The New Terrapin Gazette

Number 302
18 April, 2013

The frightened mind, always on the defensive, is particularly aware of the dangers of yielding an inch to the devil.

The Culture War

The Benghazi disaster was a failure of government to plan, to protect, to respond, and to admit its failures. Obama’s ethics were inadequate to the task of mitigating the blunders, and Hillary hissed and spat out angry claims that the government’s lies and incompetence did not matter. Thus did the administration betray its lack of concern for principled policy.

As B follows A, this disgrace has been followed by a confirmation of the autocratic temper of the Ruling Elite. Attacking opponents of restrictions on firearms — regulations that in no way addressed the murders in the Connecticut school — Obama displayed genuine fury. This was not a posturing politician shouting slogans; nor was his outrage provoked by the depravity of others. This was a man beside himself because his will had been thwarted. His irrational, boorish indictments of others were anything but candid. At base, he’s a bully.

Accordingly, Obama savaged the senators, accusing them of evil; he damned them as craven, inhumane weaklings who cared nothing for the lives of innocent children. He accused the National Rifle Association of lying, a charge that is forbidden to members of the British House of Commons — for it disputes a person’s right to express an opinion. He allowed his egotistic anger to choose his words.

His rage told the nation that the war against Flyover Country has become a struggle to the death.

Indeed, Obama genuinely loathes the people whose values are inimical to his autocratic collectivism. That malevolence knows no respect for the ethical conduct of constitutional governance.

Other observers have put it better:

According to the president, no one honestly questioned the merits of his proposals; the opposition all “came down to politics,” meaning a desperate desire to retain power. His opponents not only failed to make a convincing case, he says; they offered “no coherent arguments” at all. Since Obama’s case for gun control consisted mainly of invoking dead children and grieving parents, that charge displays an astonishing lack of self-awareness.


Obama does a fine job of empathizing with the parents of Adam Lanza’s victims. But that is something any decent human being should be able to manage. Where he has trouble, despite his lip service to the idea of putting himself in the other guy’s shoes, is in empathizing with his opponents. He not only says they are wrong, which is to be expected. He refuses to concede that people who disagree with him about gun control are acting in good faith, based on what they believe to be sound reasons — that they, like him, are doing what they think is right. His self-righteous solipsism is striking even for a politician. (Source)

A weblogger notes that Obama’s rage was his “…way of saying if you disagree with me it’s because you don’t care about dead kids“. That should sting, but Obama would only respond with a sneer.

“This was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” President Obama declared after today’s votes, saying senators who voted against the amendments he supported “caved to pressure.” That seems a more apt description for legislators like Reid and Manchin, who for years opposed gun control measures based on what they claimed were principled grounds, only to abandon those principles because they were afraid of seeming insensitive in the face of raw emotional appeals. But as I’ve said before, Obama seems incapable of imagining that his opponents have any principles at all. (Emphasis added.) (Source)

Well, what’s next? Some folks are recalling that Obamoid national civilian security force this newsletter has repeatedly mentioned, and some never accepted the Homeland Defense “reason” for buying so many hollow-point rounds for its pistols. With a rabidly intense president dead-set on altering forever the meaning of the constitution as well as the nature of the markets for land, labor and capital…and…given the perception of Islamic colonials that the West is faltering…your guess is as good as anybody’s, Pilgrims.

Finally, this: did Boston — three dead, many maimed and crippled — give Obama a second burning Reichstag?

If the villains are apprehended and turn out not to be Muslims, could the law enforcement agencies of the nation be directed to seek and destroy all enemies domestic? Some conspiracists fear that; some are preparing for it.

Never afraid to predict, this newsletter insists that the chances of Obama lurching into fanatical lunacy are slight. At this point in his second term, he must realize that if he can’t begin to disarm the populace with initial “constitutional” measures, he won’t be able to impose his Utopian socialism in the next three years. He will leave office embittered and defiant — but defeated.

One hopes.

AGW Alarmist Propaganda Debunked And Forensically Examined

This will be brief. Begin with Mike Mann, the fellow at Penn State U who wants to sue National Review and Mark Steyn for…what? Defamation that prevents him from getting work in an academic field characterized by a consensus that he’s a genius of a researcher who has it all figured out? (By the way, oral arguments in the trial have been postponed until June, but the reason for that has not been announced.) Read his article in an Australian publication at this link, and be afraid.

Now read this response in a British magazine, and relax. The author, A. W. Montford, takes Mann apart as easily as a silverback highland gorilla tears the arms off a nosy Ivy League primatologist. Don’t you agree that Montford is easier to understand, hits all the vital spots in Mann’s silly article, and leaves you wondering why Mann risked trying to fool you? If you want to know more about Mann’s non-science nonsense, read Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. It’s an eye-opener.

The War On Drugs

Here is Brief Item Number Two. Look, Pilgrims, the fact is, Obama is an intellectually challenged ideologue. He has flatly refused to do anything about the invasion and occupation of a large region of the US state of Arizona by a mercenary army of aliens who are murderous criminals. He’s not going to do anything positive about the cost of and harm done by illegal drugs, so the question must be posed thus: what intelligent policy would reduce the harm, provided it were promoted by an intelligent president?

As long as there is a demand for recreational chemicals, there will be a market, and profits will be made. The USA had a choice years ago, and instead of turning the production and distribution of these drugs over to the professionals (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, drug companies), it allowed the manufacture and trade to be placed exclusively in the hands of some of the worst people on the face of the earth.

Now the really, really Bad Guys are coming, and they mean to kill you if you get in their way. That’s right — they are not staying in Mexico.

What should be done? Here’s some information and advice that might prove useful.

The Myth Of Firearms Legislation


In view of the Senate’s vote, you may want to skip this item. It will be of interest — perhaps — to those who still wonder whether the Senate erred. In any event, facts and reason never quite go out of fashion…well, almost never. Sort of. — OK, humans go totally berserk from time to time. So read the item linked just below!


Watch and listen as a US senator explains why restrictions and regulations are a good idea. His major points seem to be three: first, background checks are effective; second, crooks won’t be able to get around them and get guns anyway, because…well, maybe criminals are all really really stupid; and finally, that the National Rifle Association is fanatically promoting a massive shoot-out, hoping that good people kill all the bad people in a huge civil war that will play out like a video game.

His explanation of why some people do not want to fragment the monolithic second amendment and then eliminate some of its protections is a fresh approach to demagogic artifice. It’s also astonishingly insane.


The editor of this newsletter recounts his experience:

Some years ago, I was in Freiburg im Breisgau, in southwestern Germany. There I was introduced to and chatted with a police officer who was a relative of friends of mine. Now Germany has very tough legislation regulating the ownership of pistols in particular; of course carbines, rifles and shotguns are taken into consideration by the laws, as well. The average German does not own a firearm of any kind, and my guess is that Germans probably own less than five percent of the number of firearms US folks own, on a per capita basis.I asked the officer how much difficulty I would have if I wanted to obtain a pistol. His reply was immediate and emphatic: “It would be ridiculously easy for you.” He knew I was neither a resident nor a citizen of Germany, and immediately assumed I would make a purchase on the black market.

Ah, Politicians!

Senator Murphy (seen in the video linked above) takes his audience for fools when he implies — note that he does not explicitly put it this way — that two million refused firearms purchases meant two million people were utterly unable to buy pistols or rifles or shotguns. He’s goofy. Where there are buyers, there are markets. Ask any drug addict.

Further, consider that over time, extensive attempts to prevent import, transport, manufacture, sale, resale, use and possession of illegal recreational chemicals have not even managed to keep the targeted drugs from finding greater numbers of purchasers. The rational person would demand some evidence that total prohibition is slightly effective — yet there is none.

Now consider efforts to screen prospective buyers, rather than utterly prevent recreational use of drugs. The contrast is stunning. One cannot rationally conclude anything other than that claims background checks will help reduce deaths by firearms are wildly hopeful speculation at best, and absurdities at worst.

The Charm of Self-Deceit

Myth Number One: background checks are effective. Fact: background checks are just an inconvenience that cannot reduce crime by any detectable amount.

Myth Number Two: depriving good people of effective means of self-defense drives down crime and/or injury and death. Fact: it is statistically demonstrable, though disputed, that where the public is relatively well armed, crime decreases. Whether that is because criminals hesitate to exploit people who may be armed, or because good people have shot back and the newspapers have reported it, matters not at all.

Myth Number Three: gun-free zones are safer. Fact: they attract the homicidal crazies. As one can see from the facts of the mass murders that make the papers. Lunatics don’t try to shoot up gun shows, now do they?

CNN Explains It All To The Gullible — By Speculating About The Unprecedented

The Boston marathon bombing is a puzzle that may never be solved, but you can trust the media to speculate in politically correct fashion. Here’s CNN, once again up to its old tricks:

In this case, the formula seems very similar to one that al Qaeda has recommended to its supporters around the world as both crudely effective and difficult to trace. But it is also a recipe that has been adopted by extreme right-wing individuals in the United States.

That’s a complete quote — nothing has been omitted. The entire story is here.

This newsletter cannot recall pressure-cooker bombs ever being mentioned in any news report. It’s impossible to prove a negative, but whether this type of bomb is typical of “extreme right-wing individuals in the US” is at the very least debatable; some claim there is no evidence for it whatsoever. If that’s true, then CNN is promoting a lie in order to discredit “wingnuts”.

Would CNN do that? Well, yes.

Based on its history, one can denounce the organization as a shameless propaganda outlet, and insist that it is grossly unethical. Eason Jordan’s spontaneous remarks and the pact with Saddam Hussein come to mind, though that disturbing evidence may be outdated and irrelevant to today’s CNN (both were covered in NTG at the time).

At the worst, CNN can be accused of trying to suggest that the Boston bombs could just as well be the work of extremist “wingnuts” as of Al Qaeda supporters. (Eric Rudolph just might be the most ruthlessly violent anti-abortion, anti-homosexual bomber in US history. He did not make or use pressure-cooker bombs, as far as this newsletter has been able to determine. When he was captured, a large quantity of dynamite was found in his camp. Links: Wikipedia and more.)

(Photos that might show the marathon bombers are available.)

Stay with the facts, Pilgrims. Nothing is publicly known yet; speculation is fun, but it’s not sound journalism when it masquerades as reportage.

Of course what looks like an instance of press bias may be nothing more than an editorial lapse; perhaps a CNN junior staffer got too creative in an effort to produce trendy copy, and perhaps his editor was having a bad day. Perhaps not.

As with the Tylenol poisoner and the mailed anthrax, the truth may never be known about who bombed the marathon, or who is currently mailing ricin to federal officials.

Life is like that. What happened to the crown jewels of France? Why was the “money pit” constructed on Oak Island? Sometimes there simply are no answers.


Boston’s emergency services dealt with the marathon bombing in exemplary fashion. This article describes the city’s preparations for tragedy. The link may be balky, but it does appear to contain the entire text of the article. Recommended.

If you are interested in assessing the quality of journalism practiced by large newspapers, read the WSJ article linked immediately above and compare that to the same story as reported in the Los Angeles Times.

The mainstream media respond to goading. They do pay attention to their critics, even when they pretend to ignore them. Their behavior is determined by their estimation of how much they can get away with.

The problem: the press has no problem with the Obama administration. The vast majority of journalists are essentially part of The One’s team, and that means that dissenting reporters are targeted for prosecution by the department of justice. It’s called fascism, Folks.

If truth is impossible, so is the lie
There’s no in-between, you can’t swim, you can’t fly
At the uttermost link at the end of our chain
Only the strange remain
Only the strange remain

The masthead includes a quote from the works of Arthur Koestler.

The staff of The New Terrapin Gazette expresses its sincere gratitude to the many people who have gifted the world with Slackware Linux, Emacs, and Firefox.

Publisher: The Eagle Wing Palace of The Queen Chinee.