speak English passably, and many many of the recent immigrants TO Puerto Rico have been from Central America including Venezuela and Colombia and also from Cuba. 

Now ask yourself, in a Liberal House and Senate do you think, for an instant that if Nasty Pelotox and Dingy Harry and Chairman Zero thought that the people of Puerto Rico would:

a) Vote for statehood on their own without stacking the deck and;

b) vote in any way Conservative Republican or Libertarian after gaining statehood

They would a) stack the deck and b) want there to be a vote?

So here is what I think they are up to regarding Puerto Rico, it all seems to make some sense, They have this vote to affirm Puerto Rico’s right to Self Determination.  Puerto Rico already has a constitution, a popularly elected government, follows all federal regulations, and its’ populace are all citizens.

The Current Speaker of the House, President of the Senate,  and Governor are all members of this “New Progressive Party” (although actually claim to align themselves with Republicans, lending more credence to the crazy notion that Parties really do not matter), once this sham vote takes place in congress, they will call another referendum, although this time allow anyone born in Puerto Rico no matter where they reside (or actually probably no matter if they were born in Puerto Rico or not) to vote.  Then, because there are already delegates in Congress, they will immediately ask to be seated and BLAMMO we have a 51st state.  Then these so called republicans will decide they will caucus with the Liberals and Bingo, we are back to a filibuster proof super majority. 

Heck- they might just do it without resorting to a vote.  Congress votes in a nonbinding agreement that Puerto Rico has the right to self determination, and bang the delegates are seated as senators and representatives.  Sew another star on the flag boys and girls…

So take Amnesty for Illegals, throw in Puerto Rico, and what do you have…the re-election of the most rapidly unpopular president in history to a second term.

Puerto Rico: One Step Closer to 57.  next up, Guam, American Samoa, and the  US Virgin Islands …no really…click the link.

There is a bill pending Senate approval in the United States Congress that would authorize the United States Secretary of the Interior to extend technical assistance grants and other assistance to facilitate a political status public education program in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa

ISNT THAT NICE?

Viva La Reconquesta! Arriba La Raza!

-KOOK

Who are the Anarchists Now? Arizona Immigration Enforcement

Let’s put this in perspective, you are often asked to show your ID when you use your credit or debit card, you have to produce ID to get a loan, buy a home, apply for assistance, enroll for school, fly on a plane, stay in a hotel, or rent a car.  Every time I have been stopped by the police I have been asked to produce license and proof of insurance.  But asking for documentation to prove legal residency in this country is an affront to civil rights? What about my Civil Rights?

I will now have to prove to the IRS every year that I have purchased Federally mandated health insurance, but we cannot ask anyone to prove legal residency in this country? Seriously?

I still cannot wrap my mind around the mental gymnastics required to reconcile that a person who is here illegally, has not committed a crime. If you will break our laws to get here in the first place why are you amazed we automatically think you will break others while you are here?  How does one become an UNdocumented worker if Documents are irrelevant?  I mean really we do not have pass amnesty at all if we just quit being a nation of laws.

Of course, that would gloss over the fact that Arizona has become the 2nd place winner in the World Kidnapping Olympics…right behind, huh…Mexico City.  Phoenix has more Kidnappings per day than anywhere else in the USA.

It is Racist to affirm enforcement of a Federal Law?  Of course it is.  And all the cops are racists too.  Arizona is only 30% Latino according the the last census (which I am sure did not include many of the soon to be citizens of this country), so I am sure none of the police officers are Latino, and none of them would be married to a Latino. Nope they are all a bunch of White Racists.

What the pResident and the Left Stream Media are asking the border states to do is to ignore Federal Law, which puts us in the powerful and unique position of getting to choose which laws to enforce and which laws to ignore.  If the Feral Government is so intent on not enforcing their own law then why not do as Silverfiddle from Western Hero suggests and repeal it?  Just do away with Customs and ICE and Border Patrol, and all of that.  If we can pick and choose what laws we want to follow or not, then why have them in the first place?  That is the logical conclusion to the line of thought now being pushed.  Most liberals are in favor of not enforcing Marijuana laws as well.  So if we are not going to follow Drug Laws, and we are not going to follow Immigration laws, and we rarely follow voting eligibility laws, then guess I don’t have to follow laws that I don’t particularly like either.

NO, that is wrong, we do not get to pick and choose, folks.  Just because we do not think a law is Just (for the record I am in favor of the AZ law, and have mixed opinion on the weed issue) we do not get to decide whether or not we follow it.  People who know me and have been listening know that I have said repeatedly that whoever gives amnesty to the illegal aliens in this country is pretty much guaranteed a 60 year electoral majority.  This is about politics plain and simple, this is how the most rapidly unpopular administration our nation has ever seen plans to stay in power.

I think that this has been a goal of people like William Ayers and Saul Alinsky for years and years, Anarchy for everyone, courtesy of the Progressive Liberal Establishment.

Arriba La Raza, Viva La Reconquesta!

-KOOK

History Channel's "The Story of Us" and Irony

I watched the first episode of this great documentary series on the history channel tonight. It covered events leading up to the revolutionary war and it dovetails nicely with a couple of books I recently read. I find it very ironic that an otherwise entertaining and excellent series covering information that should be required material for every citizen of this country was introduced/prefaced by a man that apparently has little understanding of, or reverence for, the material itself. The series was introduced by none other than his one-ness, The pResident, chairman zero.

Secondly, does anyone else find it odd that a sitting president is endorsing a History channel documentary like Marlin Perkins hawking Mutual of Omaha insurance? What is next, selling an energy drink or some sportswear?

Maybe he should watch it instead of reading a TelePrompTer script of what one of his handlers thought a true blue USA loving American would say... You know what a good President would have actually felt and thought...

-Kook
via iPhone

Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe

Found this over at Coffee Milk Conservative: Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe, I just started following her blog and have added her to the blogroll.  She is a reformed Leftie, so we know it can be done. 

As the drumbeat for Cap and Tax starts up again it is important not to forget how silly the whole Anthropogenic Climate Change argument has become and this post highlights that very well.  Apparently Air Traffic cools the planet.  Who knew?  The little vapor trails off of airplanes actually make temperatures go down planet wide (OH, COME ON!)

Correlation is not the same as Causation.  Grounding planes after 9/11 did not change WEATHER and it damn sure did not change CLIMATE. Following this logic I could say this: “ I ate a peanut butter sandwich yesterday and the sun shone all day long; therefore eating PB sandwiches makes the weather sunny and bright”. Secondly the GIANT ASH CLOUD *should* make it slightly, if not quite a bit, COOLER; despite the lack of contrails off of airplanes “making it hotter” (never mind that according to their standard fantasies jet exhaust makes the planet hotter).  So I guess the question in their minds (as if they used their minds to question anything) is:  Will the Man Made warming caused by Jet Exhaust be completely counteracted by the cooling effect of the Volcano (I am waiting for them to figure out a reason for the volcano eruption to be man-caused), and will the absence of the Jet Contrail water vapor contribute to more of a warming effect that the absence of jet exhaust will contribute to a cooling effect?   OH MY DEAR LORD -

Anyway, read on:

According to a report in the UK Mail online, the widespread grounding of planes in Europe – due to the eruption of Iceland’s Mount Eyjafjallajokull – could lead to an increase in temperatures across that continent. From the article:

A study conducted after commercial flights were grounded for three days following the September 11 terror attacks found the average daily temperature range in the U.S. rose markedly - exceeding the three-day periods before and after by 1.8c. (or it could have been all that fuel that caught fire… big fire you know, could have made it warmer- hey it is more plausible than their ridiculous “theory”)
The grounding of flights in 2001 gave scientists a 'tarnished but golden opportunity' to study the impact that jet planes have on the climate. (WEATHER WEATHER WEATHER, and the answer is: imperceptible)
They matched the weather over those three days with similar weather in September over that period, and found that the difference in daily high and nightly low temperatures in the absence of planes' contrails was more than 1c greater. (also in the absence of Unicorns, meteor showers, UFO landings, all manner of things that also have no effect on the temperature)
Scientists claimed this showed that clouds formed by the water vapour in the exhaust from jet planes have a small but significant effect on daily temperatures. (one degree C = 1.8 (+32) degree F, really?  jet contrails impact national temperature daily by two degrees?)
The researchers said that in regions with crowded skies, the clouds formed by the planes' water vapour worked like cirrus clouds to prevent days from getting too hot and trapping the Earth's heat at night.

I thought the carbon emissions produced by jet fuel contributed to global warming? Now I find out that water vapor – a byproduct of jet fuel combustion – helps to moderate the earth's temperature. Do you ever get the feeling that some people want to have it both ways?

Coffee Milk Conservative: Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe,

My head hurts…

-KOOK

Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe

Found this over at Coffee Milk Conservative: Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe, I just started following her blog and have added her to the blogroll.  She is a reformed Leftie, so we know it can be done. 

As the drumbeat for Cap and Tax starts up again it is important not to forget how silly the whole Anthropogenic Climate Change argument has become and this post highlights that very well.  Apparently Air Traffic cools the planet.  Who knew?  The little vapor trails off of airplanes actually make temperatures go down planet wide (OH, COME ON!)

Correlation is not the same as Causation.  Grounding planes after 9/11 did not change WEATHER and it damn sure did not change CLIMATE. Following this logic I could say this: “ I ate a peanut butter sandwich yesterday and the sun shone all day long; therefore eating PB sandwiches makes the weather sunny and bright”. Secondly the GIANT ASH CLOUD *should* make it slightly, if not quite a bit, COOLER; despite the lack of contrails off of airplanes “making it hotter” (never mind that according to their standard fantasies jet exhaust makes the planet hotter).  So I guess the question in their minds (as if they used their minds to question anything) is:  Will the Man Made warming caused by Jet Exhaust be completely counteracted by the cooling effect of the Volcano (I am waiting for them to figure out a reason for the volcano eruption to be man-caused), and will the absence of the Jet Contrail water vapor contribute to more of a warming effect that the absence of jet exhaust will contribute to a cooling effect?   OH MY DEAR LORD -

Anyway, read on:

According to a report in the UK Mail online, the widespread grounding of planes in Europe – due to the eruption of Iceland’s Mount Eyjafjallajokull – could lead to an increase in temperatures across that continent. From the article:

A study conducted after commercial flights were grounded for three days following the September 11 terror attacks found the average daily temperature range in the U.S. rose markedly - exceeding the three-day periods before and after by 1.8c. (or it could have been all that fuel that caught fire… big fire you know, could have made it warmer- hey it is more plausible than their ridiculous “theory”)
The grounding of flights in 2001 gave scientists a 'tarnished but golden opportunity' to study the impact that jet planes have on the climate. (WEATHER WEATHER WEATHER, and the answer is: imperceptible)
They matched the weather over those three days with similar weather in September over that period, and found that the difference in daily high and nightly low temperatures in the absence of planes' contrails was more than 1c greater. (also in the absence of Unicorns, meteor showers, UFO landings, all manner of things that also have no effect on the temperature)
Scientists claimed this showed that clouds formed by the water vapour in the exhaust from jet planes have a small but significant effect on daily temperatures. (one degree C = 1.8 (+32) degree F, really?  jet contrails impact national temperature daily by two degrees?)
The researchers said that in regions with crowded skies, the clouds formed by the planes' water vapour worked like cirrus clouds to prevent days from getting too hot and trapping the Earth's heat at night.

I thought the carbon emissions produced by jet fuel contributed to global warming? Now I find out that water vapor – a byproduct of jet fuel combustion – helps to moderate the earth's temperature. Do you ever get the feeling that some people want to have it both ways?

Coffee Milk Conservative: Suspension of Air Traffic Could Raise Temperatures Across Europe,

My head hurts…

-KOOK

Liberal Myths and History: Emancipation Proclamation

   We are fighting a narrative.  The narrative is not some concrete list or document.  These people do not have to have meetings.  There are no official decoder rings.  The narrative is set in motion by those in the media and those in power.  They all come from the same schools, work in the same industries, move in the same circle, and share the same worldview.  The narrative is based on several foundational beliefs, which are generally untrue. Sometimes the narrative is subtle, sometimes it is not.  We have all felt the narrative’s presence, we have all spoken about it, but the first time I discovered that someone called it what it was and gave it a real name was in a novel I read by Stephen Hunter.  I recommend all of his books, strictly great entertainment, but in this case he hit upon a very significant sociological/cultural truth: There is no vast conspiracy of the left, it is just a set of beliefs that grew out of a framework constructed, primarily in our schools by leftists and communist sympathizers. Our history has largely been subverted and suborned for political gain.

So here is my attempt to fight the narrative one myth, lie, and misrepresentation at a time.

The narrative:  Abraham Lincoln Freed the Slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation ending the South’s Policy of Slavery. North=Good/South=Bad.

Caveat: I, in no way, shape, or form think slavery was anything other than an abomination.  it was a shameful practice.  I am a Pro-Liberty/ Pro-Freedom kind of guy.  The thought of anyone owning another person is anathema to me.  This is why I rail so hard against the involuntary servitude to the Federal Government.  This is why I speak so loudly against people selling themselves into slavery with government ‘entitlements’.

Facts:

The graphic below depicts the states that had slaves and the states that did not as of 1860.  DE, MD, DC, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, TN, KY, MO, AR, LA, and TX were states that allowed slavery.  Notice that Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC are included.

The map below depicts the Union and the Confederates States, as well as the Slave States that stayed in the Union after the start of the war.  Virginia split into Virginia  and West Virginia.  But notice that West Virginia, although a Union state, was still a Slave State, along with DE, MD, KY, MO, and Washington DC. Slaves in the District of Columbia were not freed until April 16, 1862; well after the start of the war,  and their owners were compensated for their loss by the Federal Government.

So what about the Emancipation Proclamation? 

The Emancipation Proclamation is not one document, it is actually two executive orders. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. Had any slave state ended its secession attempt before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily. The Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion.

That is Interesting, isn’t it?  If they had rejoined the union they could have kept their slaves. Seems like this might not have been the altruistic move we were lead to believe.  Seems like slavery might have been used as leverage.

These orders were a (mostly) political move on the part of Lincoln similar to a diplomatic sanction, or trade embargo that we use today to force our political will on other nations.   The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where slaves would be freed. Although implicitly granted authority to do so by Congress, Lincoln used his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, "as a necessary war measure" as the basis of the proclamation, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress or a constitutional amendment.

Why?

Because, Lincoln had previously declared in peacetime that he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. Even used as a war power, emancipation was a risky political act. Public opinion as a whole was against it, and it was a controversial decision even in the North.  Secretary of State William H. Seward commented,

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

It is very important to note that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted.

More to follow…

-KOOK

Liberal Myths and History: Emancipation Proclamation

   We are fighting a narrative.  The narrative is not some concrete list or document.  These people do not have to have meetings.  There are no official decoder rings.  The narrative is set in motion by those in the media and those in power.  They all come from the same schools, work in the same industries, move in the same circle, and share the same worldview.  The narrative is based on several foundational beliefs, which are generally untrue. Sometimes the narrative is subtle, sometimes it is not.  We have all felt the narrative’s presence, we have all spoken about it, but the first time I discovered that someone called it what it was and gave it a real name was in a novel I read by Stephen Hunter.  I recommend all of his books, strictly great entertainment, but in this case he hit upon a very significant sociological/cultural truth: There is no vast conspiracy of the left, it is just a set of beliefs that grew out of a framework constructed, primarily in our schools by leftists and communist sympathizers. Our history has largely been subverted and suborned for political gain.

So here is my attempt to fight the narrative one myth, lie, and misrepresentation at a time.

The narrative:  Abraham Lincoln Freed the Slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation ending the South’s Policy of Slavery. North=Good/South=Bad.

Caveat: I, in no way, shape, or form think slavery was anything other than an abomination.  it was a shameful practice.  I am a Pro-Liberty/ Pro-Freedom kind of guy.  The thought of anyone owning another person is anathema to me.  This is why I rail so hard against the involuntary servitude to the Federal Government.  This is why I speak so loudly against people selling themselves into slavery with government ‘entitlements’.

Facts:

The graphic below depicts the states that had slaves and the states that did not as of 1860.  DE, MD, DC, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, TN, KY, MO, AR, LA, and TX were states that allowed slavery.  Notice that Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC are included.

The map below depicts the Union and the Confederates States, as well as the Slave States that stayed in the Union after the start of the war.  Virginia split into Virginia  and West Virginia.  But notice that West Virginia, although a Union state, was still a Slave State, along with DE, MD, KY, MO, and Washington DC. Slaves in the District of Columbia were not freed until April 16, 1862; well after the start of the war,  and their owners were compensated for their loss by the Federal Government.

So what about the Emancipation Proclamation? 

The Emancipation Proclamation is not one document, it is actually two executive orders. The first one, issued September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by January 1, 1863. Had any slave state ended its secession attempt before January 1, 1863, it could have kept slavery, at least temporarily. The Proclamation only gave Lincoln the legal basis to free the slaves in the areas of the South that were still in rebellion.

That is Interesting, isn’t it?  If they had rejoined the union they could have kept their slaves. Seems like this might not have been the altruistic move we were lead to believe.  Seems like slavery might have been used as leverage.

These orders were a (mostly) political move on the part of Lincoln similar to a diplomatic sanction, or trade embargo that we use today to force our political will on other nations.   The second order, issued January 1, 1863, named ten specific states where slaves would be freed. Although implicitly granted authority to do so by Congress, Lincoln used his powers as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, "as a necessary war measure" as the basis of the proclamation, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress or a constitutional amendment.

Why?

Because, Lincoln had previously declared in peacetime that he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. Even used as a war power, emancipation was a risky political act. Public opinion as a whole was against it, and it was a controversial decision even in the North.  Secretary of State William H. Seward commented,

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

It is very important to note that while the Proclamation had freed most slaves as a war measure, it had not made slavery illegal. Several former slave states had already passed legislation prohibiting slavery; however, in a few states, slavery continued to be legal, and to exist, until December 18, 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted.

More to follow…

-KOOK

Andy Stern to Resign as SEIU Head

  

Via and with a big H/T to: Reaganite Republican  I don’t visit the Reaganite often enough.  Was perusing this morning and caught this: 

The disturbingly influential head of the Purple People Beaters is planning to step-down (in 2012), according to Politico- this of course comes as a surprise, right at the peak for this power-hungry rabble-rouser .  Strange it is... so what's he up to?- best to keep an eye on this one

Reaganite Republican: Andy Stern to Resign as SEIU Head

Left this as a comment, and it sums up my opinion.

  It is not likely that Stern is going to be given a MORE high profile position. The reason he is probably moving/changing is because he has been shown to be too HIGH profile already. These people do their work in the weeds under the cover of darkness, A la Van Jones.  They cannot stand the sunlight. He has been caught out in the sun and widely reported as being the most frequent visitor to Chairman Zero's throne room. He is just going to go back underground. He may be moved to a liberal policy think thank, or may be called back to the mother ship at the Soros Foundation, or create a new evil organization.  That is what they do. Old Hippie Rabble Rousers never die they just create new organizations and rebrand themselves. That is what they have done since the sixties.

-KOOK

Andy Stern to Resign as SEIU Head

  

Via and with a big H/T to: Reaganite Republican  I don’t visit the Reaganite often enough.  Was perusing this morning and caught this: 

The disturbingly influential head of the Purple People Beaters is planning to step-down (in 2012), according to Politico- this of course comes as a surprise, right at the peak for this power-hungry rabble-rouser .  Strange it is... so what's he up to?- best to keep an eye on this one

Reaganite Republican: Andy Stern to Resign as SEIU Head

Left this as a comment, and it sums up my opinion.

  It is not likely that Stern is going to be given a MORE high profile position. The reason he is probably moving/changing is because he has been shown to be too HIGH profile already. These people do their work in the weeds under the cover of darkness, A la Van Jones.  They cannot stand the sunlight. He has been caught out in the sun and widely reported as being the most frequent visitor to Chairman Zero's throne room. He is just going to go back underground. He may be moved to a liberal policy think thank, or may be called back to the mother ship at the Soros Foundation, or create a new evil organization.  That is what they do. Old Hippie Rabble Rousers never die they just create new organizations and rebrand themselves. That is what they have done since the sixties.

-KOOK

Deconstructing our Progress to Communism Pt. II – Commerce Clause

   We the People are engaged in a battle over our future.  Are we going to remain a Constitutional Republic, or are we going to devolve in a communistic tyranny ruled by a politburo of non -representatives elected through sham elections like Iran, Cuba, Russia, or Venezuela?   Yesterday the focus was on the faulty premise that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun.  Today’s focus is on another clause that our current would-be Kings and Queens in Washington think gives them the power usurp all authority reserved to the states or the people.  The “Commerce Clause”, Article I section 8.3 which reads:

[the congress shall have power…] “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

The part of that statement which so much debate has been centered upon is “To regulate commerce…among the several states." Luckily we do not have to be confused as to what the framers meant, as they clearly laid out their intent in their writings.  reading their correspondence, there should be no debate at all what the proper understanding of those words should be. But as was pointed out yesterday, the small minority of our non-representatives who would hazard a guess as to where their unlimited power is derived from, will likely quote this clause.
Indeed Speaker Pelosi issued a press release on her website in September 2009 where she expressly said just that: Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform'

“…  But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce.  Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”

So according to this widely held interpretation these 16 words nullify the tenth amendment.  IF congress can regulate the commerce that goes on within a state because the prices and availability of a product or service in one state impacts the prices and availability in another, then there is literally no end to what they can control.  How convenient  for them.  This is clearly not what the founders meant. The original intent of the framers is clear.  Madison said to Cabell :

“For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.”
Allow me to translate into more easily understood language. 
I did not refer to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States."  [in my response].  I purposefully left that part out because I always thought that in the future people would misunderstand the meaning unless it was  put into context.  If not, it would be too easy to extend this power to the same level as the power reserved to the federal government to regulate relationships with other nations.  It is very clear that this language grew out of an abuse of power by states that had ports and harbors against states that did not. The language was intended as a protection to keep one state from harming another by restricting its trade, not as an additional power given to the Federal government over the states; however, the Federal government is the only agency we could give this authority to, and so we did.

   Remember, until the mid 20th century any goods received from a foreign nation were received by ship.  This put States without ports and harbors at a serious disadvantage to states who did.  Imagine Kansas or Oklahoma's vulnerable situation if they had to pay taxes  on every product imported to every state that was crossed en route to the final destination.  imagine a ship from China delivering products to the port in Long Beach, CA en route to Kansas.  California could then charge tariffs to Kansas, and every state subsequently after that could charge both CA, and KS, as the product moved across their borders.  What a nightmare that would be.  This is the reasoning behind the Commerce Clause.  The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to keep this internal turmoil out of trade, to allow all the states to access shipping and receiving points.  This is further explained in Federalist #42, and Madison mentions that one of the reasons for this language’s inclusion into the constitution was because it was a noted weakness of the articles of Confederation as well as several Nations in Europe at the time.
It was meant as a restriction on states from harming other states, not to create an  all encompassing evil overlord Fedzilla government. 
Unfortunately over the years the courts have wavered back and forth on this issue and the most recent passing of the buck by the court has been this:
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985),

Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.

The recent Firearms Freedom laws are set to test this theory, but it is unlikely from the above decision they will. Folks, if we don’t like Pelosi et. al. view of things, we have to vote them out, because the courts are likely going to take a pass on this.  This may be one of the most important litmus tests on a prospective candidate, “what is your opinion regarding the proper role of the Fed with respect to the Commerce Clause”
-KOOK

Deconstructing our Progress to Communism Pt. II – Commerce Clause

   We the People are engaged in a battle over our future.  Are we going to remain a Constitutional Republic, or are we going to devolve in a communistic tyranny ruled by a politburo of non -representatives elected through sham elections like Iran, Cuba, Russia, or Venezuela?   Yesterday the focus was on the faulty premise that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun.  Today’s focus is on another clause that our current would-be Kings and Queens in Washington think gives them the power usurp all authority reserved to the states or the people.  The “Commerce Clause”, Article I section 8.3 which reads:

[the congress shall have power…] “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

The part of that statement which so much debate has been centered upon is “To regulate commerce…among the several states." Luckily we do not have to be confused as to what the framers meant, as they clearly laid out their intent in their writings.  reading their correspondence, there should be no debate at all what the proper understanding of those words should be. But as was pointed out yesterday, the small minority of our non-representatives who would hazard a guess as to where their unlimited power is derived from, will likely quote this clause.
Indeed Speaker Pelosi issued a press release on her website in September 2009 where she expressly said just that: Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: 'Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform'

“…  But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce.  Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”

So according to this widely held interpretation these 16 words nullify the tenth amendment.  IF congress can regulate the commerce that goes on within a state because the prices and availability of a product or service in one state impacts the prices and availability in another, then there is literally no end to what they can control.  How convenient  for them.  This is clearly not what the founders meant. The original intent of the framers is clear.  Madison said to Cabell :

“For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it.

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.”
Allow me to translate into more easily understood language. 
I did not refer to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States."  [in my response].  I purposefully left that part out because I always thought that in the future people would misunderstand the meaning unless it was  put into context.  If not, it would be too easy to extend this power to the same level as the power reserved to the federal government to regulate relationships with other nations.  It is very clear that this language grew out of an abuse of power by states that had ports and harbors against states that did not. The language was intended as a protection to keep one state from harming another by restricting its trade, not as an additional power given to the Federal government over the states; however, the Federal government is the only agency we could give this authority to, and so we did.

   Remember, until the mid 20th century any goods received from a foreign nation were received by ship.  This put States without ports and harbors at a serious disadvantage to states who did.  Imagine Kansas or Oklahoma's vulnerable situation if they had to pay taxes  on every product imported to every state that was crossed en route to the final destination.  imagine a ship from China delivering products to the port in Long Beach, CA en route to Kansas.  California could then charge tariffs to Kansas, and every state subsequently after that could charge both CA, and KS, as the product moved across their borders.  What a nightmare that would be.  This is the reasoning behind the Commerce Clause.  The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to keep this internal turmoil out of trade, to allow all the states to access shipping and receiving points.  This is further explained in Federalist #42, and Madison mentions that one of the reasons for this language’s inclusion into the constitution was because it was a noted weakness of the articles of Confederation as well as several Nations in Europe at the time.
It was meant as a restriction on states from harming other states, not to create an  all encompassing evil overlord Fedzilla government. 
Unfortunately over the years the courts have wavered back and forth on this issue and the most recent passing of the buck by the court has been this:
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985),

Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.

The recent Firearms Freedom laws are set to test this theory, but it is unlikely from the above decision they will. Folks, if we don’t like Pelosi et. al. view of things, we have to vote them out, because the courts are likely going to take a pass on this.  This may be one of the most important litmus tests on a prospective candidate, “what is your opinion regarding the proper role of the Fed with respect to the Commerce Clause”
-KOOK

De-Constructing our Progress to Communism Pt. I

We are facing a constitutional crisis in this Country. In debate, one of the best ways to disprove an opponent’s argument is to attack their thesis statement, and not the particulars of the faulty premise.  The faulty premise in this case is that the “General Welfare” clause allows congress to legislate anything and everything under the sun. Seemingly all of the Democrats and apparently many of the Republicans, along with hordes of the populace believe that there are alternate interpretations of the constitution, which allows certain usurpations of power by the Federal Government.  But we do not have to guess at the Founder’s intent on these things, because we have documents providing their meaning and intent.   Amongst our elected non-representatives who have an opinion or a clue (and most do not) as to where they might derive the power for their “Progressing to Communist” agenda they will cite the “General Welfare” or the “Commerce Clause”.  Below are just a very few of their recent comments regarding their authority for their usurpation of our rightful power; for the rest check out this Link at CSNnews.com

In response to the question, “Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”, these are how some of our supposed representatives answered:

House Speaker Pelosi Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.)  “Are you serious? Are you serious?” (How dare you question my authoritay! peasant!)
 
• Sen. Bernard Sanders (I.-Vt.) “Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs that we’ve been doing for many, many decades.” (full disclosure on Bernie, he is an avowed Socialist)
  
• Sen. Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.)  “Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. (not at the same time) In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance (ya, if you choose to own a car, I guess we could choose to kill ourselves and therefore not need medical insurance), and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.”
  
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various (unconstitutional) programs.”
  
• Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.) (Of Louisiana Purchase v 2.0 Fame) “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.(cause I don’t have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.)
  
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.) – of the famous Cornhusker Kickback “Well, you know, I don’t know that I’m a constitutional scholar (having never read the constitution myself). So, I, I’m not going to be able to answer that question.”
  

 

And now for someone with credibility…

James Madison, American politician and political philosopher,  fourth President of the United States, has been called the "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. He wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress,  and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights". As a political theorist, Madison's most distinctive belief was that the new republic needed checks and balances to protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

I think his credibility speaks for itself.  In Federalist #41 Madison explained the very concept so many of our non-representatives have misconceptions about (my translations in Blue as always, and I have edited out some of his commentary , rest assured I do this for brevity and clarity)

Some, …, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution,... It has been urged ..., that the power "to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. (people who make this argument are grasping at straws, and are ridiculous)

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; (if this was the only language granting congress power, and if we hadn’t spent the time enumerating powers in the constitution, these objections might have some merit)

though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. (even if the above were true, what a strange way to grant unlimited authority to congress)

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." (if this interpretation was followed then the words "to raise money for the general welfare." would allow congress to take away all the other rights we just listed)

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? (read the rest of the sentence, the part after the semicolon, when we explain what we meant)

If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? (do we have to spell it out line by line and repeat ourselves over and over to keep you from keeping half of what we said and disregarding the rest?  Why listen to the general terms and ignore the specific ones that follow which we included for clarification?)

 

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? (why list other powers if that first general sentence gave the congress unlimited authority?)

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. (“Make me a sandwich, put ham and cheese between two slices of bread.”  See what he means?)

But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. (The specifically enumerated powers are there to explain and qualify the general meaning.  It is absurd to think we put them there to confuse what we meant.  If there is any misleading as to what we meant either it was by the authors, or by the people making the objections, and it was not the authors)

…How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation! (you hang yourself with your own rope!)

-KOOK