Incompetent or Dishonest- Pick One

Well, this is an infuriating gem.

Money Quote:

In one note from the documents, the FBI writes that Clinton said she did not know what the marking (C) — used to denote classified information deemed "confidential" — meant. When presented with an email chain using the (C) mark, Clinton "speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," according to the report.

Everyone who handles classified information - that would be most of the military and a fair percentage of the Federal workforce - receives training on how to recognize classified material. The lowliest Seaman/Private/Airman is expected to know how this as part of their job. For Clinton, a woman who is a former First Lady, a former US Senator, and who was, at the time the Secretary of State, this is either inexcusable incompetence or blatantly dishonest. Dealing with classified information correctly is one of the BASIC job requirements of being SECSTATE, and something that she should have known how to do from her time as a Senator, and have gotten exposure to during her time as First Lady. This is roughly equivalent to your electrician not knowing that what DC and AC stand for.
Either she's too incompetent to be a good president, or too dishonest. Pick one, because there is no third option for her.

National Seppuku

Yesterday our nation committed Seppuku. Rather than picking a candidate with a record of standing up to the establishment and of being at least somewhat pro-liberty - even if he has some serious issues - the Republicans have picked a lifelong crony capitalist, anti-gun, eminent domain abusing felonious democrat to oppose a lifelong corrupt, anti-gun, sexual predator enabling, felonious democrat (because Bernie doesn't stand a chance, and even if he did, he's a lifelong delusional batty socialist, and almost as bad as the other two).

Trumpeters, you are a bunch of freaking idiots. Trump's record is just as liberal as Hillary's, but with fewer dead people and leaked secrets, and more eminent domain abuse and fraud. You've given us an election where the best option is going to be whoever the Libertarians put forth (probably Gary Johnson). And all because you wanted to stick it to the establishment. Too bad that you just cut your nose off to spite your face. At best we're going to get four years of stupid. At worst, Hillary or Trump will start a civil war or revolution and we'll end up killing each other in the streets. Go home and dream of blood and fire. You deserve it.

"Combat Vets" and "Gunslinger Fantasies"

Some people think that those of us who are in favor of defensive firearms usage want to be a real life John McClane, and bring in combat vets and LEOs to support their argument. To to start with, there are plenty of combat vets and LEOs out there who disagree with them (also, I'd like to hear a recording of their interviews with the combat vets).
Of course, the police don't really have a leg to stand on in this argument:

According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.

From Pennsylvania MPOETC:

The handgun course of fire for the police firearms course that all Waiver of training applicants must successfully complete with a minimum score of 75% and all police officers must successfully complete annually in order to satisfy mandatory in-service re-certification requirements will meet the following minimum standards:
A handgun course of fire must be considered a generally accepted police qualification course consisting of at least fifty (50) rounds of duty ammunition. A minimum of ten (10%) percent of the rounds must be fired at a distance of 25 yards or greater.
The course shall include stages to determine the applicant's or officer's overall proficiency; including, but not limited to marksmanship, safety, weapon operating procedures or tactical skills (i.e., use of cover, tactical reloading), with the weapon s/he will use in the performance of their duties. Requirements for distances of firing positions are: Stages no closer than one (1) yard and at least one stage of fire from the twenty-five (25) yard line or greater distance.

 Speaking from personal experience, it is entirely possible to meet the minimum requirements for qualification that are required for Pennsylvania LEOs the first time you pick up a gun. While standards are not completely uniform across the US, they tend to be similar. Some LEOs shoot once a year, and others only shoot to familiarize themselves with their weapons and for qualification.

They use SWAT members and infantrymen to make their point that "civilians" don't have the requisite training to successfully defend themselves (despite defensive gun use estimates ranging from 67,740 to 2 million and comparable justifiable homicide rates to cops) and ignore the fact that you can literally pick up a handgun for the first time and match LEO qualification requirements, and that non LEO civilians regularly stop mass shootings.

Communist Policies

In a previous post, I quoted a passage from the Communist Manifesto. Now, I'm going to be using that passage again. A lot of people would be surprised at how many Communist policies that our nation follows
The original words are bolded block quotes.

Karl Marx, one of the founders of Communist philosophy, wrote:

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

That is to say, in order to achieve Communism, you've got to engage in economically unfeasible policies. 

These measures will of course be different in different countries.

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

This ones pretty self explanatory

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Communal/government ownership. We don't have this yet, but try telling that to someone who's suffered from eminent domain abuse. We're on the way there. When you take everyone's property away, it all goes to the government, which then manages it well and gives everyone a place to live. Just don't expect it to be livable.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

 16th amendment to the Constitution. We're already there. And some people want to make it worse. "Take from the rich give to the poor". The end goal here is equal pay for everyone. So that doctors who go to school for a minimum of 12 years and people with useful STEM education, get paid the same as useless Sociology drones and unskilled fast food workers. The end result is "as long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work".

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

This is the end goal of the "inheritance" or "death" tax. We're lucky it keeps on getting neutered, otherwise people would start retiring before they got too rich.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

 If you don't like it we get your stuff. Not yet a problem, although, given how they're going after people who move their money offshore to avoid taxes, it might not be much longer for this one.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

If you control the money, you can control the people, at least to a degree. It's a lot harder to flee to a free country when people want real money to get you out and all you've got is useless fiat currency. Moreover, it gives some (illusory) control over the economy. Just look at China right now, and ourselves way back when the recession hit. People tried to use money to control the economy - and failed.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Up until the fall of the Soviet Union we thought they were going strong. People thought that the Soviets were a permanent part of life. Then the Soviet Union fell, and we discovered that almost everything we knew about them was a lie. Because they controlled communication and transportation and could prevent the truth from getting out.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

These three really need to be dealt with together, because this is the basis of everything from Stalin's Five Year plans to Mao's Great Leap Forward, leading to shoddy products, ecological disaster, and millions of people starving to death. Fortunately, we're still no where close to these three. 

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

 Public schools are the perfect place to indoctrinate children into the narrative, and as such, this is one of Marx's more important thoughts. Unfortunately for us, this is one of his more successful ideas, and one which is enforced here.

 We're not communists yet, but we can see the mass graves from here.

Someone's not a Fan of the NRA

The gentleman who wrote this article isn't a fan of the NRA. However, his credibility is tied up in one paragraph:

If I hate the NRA so much, why did I buy a gun at 37? As a meat eater with no particular desire to become a vegetarian, I wanted to confront the fact of killing animals for food. Once I took up hunting, I discovered that I relished the time I spent off the grid. Some might scratch this itch with a weekend camping trip. I chose to trudge into the woods before dawn, often in freezing temperatures, to keep a silent vigil in the trees as the morning light begins to filter through the branches. I rarely see a deer. Such a contemplative, frequently fruitless endeavor isn’t for everyone, but it suits me.

That's right. His opinion is worth listening to because he's a hunter. That's the only piece of credibility that he brings to the table. Well, that and the fact of the NRA's admittedly annoying robocalls.

One of his main points is that the NRA, with only 5 million members, doesn't represent the majority of gun owners. He's technically right about that, but he draws the wrong conclusion. While there are a number of Fudds like the article's author running around with only hunting rifles and not caring about any of that pesky gun control, large numbers of people who hold views somewhat in line with the NRA don't donate for whatever reason, and there's also a significant number of gun owners who hold views far beyond those of the NRA. Those gun owners (such as myself) will, if they have the spare cash, be members of other gun rights organizations. I'm personally a member of Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights, both of which are considerably more hardline than the NRA. Now, I'm also a member of the NRA, but, in light of past performance, the NRA has proven willing to either accept limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms (in fact, the NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 34), I donate to the GOA and NAGR to keep the NRA honest.

He uses the usual guilt trip tactics - providing examples of gun use by criminal or deranged individuals, even going so far as to call handgun supporters "handgun apologists".

Last Feb. 10 in Chapel Hill, N.C., 15 miles from my home in Durham, three young Americans of Middle Eastern descent were murdered by a home invader. The killer was their neighbor, notorious and feared around the apartment complex for flashing his perfectly legal concealed handgun. Without his weapon, he would have been an angry but perhaps harmless, crank. With it, he snuffed out three lives in a matter of seconds. The deaths affected our community profoundly — everyone seemed to know someone who knew the victims.
Handgun apologists see nothing wrong with this killer possessing both a gun and a carry permit, because he had no prior record. In the moral reasoning that NRA has honed to soundbite perfection, it was his choice to commit a crime. The gun didn’t shoot itself.

There's a lot of things wrong with this excerpt. Let's start with the idea that "without his weapon, he would have been an angry but perhaps harmless, crank". Has he ever heard of mass stabbings? The killer wouldn't have needed a gun. For three men, all you really need is a big knife and the element of surprise (and depending upon the victims, not even that). Next, the idea that those of us who support gun rights are "handgun apologists". That seems to imply that handguns are the cause of the crime, rather than the tool used to commit it. Are we to regulate just what sort of cars people can drive because of drunk drivers?

While we North Carolinians reel from the killing of Deah Shaddy Barakat, Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, our legislators continue to chip away at gun laws, an anti-business, anti-faith agenda that has forced shopkeepers, restaurateurs, barkeeps, schoolmasters and clergy to post “no-gun” signs on their doors.

I'm not sure how it's anti-business or anti-faith to make someone post a "no-guns" sign on their door if they don't want guns in their establishment. The only problem I have with it is that, with such a sign, you're announcing to the world that your shop is a safe place to rob/hold a mass shooting in. Or has it slipped your notice that every single successful mass shooting happened in a no gun zone or another place where the shooter could be reasonably confident that no one had a gun?

I agree with the NRA on one point: Tightening controls on gun ownership will not eliminate gun violence. And it may not do much to address the psychopathology of young men who commit mass murder. Timothy McVeigh and the Tsarnaev brothers committed their crimes with bombs, while Adam Lanza, with no criminal record, inexplicably stole his mother’s guns, murdered her, and headed off to Sandy Hook Elementary School.

 At least he's honest enough to admit that gun control won't stop gun crime. Too bad he isn't honest enough to admit that more gun control doesn't mean less crime, and in fact, often results in more violent crime.

There are some signs that this could occur. Thanks to the decline in hunting and in violent crime, the percentage of homes with guns has been waning steadily since the 1970s. In 2014, the figure was reported to be 31 percent. Although there are believed to be about 300 million guns in the United States, they seem to be concentrated in fewer, undoubtedly more fervent hands: aging hands, perhaps. Millennials and guns? Not so much.

I don't know about you, but when someone calls me and asks me if I have guns, I tell them no as a matter of principle. How am I to know that the caller is legitimate and not a criminal checking to see if I own anything of value? While there are certainly a few demographic reasons for the decline in homes with guns, I'm certain that at least part of the reason for the "decline" in gun ownership is reporting bias.

Gun control is a gimmick. A skilled individual can create a professional quality modern firearm with a few commonly available tools. Less skilled individuals can create anything from serviceable (but ugly) firearms to plastic deathtraps. It is literally harder to make meth than it is to make a gun. Moreover, guns aren't even the problem. Criminals - predators in human flesh - are the problem. If you were to somehow remove guns from the situation, all you'd be doing is removing the one chance that physically weaker individuals have against stronger attackers, because criminals don't care if they kill you with a gun or a lead pipe - and in a society where the primary weapon is a lead pipe, a 200 lb male is going to wipe the floor with a 120 lb female, unless the lady has some serious martial arts skill, and possibly not even then.

God made man. Samuel Colt made him equal. Gun control proponents want to remove that equality.

Too many Bushes?

Barbara Bush has moved from her former stance that there have been too many Bushes in the White house.
She was right the first time. None of the Bush presidents has been a truly conservative force (in fact, no 21 century Republican presidential candidate has been conservative).
The Bush presidents (and every Republican candidate since) have been generally socially conservative - but fiscally they've been "Democrat light". And just like light beer, the Republican candidates aren't really exciting to anyone. Democrats wouldn't (generally) consider voting for a Republican, Independents see Democrat and Democrat Light, and if they're inclined to vote for someone other than an Independent candidate they'll probably vote for the Democrat. Republicans see Poisoned Kool-Aid and Possibly Poisoned Kool-Aid, and they aren't really certain they want to partake of either. Some of them will choose to just not drink either kool-aid, leading to low voter turnout. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Once the election is over, the voters have chosen one or the other, and every has to take a drink.
What you need is a fiscally conservative candidate who can tell the MSM that most social issues belong at the state and local level and make it stick.
Given a choice of Poisoned Kool-Aid and Possibly Poisoned Kool-Aid, I'll pick the Kool-Aid that is only possibly poisoned. But I really just want water.

Sensationalism: An Epidemic?

Apparently this flu season has reached epidemic levels with 15 kids dead since the beginning of the flue season this fall. I call bullsh*t. These are the same people who say that obesity and gun violence are epidemics. I'll believe its an epidemic when I see most of my coworkers call in sick.
The sensationalism of the media is rather annoying. They like stories that involve people dying (with the implication that you could be one of those people soon), the latest celebrity gossip, or both. And they're not above making something that is, at worst going to somewhat inconvenience you seem like it'll end your world.

An attack on Freedom

California, already one of the least free states of the Union, is rapidly becoming less free. A bill that is currently passing through the California legislature would enable the government of California to take away the tax exempt status of private groups with "discriminatory" policies.

I'm a more than a little pissed off about this, for several reasons.

1. This bill is aimed directly at an organization that I am affiliated with, the Boy Scouts of America. While the BSA has decided to allow openly gay scouts, it still refuses to allow openly gay adult leaders. This is a blatant attempt to force the BSA, a private organization, to do what the government of California wants it to do.
2. It isn't people's livelihood on the line here. Making laws to prevent discriminatory hiring practices in a business? Understandable. Making laws to prevent discriminatory entrance requirements in a non-profit volunteer organization? Reprehensible.
3. If you don't like the entrance requirements for an organization, go start your own that does the exact same things, only with different entrance requirements. Don't like the BSA's stance on homosexual adult leaders? Go form your own organization and let homosexuals become adult leaders.

Honestly, I think that the BSA's response to this should be to stick to the current rules no matter what, even if tax exempt status is revoked.

Immoral Boycotting

The Rev. Jesse Jackson is trying to get people to boycott Florida because of the decision of the jury to rule that Zimmerman was guilty.
It is highly immoral to punish someone for something that they, personally have absolutely no control over - and by definition, the state has no control over any jury and its rulings. Nor can they change them.
I'm going to keep on buying Florida orange juice.

I won't Back Down

And neither should the Boy Scouts of America.
The newest uproar has to do with the BSA's Body Mas Index (BMI) restrictions for those attending the next National Scout Jamboree.

Boy Scouts' Jamboree should include those barred due to BMI restrictions, experts say

 ...

The Boy Scouts of America’s new fitness standards for participating in the organization’s annual Jamboree are so rigorous they would not just exclude chubby tenderfoots — they would even bar many NFL players.
All Scouts were required to have a physical exam in advance of the Jamboree and those with a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or greater were barred from participating at this year’s gathering, which features strenuous activities such as hiking, rock climbing, rappelling and biking. Scouts with BMIs between 32 and 39.9 had to provide additional health information to take on the 1,000-plus acre Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve in West Virginia. But critics told FoxNews.com excluding obese Boy Scouts goes against the spirit of the organization.

...
“Unfortunately it still does exclude children due to their weight, but I’m sure they’re looking at their health and potential negative health consequences,” she said. “But maybe they could walk [the course] or do what they can and not be excluded. Anything that the Boy Scouts could do to compensate for the stigma of being excluded would be great.”
The Council on Size & Weight Discrimination said it "deplores" the Boys Scouts decision, calling it  "an unfair and discriminatory policy."
"There are boy scouts who are heavier than average but extremely fit and capable of strenuous physical activity. At the same time, it is patently absurd to assume that just because a boy is thin, that means he is capable of a three-mile hike up a mountain," the group said in a statement.
The average NFL player would qualify for the 10-day competition, but by no means would the entire league. The average BMI for an NFL player for the 2012 season was 31.35, according to SportingCharts.com, well above the normal range of 18.5-24.9 as set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At 45.64, Michael Jasper of the New York Giants had the highest BMI last season, the website reported. The league’s average nose tackle – with a BMI of 40.50 – would also be ineligible for the Boy Scout’s Jamboree.
 ...

Obesity is not an epidemic - it is a personal choice. There is no one in the world who cannot change their diet, exercise more, and lose weight. There is a very low chance that any scout would be above a BMI of 40 and still be healthy - only a few of the top athletes in the NFL have a BMI above 40, and comparing teenaged boys to professional athletes makes very little sense.
Simply put, if a person is going to have a really high BMI and still be healthy, they are going to be a top athlete who practices a sport where weight and muscle can significantly affect a persons effectiveness.
No matter whether the BMI comes from fat, or muscle, losing the weight is quite simple, and relatively easy. There may be discrimination going on, but it is not the same as discrimination based upon something that another person has no say in - such as race. No one gets to choose their race. Everyone who can afford food chooses their weight, through a combination of diet and exercise. Weight is a choice, and thus, a valid form of discrimination. 

Friendly...

There is a saying: There are friendly foreign governments, but there are no friendly foreign intelligence agencies.
Most nations in the world have at least one agency devoted to espionage and/or counter-espionage. How well those twin missions executed can have a major impact on how well a nation does, and if performed right can give a nation a major advantage over other nations. Thus, any nation without an intelligence agency of some sort is at a distinct disadvantage, and is either too poor or too incompetently led to be a serious threat to any nation with a more than token military.
Thus, when other countries steal our secrets I don't get mad at those countries. I just want the various intelligence agencies here in the US to work extra hard to prevent more secrets from being stolen and for the US to retaliate against whomever stole the secrets. And when we're the ones stealing secrets from other countries I want our government to do its best to avoid any serious repercussions. After all, when it comes to intelligence gathering, even among allies, it is not a case of "want". It is a case of "need". It is immoral for a nation to not gather intelligence, engage in counter-intelligence, attempt to reprise against those who steal it's secrets, and attempt to avoid reprisal when it is caught stealing secrets.
The problems come when intelligence agencies spy upon the citizens that they're supposed to protect.

Gitmo Prisoners are pampered and spoiled, not abused

When in the past, prisoners had gotten so plump on an "Islamically correct menu" that they were given a gym, they refused - because the equipment wasn't made by Muslims.
The only thing that the prisoners at Gitmo need is treatment on par with that received by prisoners of Al-Qaeda.

On Civil Disobedience

If your government is doing something wrong, then there is nothing wrong with engaging in public civil disobedience in protest, as long as the civil disobedience is nonviolent, does not betray a trust, and the individual accepts the consequences that goes with the violation (if you're going to violate a law, you need to be willing to take the punishment - if you're boycotting a company you need to be willing to do without any product by that company, including products and services already purchased). Note that when a person's actions endanger the lives of others they cannot be considered nonviolent. Violent protest on the other hand is immoral, because it endangers the lives of others.
There is are a few exceptions to the rule:

Ending Rape in War

Angelina Jolie wants someone (namely the UN) to end rape in war. It would be wonderful if that could happen, but in order for someone to do that they would need two things. The military might and the ability to project it, to force warring groups to exercise tighter discipline over their troops, and the political will to use it. Economic sanctions and stern admonitions will just go ignored - there must be a credible threat backing up the request to enforce anti-rape laws.

The UN doesn't have either of those. There isn't anyone out there who could do it without ending up in a thousand little and not so little wars with half of the world, so there probably isn't anyone capable of doing the job, and there definitely isn't anyone willing to do the job. All that has been accomplished by the actress is to bring up an issue that isn't getting solved short of someone conquering the world - and probably not even then.

If someone comes up with a workable plan for ending rape in warzones where the laws of war are usually ignored, I will happily eat my words.

Old shit is still shit

Just because the Patriot Act was ratified years ago (well before I became a voter), and the records of cell phone companies have been being seized ever since, does not mean that the whole steaming pile of shit isn't shit - it just means that no one has bothered to check back and take care of the problem, be that problem a law that arguably violates the fourth amendment, or your dog's shit in your living room.

I understand that the whole idea behind the Patriot Act is to keep us safe. I don't really care. Our Government should be concerned with our freedom first, our safety second, and our prosperity third.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, sacrificing freedom for safety will ensure that we don't have either of them.

The Family Business...

It seems like the Bush family's business is politics. I agree completely with Mrs. Barbara Bush that we've had enough Bushes. I probably take it a bit further, since I think that the family should find something else to do besides politics - at any level.

Also, I really don't want to see the Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton match-up that Mrs. Laura Bush suggested for the next presidential election. I want to vote for a candidate because I want them in office and not because I really don't want their opponent to be elected.

Tyranny of the majority

The important bits of the new New York gun control law are taking effect today. The NRA's New York affiliate (among others) is going to be contesting the law in court.
And then I read Governor Cuomo's response.

"Yes, they are against it, but they are the extremists and the extremists shouldn't win, especially on this issue when it is so important to the majority," Cuomo said in a radio interview Wednesday. "In politics, we have to be willing to take on the extremists, otherwise you will see paralysis."

Just because you have a majority doesn't mean that your opponents are extremists, and even if they are extremists, that still doesn't mean that you can take away their rights. As James Bovard said, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

I hope that the courts strike down this oppressive and asinine law.

 

Throwing money down the rathole

We're giving more money to the UN, while Sequester continues to hit the military hard. We should cut money from the dictators and incompetent/corrupt bureaucrats in UN before we cut money from the military.

More Gun Control Madness

New York confiscated a man's guns on mental health reasons, then found that they'd confiscated the wrong guy's firearms.
I now have no intention of ever seeing a mental health professional ever again, unless I feel that the problem is worse than the possibility of having my property confiscated. I've been a user of firearms for over half of my (admittedly short) life, and I have every intention of continuing to use firearms, even if it means avoiding mental health professionals for the rest of my life.

Then we have the new Senate bill debate on another gun control bill - a bill that would increase the scope of background checks, while containing language to lure Republicans over.
It, like all gun control laws in the history of this nation, is blatantly unconstitutional. The wording of the second amendment is uncompromising, and allows for no wriggle room.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 In the beginning of our nation, any free citizen could buy, own, use, and sell any weapon that they chose, without having to go to the government for permission. This included the Pennsylvania Long Rifle, which, though primarily a hunting weapon, was used to great effect in the American Revolution and the various conflicts with Native Americans, the Brown Bess Musket, which, though less accurate than a rifle had a much greater rate of fire and a bayonet lug, and was from start to finish a weapon with only one purpose, war. If one had the money, he could buy artillery, even warships.
In the modern era, while I can still buy standard hunting firearms, the various modern military firearms used worldwide are not available, except in reduced functionality models that function the exact same as the standard hunting weapons, albeit with a few extra features such as bayonet lugs - not that the lack of bayonet lugs would keep any sufficiently motivated person from mounting a bayonet. If I buy from someone who sells firearms for a living, I have to undergo a background check.
My right to keep and bear arms has already been infringed upon enough. I will not tolerate any further infringement upon that right, and I will vote against any politician who infringes or proposes to  infringe any further on that right, even if I agree with that politician on every other issue.

Scumbaggery or Foolishness

When people celebrate the death of an enemy leader (e.g. Bin Laden) who sought to destroy them, they're fools, for another, more capable leader may step forward and bring defeat to those who thought they'd won a great victory.
When people celebrate the death of one of their own leaders, no matter how much they disagreed with and despised the leader in question they're scumbags plain and simple, the only exception being when the leader has given them ample reason to celebrate their death - ample reason being the murder, manslaughter, or outright oppression of the citizenry. Maximilien Robespierre, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and many others all provided ample reason for their people to celebrate their death. Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, was not one of those blood-soaked tyrants. Even those who hated and despised her the most do not have anywhere near enough reason to celebrate the death of one of freedom's shining lights.