Thursday, October 30, 2014

More I-594 lies

Barron sent me this:
So, the entire "Yes on I-594" crowd's collective pants spontaneously combusted.

Let's take these latest flat-out lies in order, shall we?

1. "No mandatory waiting periods"
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a licensed dealer may not deliver any firearm to a purchaser or transferee until the earlier of:
(1) The results of all required background checks are known and the purchaser or transferee is not prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm under federal or state law; or
(2) Ten business days have elapsed from the date the licensed dealer requested the background check. However, for sales and transfers of pistols if the purchaser or transferee does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, then the time period in this subsection shall be extended from ten business days to sixty days.
Since under current Washington state and  Federal law the sale goes forward after five days, they lie. They will probably deny it, since you can still make the transfer immediately if you have a WA Concealed Pistol License and/or the "instant" check goes through instantaneously, but still, they have moved the end point.

2. "No registry of gun owners"
Not explicitly addressed.
Sales forms are filled out in triplicate, and sent to the local CLEO. ("Chief Law Enforcement Officer.")
NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
The department of licensing shall have the authority to adopt rules for the implementation of this chapter as amended.
And we don't know what rules the bureaucrats will adopt, do we?

But wait!  While Section 10 of the thing exempts non-dealers from state sales tax, background checks are subject to state use tax! And since they will know who the "transferor" was...

3. "No change to hunting laws or firearms safety training."
We've covered this one over and over again.
If the law says that a background check has to be made every time a firearms changes hands, with narrow exemptions,  then that impacts how forearms safety training can be conducted.

Since Section 3 (f) (ii) says
...if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range is located ...
I suppose that means that my Friendly Local Gun Shop & Range will be able to continue to conduct training, with their guns. But we'll have to cease conducting Home Firearms Safety classes at Gun Shows, I won't be able to conduct a Basic or First Steps Pistol class, since even if this is done at a range, it usually involves handing the student's or instructor's pistol back and forth, demonstrating and adjusting grips, etc.

I'm not sure if this would also impact the Washington State Hunters Safety Field Skills Certification, I haven't taken it (exempt, military) so I don't know if the circumstances fall under this pile of crap law or not.

Speaking of hunting... Section 3 (f) (v) says
...while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is transferred possesses the firearm...
which means that I can borrow a rifle but I have to hand it back before I get within (IIRC) 150 feet of a road or creek or "No Hunting" posted fence line...

So, again, Ballot Initiative 594 is a poorly written, ill-defined, vague and contradictory pile of excrement. The more I read this garbage the harder it is to believe that it was so poorly done out of incompetence. Hanlon's razor (Wikipedia link) applies, I suppose, but then again, as constantly bombarded as we are with assaults on our gun rights, it is getting harder and harder not recite  
Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

I-594: Gun Banners stand exposed, an indictment of the initiative process?

I've been blogging about I-594 for a while.  I'm not going to rehearse the evils of that initiative. The links are on this page, in case you still need to research it.(My posts on the subject are tagged I594.)

I am still flabbergasted every time one of the statist swine supporting this dreck either denies what it clearly says ("only effects gun shows and internet sales") or that "No one will prosecute the more onerous parts" or that "Well, legislation can be tweaked after it's passed."

Maybe I shouldn't be. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe I'm stupid. I suppose that I shouldn't be after all this time. After all, they wasted no time at all, running to dance in teenaged blood last Friday.

Washington State Ballot Initiative 594 is bad law, poorly written, vague, ill-defined, and full of processes without specified authorizations or definitions. It criminalizes innocuous acts by otherwise law-abiding citizens. It stands as a primary example of what happens when amateur activists write a law...

...Unless, of course, you believe that it was written this way deliberately, to confuse and entrap the innocent and gullible. Certainly, there have been precious few examples of simple, clear and understandable laws written in Olympia, let alone Washington Dee Cee, in recent memory.

Whether one believes that all the billionaires pumping  big bucks into the I594 campaign really believe this is The Humanitarian Cause of the Decade, or are afraid for their fortunes and want the hoi polloi disarmed, or have been blackmailed into supporting tyranny, I don't really care.  I am somewhat tickled that posters have started appearing on lampposts in Seattle like this:
So far as I can tell, I was the first to brand I594 "The 1%'s attempt to disarm us"
Washington State Ballot Initiative 591, on the other hand, is an excellant counter-example of  a well-written initiative, with a title that clearly and directly addresses what it is about, and has less than a full page of actual text.  Some argue that it is unnecessary, as the first part ("no background checks other than in accordance with a federal standard") is in place, and the second half "addresses an issue that has never happened in this state." 

The first half of 591 was written specifically with I-594 in mind. The second half was written with the post-Hurricane Katrina gun confiscations in mind, and hopefully addresses a situation no American community will ever be in again. 

But "hopefully" is no reason not to address the issue. If there should be another disaster, of any sort, the public safety structure will be over-strained dealing with it.  In normal times, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away"; if the police are dealing with dyke-building, or evacuation from a volcano or earthquake, you are responsible for your own safety and security. Leaving you unarmed, at the mercy of the Lord Humongous and his colander-wearing horde, is immoral.

The effort against I594 has been largely a grass-roots one. I hope it works.  I have seen enough failures to get the word out that I am worried. People who were thought to be fully on-board were unaware of events like sign-waving or the No on 594 rally at Westlake Plaza two weeks ago. These things have been in the local gun blogs, and on Facebook, but if someone's busy...

OTOH, a few weeks ago I had a co-worker, an avid hunter, ask me about the legal process for selling his muzzleloader. And, yes, I worked "No on 594" into the discussion, but it was hard not to work "you stupid Fudd" in there, too.
Then again, I have to say that I am also a it disappointed by how little play this is getting in the national gun- and libertarian/conservative blogosphere. Barron and Joe and Anette and Ray and I have all been blogging and posting on forums about this, and... nearly nothing.

Look, if I594 passes here, you can expect to see it where you live, if not next year, then in the next 5 years or so.

If 594 passes here, we can expect to see further "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" bans here, as well. Just because the Second Amendment Foundation and  Alan Gura have been successful fighting bans on ownership and carry of handguns, does not mean the fight is over.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Typical classy gun banner does the Blood Dance

Too Soon? Nick Hanauer Posts Sarcastically, ‘We Need More School Shootings!!!’ | KUOW News and Information
This is the tweet in question:
Seen at KUOW News and Information
Nick Hanauer, of course, is one of the billionaires who is backing Washington State Ballot Initiative 594, which would mandate a background check for nearly every firearms transfer in the state, even if all you are doing is swapping guns with your buddy on the range.

Seen at KUOW, the NPR station of U of W. Not too crazy about their headline, either, frankly. According to the article, several backers of I594 have asked him to take the tweet down, but it was still up late this afternoon.

Liberals.  Can't live with 'em, can't string 'em up from the nearest lamppost, no matter how big a douche bag they are.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

GOAL Alert 3-2014

From: GOAL (Joe Waldron)
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: GOAL Alert 3-2014
Election update 22 October 2014


The following article was published in the Tacoma News Tribune on Sunday, 19 October.  The author, Phil Shave, is the retired Chief of Law Enforcement for Washington State Parks and a long-time instructor with the Criminal Justice Training Commission.  He is currently the Executive Director of the Washington Arms Collectors (WAC).

Would you vote for a law that would make criminals of half your neighbors? Initiative 594 would do exactly that.

In their zeal to impose "universal background checks," the creators of I-594 have written a law that would require nearly all “transfers” of firearms to be conducted at the premises of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer.

I-594 defines transfers as a change of possession, no matter how temporary, including gifts and loans. There are exceptions for family gifts, organized competitions and youth activities, but they are so narrow that most recreational, non-sale transfers would be crimes.

The father who loans a hunting rifle to an adult son during hunting season would commit a misdemeanor (upon the first violation). When the rifle is returned, both father and son would be two-time offenders, and thus felons under I-594.

Shooting buddies who met on public land or their own property to target practice with shared firearms would violate I-594. Routine gun repairs would also be criminalized. The initiative would effectively forbid you from dropping your firearm off with a gunsmith friend unless he had a federal license. Most gunsmiths in this state, often the most skilled, lack federal licenses.

Women are targeted by several provisions. Instructors could no longer provide loaner firearms during introductory women's self-defense classes. And if your sister were being stalked and in fear of her life, and you loaned her a firearm, you would both be criminals. I-594 has an exception to "prevent imminent death," but the legal definition of imminent means "about to happen."

Widows and heirs beware: If your spouse died and you found a couple of handguns in your husband's sock drawer 61 days after death, then you’d be an accidental felon.

I-594 only allows you 60 days to register those guns; after that, they’d become contraband. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and intent to commit a crime is not an element written into 594. Why write a law that makes inheritance of grandpa's old guns a crime?

Colorado passed a law in 2013 requiring universal background checks, but the Colorado law includes exceptions for temporary transfers without change of ownership, transfers while hunting or target shooting, transfers for gun repairs and loans for 72 hours. The transfer fee is capped at a reasonable $10 (fees are unlimited in I-594).
If only I-594 were that reasonable. Failure to complete the Colorado paperwork is a misdemeanor, whereas I-594 makes the first offense a gross misdemeanor and the second a Class C felony.

I urge you to follow the lead of our state's law enforcement officers, those who deal with crime and criminals on a daily basis; they oppose I-594 and support passage of Initiative 591. Vote yes on I-591 because it leaves intact our current background check laws while allowing our state to implement future enhancements adopted at the federal level for all 50 states.

I-594’s penalty provisions are one huge reason that law enforcement officers oppose this flawed initiative. Its promoters cleverly revised the law to define an I-594 felony as a "serious" offense, placing it in the same category as child molestation, third-degree rape, leading organized crime and drive-by shootings.

You could loan your gun to a friend for the weekend, and the judge hearing your paperwork crime would have to follow "serious" crime-sentencing guidelines, including consecutive sentences for these newly defined "serious" crimes.

No law enforcement organization supports Initiative 594.

The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs represents the majority of law enforcement line-level officers in our state; it opposes the initiative. The Washington State Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association opposes it. These are the firearm professionals who would be tasked with enforcing this unreasonable law.

Nineteen elected sheriffs oppose I-594. They understand that the initiative will consume scarce resources in the prosecution and imprisonment of its accidental violators.

(When Phil's column was submitted to the T-N-T, nineteen sheriffs had joined us in opposing I-594.  In the past few days, six more sheriffs have climbed aboard, bringing the total to 25 of the state's 39 county sheriffs.)

As noted above, 25 county sheriffs have added their names to the list of those opposing I-594.  In addition to their law enforcement expertise in addressing this issue, there is one more important thing you should understand:  all of these sheriffs are ELECTED OFFICIALS, and answerable to their constituents.   

At this time, the 25 sheriffs who are opposing I-594 are (in county alphabetical order): 
Sheriff John Hunt -- Adams County
Sheriff Steven Keane – Benton County
Sheriff Brian Burnett -- Chelan County
Sheriff Bill Benedict - Clallam County
Sheriff Rocky MIller -- Columbia County
Sheriff Mark Nelson -- Cowlitz County
Sheriff Harvey Gjesdal – Douglas County
Sheriff Pete Warner -- Ferry County
Sheriff Richard Lathim – Franklin County
Sheriff Ben Keller -- Garfield County
Sheriff Thomas Jones – Grant County
Sheriff Rick Scott - Grays Harbor County
Sheriff Rick McComas -- Klickitat County
Sheriff Steve Mansfield -- Lewis County
Sheriff Wade Magers – Lincoln County
Sheriff Frank Rogers -- Okanogan County
Sheriff Scott Johnson -- Pacific County
Sheriff Alan Botzheim -- Pend Orielle County
Sheriff Dave Brown, Skamania County
Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich -- Spokane County
Sheriff Kendle Allen – Stevens County
Sheriff John Snaza – Thurston County
Sheriff Mark Howie – Wahkiakum County
Sheriff John Turner – Walla Walla County
Sheriff Brett Myers -- Whitman County

If YOUR sheriff isn't on this list, you might ask him why? 

Note that sheriffs AND rank and file police officers -- the officers that actually patrol the streets, oppose 594 and support 591.  The Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs (WACOPS), the largest police union in Washington representing a majority of sworn officers, has formally adopted a position opposing I-594 and supporting I-591.  The same is true of the Washington State Law Enforcement Firearm Instructors Association (WSLEFIA).  Who would know better the negative impact of I-594 than these dedicated officers.

What about police chiefs?  As noted above, sheriffs are elected by residents of their county.  They pay attention to their constituents.  Rank and file officers that daily patrol our streets have minds of their own, and opinions of their own  Neither support 594.

So how about chiefs?  One thing to keep in mind:  police chiefs work for City Hall, and hold their positions at the pleasure of the mayor or city council.  Their opinions tend to match those of their bosses.  Having said that, police chiefs statewide are represented by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs -- WASPC.  WASPC does not have a dog in this fight, they're neutral. 

Why are you receiving this e-mail?  Theoretically no one on this list should need this e-mail.  I would hope all of you are going to vote the right way on both initiatives:  YES on 591, NO on 594.  So why am I preaching to the choir, as it were?

Because we need YOUR HELP in getting the word out -- to fellow gun owners who are not as politically-attuned as are you, and more importantly to the non-gun owning voters out there who are NOT getting the full story, especially on I-594.  Our budget is extremely limited.  The other side has nearly $9 MILLION to throw into television, radio and print media advertising. 

As Joseph Goebbels observed more than 70 years ago, if you repeat a big lie often enough, people WILL believe it. And that is what billionaires Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Paul Allen and Chip Hanauer are counting on (all with private security details).  They don't need to fool all of the people all of the time, they only need to fool 51% of the people through election day. 

I'm sending this information out in the hope that YOU will pick up pen, or sit at keyboard, and help get the word out to others.  A simple and cheap way to do this is letters to the editor of your local newspaper.  Newspapers DO print letters whose position they do not agree with.  Over the years I have been reasonably successful in getting several letters published in the Seattle Times and P-I, no friends of gun owners.

Letters should be brief -- ideally 150 words or less, and limited to one or two points.  Taking your cue from this alert, you might bring out the fact that law enforcement statewide is opposed to I-594 and supports I-591.  That message is NOT being conveyed by the mainstream media.  This is your opportunity to do that, using their print space!

E-mail and snail mail addresses for your paper's Letters to the Editor may be found on the letters page, usually in a box at the side or on the bottom.  Policy on word limits are usually there, too, but 150 is a good number.  Enough to get your point across.

I haven't said much about I-591 here.  I'm saving that for another alert.  But it's there on the ballot, too, and it needs and deserves your YES vote.  That's another way of fighting 594. 


Happy 10/22!

Not the best pictures of my departed buddy Ratbane, although the one of his laser eyes in the box the 10/22TD came in is neat.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

GOAL Alert 2-2014

Joe sent this out last night.  Didn't have a chance to get to it until just now.

From: GOAL
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: GOAL Alert 2-2014
Sent: undisclosed-recipients:

Election update 17 October 2014
  • VOTE NO ON 594
  • VOTE YES ON 591
While the campaigning will go on for another 18 days, ballots went in the mail today.  You'll receive yours with a day or three.  Washington is one of four 100% vote-by-mail states; no lining up at a polling place to cast your ballot.  The one in your mail box is the only one you'll get.  A disadvantage of vote-by-mail is no ID is required to get the ballot -- whoever has access to your mail box has access to your ballot.  Look for it, open it, fill it out, and get it back in the mail.

GOAL just funded a special mailing of 100,000+ postcards to 11 selected districts we believe are critical to the election.  You may or may not receive one.  The NRA has done the same thing with its nearly 100,000 members in Washington.  GOAL postcards started arriving on Friday, 17 October.
Those of you who read my monthly legislative news column in the Washington Arms Collector's Gun-News have already read most of this.  But for the many GOAL Post subscribers who are not WAC members, here's some background on the endorsement process.

I used two guiding principles in preparing the list, which was provided to the Washington Arms Collectors for their approval, and to the GOAL trustees for the same.  The first was to identify and start the list with those "righteous Democrats" who have been supporting Washington's gun owners for the past decade or more.  (More on those selections later.)  We owe them.

Next up was pro-gun Republicans, followed by "any Republican."  We have endorsed a few Libertarian candidates when Washington's "high two" system left no more suitable candidate.  (For the record, I'm a conservative "small-l Libertarian; but we live in a two party system, and your chances of winning election if you do not have an (R) or a (D) after your name are almost impossible.  I know many libertarian elected officials, but all ran as Republicans.)  Finally, there are several "No recommendation" listings.  In these cases, neither of the candidates would do anything to enhance gun rights in Washington.

Why support Republicans who are weak on the gun issue?  Because it solidifies Republican control of a chamber (House or Senate), if that can be achieved.  And with strong pro-gun leadership in both chambers, we don't have to worry how they might vote because bad bills will never make it to the floor for a vote.

There are a couple (literally, two) of dual endorsements on the list, the "xxx OR yyy" candidates.  I don't like dual endorsements.  It tends to confuse voters.  But sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

I've received half a dozen calls already today regarding the candidates listed on our postcards, or listed in the WAC Gun-News.  Most disagreement focused on the Democrats we endorsed.  The big questions was "WHY?"  I'll use the following two examples to answer;
The Democrats had solid control of the legislature from 2001 to 2013.  In 2013, two Democrats sided with the (then) 23 Republicans in the state Senate to revolt and seize control, calling themselves the "Majority Coalition Caucus".  So for two years, control of the legislature has been split, but the Democrats retained solid control of the House.
In the past 13 years, more than 50 anti-gun bills have been filed -- "assault weapon" bans, "gun show loophole," universal background checks, expanded public place bans, etc, etc.  You name it, it was filed.  But none passed.  Why?
Because a handful of Democrats in the legislature, House and Senate both, stood WITH their constituents and AGAINST their leadership and their more liberal Democrat colleagues, at great political risk to themselves.  Several were threatened with primary challenges, and in Senator Tim Sheldon's case that's where we are today.  This handful of Democrats, with the Republican minority, were able to block all of the anti-gun legislation proposed.

We owe those Democrats.  Big time.  I/we don't agree with them on every issue, but we all agree on the gun issue.  And that's what this is all about.  Preserving our gun rights.

Specifically regarding Representative Pat Sullivan, Pat is the House Majority leader, the Speaker's principal adviser on which bills to bring to the floor for a vote and which bills to let die.  Pat is the man who convinced House Speaker Frank Chopp to NOT bring House Bill (HB) 1588 up for a vote almost two years ago.  You recall HB 1588 don't you?  It's the universal background check bill they tried to slip through after the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting.  Pat, and six or seven of his fellow Democrats stood up to the Speaker and refused to vote for the bill, thus guaranteeing it's defeat.  Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Speaker Chopp wisely decided to let the bill die.  We owe several Democrat Representatives for their support for gun owners, but Pat Sullivan leads the pack.

Senator Tim Sheldon, the majority Coalition's Senate President Pro Tem, has been standing with gun owners for more than 20 years.  It was his deciding vote in 1994 that killed the amendment that would have required training to obtain a concealed pistol license.  (Don't get me wrong, I've been a certified firearms safety instructor for 40 years.  I firmly believe that anyone who chooses to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights has a moral obligation to do so safely, to the extent they can afford training.  But I don't believe the state has any business interfering in a fundamental Constitutional right.  Just as the Supreme Court ruled poll tests were unconstitutional decades ago, so should state-mandated training.)  Tim flew around the state with us in 1997, opposing I-676, the so-called trigger lock initiative" that was actually a handgun possessor (that's right, possessor, not just an owner) licensing bait-and-switch initiative (much as today's I-594 is a bait-and-switch background check initiative).  Sheldon now faces a liberal Democrat, Irene Bowling.  We need to keep Sheldon in place to keep the Senate in Republican hands AND protect YOUR gun rights.

Those two, and a handful of other brave DEMOCRATS who stand between you and just about every imaginable gun control law.

If you compare the lists, you will see that the NRA and GOAL are in about 99% agreement.  We run our endorsement process somewhat differently, however.   The NRA assigns grades based on known voting records for incumbents.  They then send out questionnaires to new candidates, and based on the response to those questionnaires, assigns grades.  They endorse specific candidates, but give you the grade rating for both candidates in the race.  You choose.  That's probably a more "fair" way to do it.  The problem with questionnaires is, candidates can lie.

GOAL takes a different tack.  GOAL only lists a single candidate for each position, in effect a push-poll to direct you to the candidate we believe best suits the interests of Washington gun owners.  If you want "fair," visit Puyallup in September.  Different approach, hopefully the same result.  I've provided a link to the NRA's list below, as well as the entire GOAL endorsement list.

And we have the two initiatives on the ballot.  I'm not going to go into any real detail on either of them.  I-594, the universal background check initiative is a wolf in sheep's clothing, full of hidden traps and penalties.  That's why they needed 18 pages to accomplish what the legislature tried to do in HB 1588 in two pages.  I-591 simply restates existing law:  no confiscation of firearms without due process of law (as happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina) and no background checks beyond those mandated by federal law.  Some of my 10th Amendment friends are unhappy with that.  They feel we shouldn't support federal law, period.  I live in a real world.  And I'm not about to risk five years in Club Fed by violating that law, 10th Amendment or not.  For all practical purposes, the 10th Amendment died about a century ago.

The outcome of the initiative votes will have a major impact on how the gun business is conducted in Washington, and how gun shows are conducted.  If 594 passes and becomes law, expect to pay a $25-50 FFL fee EVERY TIME you "transfer" a firearm -- this includes loans as well as sales.  And when a loan is transferred back.  Plus a use tax nearly equal to the state sales tax.  Yes, I-594 waives sales tax for private transfers, but if you read the fiscal note from the Office of Financial Management, you'll see that when the sales tax is waived on the transfer of property, a "use tax" in imposed.

VOTE NO ON 594.    VOTE YES ON 591.   It's a no-brainer.

It's up to you now.  GOAL's endorsements, and the NRA's, are simply suggestions: our best judgment of who will best represent your gun rights in D.C. and Olympia.  But the choice is yours.  And please, please, mark your ballot and get it back in the mail ASAP.  Don't take a chance on misplacing it, or forgetting to get it in on time.  MAIL IT NOW.

NRA endorsements can be found at


Thursday, October 16, 2014

Look at me! I'm an activist!

At the "No on I594 Sign Waving" party.
Standing in a culdesac between a cabbage field and a boggy pasture, waving our signs at folks stuck in rush hour traffic on Highway 167.
Lots of waves and horn honking, but there is a suspicion that it's the strategic placement if the distaff sign wavers in the front.
OTOH, we just got a honk-and-a-wave from a woman in a Prius, so we have that going for us.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Voted today...

Voted today.

(I keep telling the state I retired, but they keep sending me Military and Overseas Ballots.)

(For my non-Evergreen state friends, Washington went 100% mail ballot several years ago.)

Saw that Dan "I love Initiative 594" Satterberg is running unopposed for re-election as King County Prosecutor.

I wrote in Alan Gottleib.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

On this day......

...October 7: The Feast of Our Lady of Victory | National Review Online a coalition navy under the leadership of the 24 year old Don Juan of Austria defeated the Turks at the Battle of Lepanto.

G.K.Chesterton, 1915
White founts falling in the Courts of the sun,
     And the Soldan of Byzantium is smiling as they run;
     There is laughter like the fountains in that face of all men feared,
     It stirs the forest darkness, the darkness of his beard;
     It curls the blood-red crescent, the crescent of his lips;
     For the inmost sea of all the earth is shaken with his ships.
     They have dared the white republics up the capes of Italy,
     They have dashed the Adriatic round the Lion of the Sea,
     And the Pope has cast his arms abroad for agony and loss,
     And called the kings of Christendom for swords about the Cross.
     The cold queen of England is looking in the glass;
     The shadow of the Valois is yawning at the Mass;
     From evening isles fantastical rings faint the Spanish gun,
     And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.