Looking at the news today it seems we have another contender in the democratic primary, a governor this time. Let's see who's left on the left.
I'll start with the new guy, Jay Inslee, current governor of Washington state, who has decided to make a run. So far he hasn't resigned as governor so that might make thing interesting, how to run a state and a nationwide campaign at the same time. He is also considering dual campaigns in case the run for the White house doesn't work out. It's always good to have a backup plan, but not at the expense of your employers (the people of Washington, at least for now). The main part of his platform seems to be climate change, big surprise from the left coast, claiming "we're the first generation to feel the sting of climate change, and the last that can do something about it". Like Ocasio-Cortez (I'll just abbreviate that to AOC from now on), he plans to move this country to 100% "green energy" but doesn't seem to be too big on how to pay for it. Not a fan of the 2nd amendment and would seek stricter gun control (just control really, if we're being honest). He doesn't at this time seem to be a supporter of single payer medicine but does believe there should be a government funded option to compete with private insurance. This view will likely morph into full socialized medicine if and when he realizes that government run anything can't compete with the private sector. While he didn't declare WA a sanctuary state, he did limit the amount law enforcement and other agencies could assist ICE, not good if he goes nationwide with the same policy. He also increased Washington's state minimum wage to $12/hr, and while the state has historically had a higher minimum than the federal, unemployment seems to be rising as they ramp it up faster, since 2016. Another politician who doesn't understand supply and demand.
Next we'll look at someone more akin to Trump, in that he is a businessman and not a politician, Andrew Yang. Yang is a former tech executive whose main platform is a universal income for every, based on his belief that millions of jobs will be lost to automation. I think I've heard that before, indeed for most of my life, and the more I hear it the less true it becomes. This one is also a supporter of "medicade for all", aka single payer healthcare, and we know where that leads. While he has had success in the business world, I'm not sure his experiences will give him the leadership skills he'll need to run an organization as large as the U.S., the difference between him and Trump being the deal-making skill the latter possesses. He will also suffer with a name recognition issue, few have ever heard of him.
Pete Buttgieg, current mayor of South Bend IN (what is it with trying to run a government and a campaign at the same time?) has also decided to run. he pretty much support the whole laundry list that the left has, single payer health, GND, pathway to citizen ship for illegals. He does support pulling out of Afghanistan, as everyone should, and agrees that NAFTA was a disaster, but is also a strong supporter of labor unions, not surprising as he is a democrat. As a high school student he wrote an award winning positive essay about none other than Bernie Sanders, which should give you some insight into how he thinks.
Enough for today, I'll try to give you more tomorrow. Eventually I might get through them all, assuming every democrat in the country doesn't declare a campaign. At this point it seems they might.
One mans look at how America is failing and how we can stop it.
Friday, March 1, 2019
Thursday, February 28, 2019
The silly season, part deux.
Let's continue looking into the presidential candidates from the left, there are officially 11 right now with another 7-10 possible in the not to distant future. I'll try to keep up with them as best I can, but it looks like I'll be chasing a moving target. For now I'll try and go from the most known to the least.
Former Newark, NJ mayor Cory Booker has tossed his hat in the ring. As a New Jersey democrat, you might imagine that his views on the 2nd amendment are not positive, and in that you'd be correct. He is also one with at least one known skeleton in his closet, an article from his college days in which he claims to have groped a high school friend, then tried again when she pushed his hand away. This same man tried to bock the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh because of an uncorroborated accusation from 30+ years in the past of similar activity. If we are to judge the left by the standards that they use to judge the right, this man should already be dropping out of public office. Instead, he is seen as a rising star. You may hear the story of him delivering diaper to a lady who was snowbound, but what is missed in the story is that she was snowbound because the city didn't get out to plow her out for over 3 days. He did good things for Newark, of that there is no doubt, but he also let basic things like plowing fall down. As a senator he has consistently voted for social programs that would increase the federal influence, against defense spending and voted against keeping the government open He personally sponsored 6 bills (as opposed to co-sponsor) most of which were for monuments or renaming post offices, not exactly productive use of his time. He also supports the Green New Deal, a socialist (not environmental no matter what AOC says) program that, if implemented, would cost this country in the first 10 years alone $93 TRILLION. Not the type of person I want in the White house, but you can make your own decision.
Next up would be Amy Klobuchar, senior senator from Minnesota. This one calls herself a centrist but reports from those who know her better than I put her a bit farther left than she will admit. I think we've all seen this before, before the election "I support this, this and that" and after "Well, I've evolved in my views". It happens on both sides of the aisle, so don't think I'm just picking on her. There are also reports of her being abusive to staffers. Her voting record matches that of Comrade Sanders 87% of the time, so the centrist label can be thrown away. Also a partial supporter of the GND, but she thinks it goes too fast and would implement it more slowly. Another who voted against protect survivors of attempted abortion, I position I just can't fathom from anyone. Even China, with their now-defunct one child rule, would not kill or allow to die a child that drew breath after a forced abortion attempt. No friend of the 2nd amendment, she supports Sen. Feinstein in her attempts to enact an "assault weapons ban" ( not that there is such a thing, but that's for a different discussion). She does, however, support higher taxes. She doesn't support "medicare for all" right now, but hasn't ruled it out in the future It would seem that her plan is to position herself as somewhere to the right of the full on socialists, hoping to fool those on the left that aren't completely blinded to the horrors that socialism brings, then move left after election. She doesn't have the name recognition of the other so far mentioned, but that may change with her campaign position being more palatable to Americans than the hard left. Just keep in mind that, like most politicians, her view and positions are not only subject to change after election, but likely to, sometimes drastically.
And now we get into those with virtually no name recognition outside of their home states, unless you count the author of spiritual books, evidently best sellers (never heard of her myself).
The first to officially enter the race was John Delaney, former Maryland congressman.While he seems to be a fiscal conservative in most respects, he still supports boondoggles like "universal healthcare", aka socialized medicine. Strangely for a business man, he supports raising corporate taxes, thinking it will help him raise a trillion dollars for infrastructure improvements (raising taxes doesn't raise revenue, something the left has yet to learn). He also supports the federal $15 minimum wage, which as a business man he should know it will cost jobs. He doesn't support the GND simply because it tries to do too much at once. He wants to "fix(ing) climate change tomorrow" not worry about it being tied to healthcare. In reality he wants both, but is enough of a realist (a rarity on the left) to realize the the whole package is unworkable. He also has been on the campaign trail since July 2017. Unfortunately for him, that time invested hasn't translated into name recognition.
In case you're wondering why I keep mentioning name recognition, I have a quick story to tell. When Ted Kennedy died and they had to run a special election in Massachusetts, there were actually 3 candidates running. The democrat, Martha Coakly, basically ran on the premise that she was a democrat and so should have the seat that Kennedy had occupied for 40 years, even going so far as to vacation during the campaign. The republic, and eventual winner, Scott Brown, campaigned as a man of the people, using his own truck for getting to campaign stops. In my opinion, he should have won simply for one statement during a debate, when Coakly (and I think the moderator, but I'm not sure) called the seat in question the Kennedy seat, he responded by saying it was not the Kennedy seat, it was the peoples seat. The third person in the race, a libertarian by the name of Joseph Kennedy, who got over 22,000 with virtually no campaign time. I'd put good money on some people voting for him because they thought he was one of THE Kennedys, which he isn't.
Former Newark, NJ mayor Cory Booker has tossed his hat in the ring. As a New Jersey democrat, you might imagine that his views on the 2nd amendment are not positive, and in that you'd be correct. He is also one with at least one known skeleton in his closet, an article from his college days in which he claims to have groped a high school friend, then tried again when she pushed his hand away. This same man tried to bock the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh because of an uncorroborated accusation from 30+ years in the past of similar activity. If we are to judge the left by the standards that they use to judge the right, this man should already be dropping out of public office. Instead, he is seen as a rising star. You may hear the story of him delivering diaper to a lady who was snowbound, but what is missed in the story is that she was snowbound because the city didn't get out to plow her out for over 3 days. He did good things for Newark, of that there is no doubt, but he also let basic things like plowing fall down. As a senator he has consistently voted for social programs that would increase the federal influence, against defense spending and voted against keeping the government open He personally sponsored 6 bills (as opposed to co-sponsor) most of which were for monuments or renaming post offices, not exactly productive use of his time. He also supports the Green New Deal, a socialist (not environmental no matter what AOC says) program that, if implemented, would cost this country in the first 10 years alone $93 TRILLION. Not the type of person I want in the White house, but you can make your own decision.
Next up would be Amy Klobuchar, senior senator from Minnesota. This one calls herself a centrist but reports from those who know her better than I put her a bit farther left than she will admit. I think we've all seen this before, before the election "I support this, this and that" and after "Well, I've evolved in my views". It happens on both sides of the aisle, so don't think I'm just picking on her. There are also reports of her being abusive to staffers. Her voting record matches that of Comrade Sanders 87% of the time, so the centrist label can be thrown away. Also a partial supporter of the GND, but she thinks it goes too fast and would implement it more slowly. Another who voted against protect survivors of attempted abortion, I position I just can't fathom from anyone. Even China, with their now-defunct one child rule, would not kill or allow to die a child that drew breath after a forced abortion attempt. No friend of the 2nd amendment, she supports Sen. Feinstein in her attempts to enact an "assault weapons ban" ( not that there is such a thing, but that's for a different discussion). She does, however, support higher taxes. She doesn't support "medicare for all" right now, but hasn't ruled it out in the future It would seem that her plan is to position herself as somewhere to the right of the full on socialists, hoping to fool those on the left that aren't completely blinded to the horrors that socialism brings, then move left after election. She doesn't have the name recognition of the other so far mentioned, but that may change with her campaign position being more palatable to Americans than the hard left. Just keep in mind that, like most politicians, her view and positions are not only subject to change after election, but likely to, sometimes drastically.
And now we get into those with virtually no name recognition outside of their home states, unless you count the author of spiritual books, evidently best sellers (never heard of her myself).
The first to officially enter the race was John Delaney, former Maryland congressman.While he seems to be a fiscal conservative in most respects, he still supports boondoggles like "universal healthcare", aka socialized medicine. Strangely for a business man, he supports raising corporate taxes, thinking it will help him raise a trillion dollars for infrastructure improvements (raising taxes doesn't raise revenue, something the left has yet to learn). He also supports the federal $15 minimum wage, which as a business man he should know it will cost jobs. He doesn't support the GND simply because it tries to do too much at once. He wants to "fix(ing) climate change tomorrow" not worry about it being tied to healthcare. In reality he wants both, but is enough of a realist (a rarity on the left) to realize the the whole package is unworkable. He also has been on the campaign trail since July 2017. Unfortunately for him, that time invested hasn't translated into name recognition.
In case you're wondering why I keep mentioning name recognition, I have a quick story to tell. When Ted Kennedy died and they had to run a special election in Massachusetts, there were actually 3 candidates running. The democrat, Martha Coakly, basically ran on the premise that she was a democrat and so should have the seat that Kennedy had occupied for 40 years, even going so far as to vacation during the campaign. The republic, and eventual winner, Scott Brown, campaigned as a man of the people, using his own truck for getting to campaign stops. In my opinion, he should have won simply for one statement during a debate, when Coakly (and I think the moderator, but I'm not sure) called the seat in question the Kennedy seat, he responded by saying it was not the Kennedy seat, it was the peoples seat. The third person in the race, a libertarian by the name of Joseph Kennedy, who got over 22,000 with virtually no campaign time. I'd put good money on some people voting for him because they thought he was one of THE Kennedys, which he isn't.
Out of the shadows
For many years the left has consistently denied many of the stances that they now openly espouse. Things like support for not just the right to an abortion (try finding that in the Constitution, I dare you) but now late term abortion and even letting an abortion survivor die. Things like supporting illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens, even to the point where they consider giving them the right to vote. Things like changing our way of government to a socialist model, since that seems to have worked out so well everywhere else it's been tried. Things like calling for censoring speech they disagree with, calling everything they don't like hate speech (try inviting a conservative speaker to almost any college campus and watch the reaction). What has changed? Why do they now feel comfortable attacking what has arguably been the most successful, free (as in speech, not beer) government in all of history?
There are several thing I can think of that help to explain these changes. First, beginning in the late 50's to early 60's more colleges started moving to the left, both in philosophy and faculty make up. This may be because more conservative teachers and administrators tended to move into technical fields, fields where they dealt in facts, not feelings. This left a vacuum in the social and soft science fields that the left (who tended to follow the teachings of such notables as Karl Marx) could and did exploit. It has been said by several leaders of countries that had/have a bad image that by controlling the education system you can control the future of the country (paraphrasing, but you get the idea). and they took this to heart. By teaching/indoctrinating, first at the college level to produce teachers, then at the elementary through high school levels with those teachers, they have created a generation of those who truly believe that socialism (and it's natural outcome, communism) is good and that capitalism is inherently bad. The history of this country, and the world, is not being taught as it should be, but as the left would have you believe it was. Instead, we have students being taught that white people, men in particular, are the cause of all the problems experienced by all minorities. We have students being taught that everybody gets a trophy, who then find out that the real world doesn't work that way and need safe spaces to deal with the horror. We have students being taught that the successes of this country in every field came on the backs of oppressed people, rather than from the fact that everyone here has the same opportunities if only they'll take the chance and work hard. We have people being taught that there are 63 different genders and if you disagree with that you must be homophobic. That if you think that legal immigration is OK but illegal immigration is a crime you are racist. The indoctrination starts in elementary school and continues through college, and if you manage to maintain your freedom of thought you are one of the lucky few, as that is actively discouraged.
Since one of those soft science fields is journalism, it only follows that the majority of those joining that field will have been indoctrinated into this way of thinking as well. This is proven out by the fact that most of the mass media in this country has no problem "creatively editing" video and audio to change the meaning. A great example of this was the 911 call from George Zimmerman, the man who defended himself from an attack by Trayvon Martin. During the call the 911 operator asked for a description of the person he was following, that request was edited out, ostensibly "to save time on air". That event also gave us a new racial description, white hispanic. The original reports were that Zimmerman was white, going by his name. Once they found out that he didn't fit the description, they need to correct themselves but still wanted it to look like a white man shot a black "kid" (6' 170 lbs at the time of the attack, no kid), and so invented the "white hispanic" descriptor. We also see it today, where the sitting president enjoys about 90% negative coverage, even when things like the economy and unemployment are better than they have been in decades, simply because they don't like the facts that a) he's a republican and b) he doesn't allow them to spin every word out of his mouth preferring to use social media to get his own message out. This left leaning media also serves as cover for things the left does wrong. How often do you hear of a conservative doing good, compared to how often you hear of their mistakes? Conversely, how often do you hear of problems from the left (and how quickly are those mistakes buried, compared to the right) compared to the media congratulating the left on their latest success?
We also see the outcome in things like sexual orientation or trans-sexual feelings. It is considered brave and strong and socially conscious to come out as gay or trans. Many cities hold gay pride events, some are even have drag queen story times for kids. Now don't get me wrong. I have no problems with someone who is gay, what they do in their own home is their business, but can you imagine the outcry if I tried to organize a straight pride day. It is also becoming a problem in sports, where trans athletes (usually male to female) are competing against the opposite sex. No matter what surgery or hormone treatments the athlete is given, with all else being equal a biological male (xy chromosome) will be stronger and faster than a biological female (xx chromosome) and therefore have a distinct advantage in most sports. This is being seen mostly at the high school level right now but I can see in the not too distant future a time when the only top athletes are biologically male. But I f I complain about this trend I'm trans-phobic or homophobic.
I'm not sure how this trend can be reversed or even if it can, but without a balanced media, one that simply reports that facts and doesn't try to create the news, we can't trust any of the mass media. The same goes for colleges, something like 34% of colleges have zero professors who identify as conservative, and they are a minority at the majority of the rest. Without revamping our higher education system I can only see the problem getting worse. Long gone are the days when a person could be self-taught and also very successful, maybe we need to start looking in that direction again. After all, many of the founders were self-taught, and remain among the most intelligent men ever to live.
There are several thing I can think of that help to explain these changes. First, beginning in the late 50's to early 60's more colleges started moving to the left, both in philosophy and faculty make up. This may be because more conservative teachers and administrators tended to move into technical fields, fields where they dealt in facts, not feelings. This left a vacuum in the social and soft science fields that the left (who tended to follow the teachings of such notables as Karl Marx) could and did exploit. It has been said by several leaders of countries that had/have a bad image that by controlling the education system you can control the future of the country (paraphrasing, but you get the idea). and they took this to heart. By teaching/indoctrinating, first at the college level to produce teachers, then at the elementary through high school levels with those teachers, they have created a generation of those who truly believe that socialism (and it's natural outcome, communism) is good and that capitalism is inherently bad. The history of this country, and the world, is not being taught as it should be, but as the left would have you believe it was. Instead, we have students being taught that white people, men in particular, are the cause of all the problems experienced by all minorities. We have students being taught that everybody gets a trophy, who then find out that the real world doesn't work that way and need safe spaces to deal with the horror. We have students being taught that the successes of this country in every field came on the backs of oppressed people, rather than from the fact that everyone here has the same opportunities if only they'll take the chance and work hard. We have people being taught that there are 63 different genders and if you disagree with that you must be homophobic. That if you think that legal immigration is OK but illegal immigration is a crime you are racist. The indoctrination starts in elementary school and continues through college, and if you manage to maintain your freedom of thought you are one of the lucky few, as that is actively discouraged.
Since one of those soft science fields is journalism, it only follows that the majority of those joining that field will have been indoctrinated into this way of thinking as well. This is proven out by the fact that most of the mass media in this country has no problem "creatively editing" video and audio to change the meaning. A great example of this was the 911 call from George Zimmerman, the man who defended himself from an attack by Trayvon Martin. During the call the 911 operator asked for a description of the person he was following, that request was edited out, ostensibly "to save time on air". That event also gave us a new racial description, white hispanic. The original reports were that Zimmerman was white, going by his name. Once they found out that he didn't fit the description, they need to correct themselves but still wanted it to look like a white man shot a black "kid" (6' 170 lbs at the time of the attack, no kid), and so invented the "white hispanic" descriptor. We also see it today, where the sitting president enjoys about 90% negative coverage, even when things like the economy and unemployment are better than they have been in decades, simply because they don't like the facts that a) he's a republican and b) he doesn't allow them to spin every word out of his mouth preferring to use social media to get his own message out. This left leaning media also serves as cover for things the left does wrong. How often do you hear of a conservative doing good, compared to how often you hear of their mistakes? Conversely, how often do you hear of problems from the left (and how quickly are those mistakes buried, compared to the right) compared to the media congratulating the left on their latest success?
We also see the outcome in things like sexual orientation or trans-sexual feelings. It is considered brave and strong and socially conscious to come out as gay or trans. Many cities hold gay pride events, some are even have drag queen story times for kids. Now don't get me wrong. I have no problems with someone who is gay, what they do in their own home is their business, but can you imagine the outcry if I tried to organize a straight pride day. It is also becoming a problem in sports, where trans athletes (usually male to female) are competing against the opposite sex. No matter what surgery or hormone treatments the athlete is given, with all else being equal a biological male (xy chromosome) will be stronger and faster than a biological female (xx chromosome) and therefore have a distinct advantage in most sports. This is being seen mostly at the high school level right now but I can see in the not too distant future a time when the only top athletes are biologically male. But I f I complain about this trend I'm trans-phobic or homophobic.
I'm not sure how this trend can be reversed or even if it can, but without a balanced media, one that simply reports that facts and doesn't try to create the news, we can't trust any of the mass media. The same goes for colleges, something like 34% of colleges have zero professors who identify as conservative, and they are a minority at the majority of the rest. Without revamping our higher education system I can only see the problem getting worse. Long gone are the days when a person could be self-taught and also very successful, maybe we need to start looking in that direction again. After all, many of the founders were self-taught, and remain among the most intelligent men ever to live.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
The silly season has started
It's that quadrennial time again, the time when our news get filled with reports on what each presidential candidate is up to. For those who care it can be difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff, especially when most (all?) news in this country is seriously biased, mostly with a tilt to the left. I'd like to look at the candidates from that side. and it may take more than one post to cover them.
Bernie Sanders has declared his candidacy again, after getting robbed of the nomination in 2016 by the DNC. He seems to be doing well fundraising this time around, likely among millennial that hear "free stuff" and "tax the rich" without understanding what those phrases mean. Sanders claims to have started a revolution last time and thinks it's time to finish it now. This is the same Sanders who frequently pointed to Venezuela as a model society, the same Venezuela that now has their military firing on their own people to keep the from leaving or bringing much needed aid that the Maduro regime has blocked from entering. The same Sanders who honeymooned in Russia, who never held a full time job that he wasn't elected to (after he was 40 years old). The same Sanders that wrote an article claiming that all men want to dominate their women and all women have gang rape fantasies (do you want that in the White House).The same Sanders who claims to be a man of the people, but owns three houses and spent over $300,000 on private jet charters. About the only good thing I can think of is he is not opposed to the 2nd amendment like most of his colleagues, but that doesn't mean he is a supporter either. He recently voted against a bill that would require doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after a failed abortion attempt.
His fiscal policies would definitely bankrupt this country, possibly before his first term was up, unless he used Obama's ploy of delaying full implementation until he was out of office. He supports high taxes for the wealthy (I think he forgets he is one) which usually leads to decreased revenue for the government at a time when more is needed to pay for the free stuff. His desire for a federal $15 minimum wage would drive more people to unemployment as businesses either cut staff or closed completely, further impacting the budget badly.
One last problem to mention with Sanders (there are really too many to list, just know he is a socialist with all that entails) is his age. If he gets elected he will be, by 6 years, the oldest president elected in this country at 79, meaning that he will have surpassed the life expectancy of men in the US. How long could he survive the stresses of holding that office at that age? Something to consider when choosing a leader as there is something to be said for continuity in leadership.
Next, let's look at Kamala Harris from California. This one is a definite enemy of the 2nd amendment, so if that's important to you be aware. She also proposes reparations to descendants of slaves, even though her family not only were never slaves but owned slaves. Her political background is as District Attorney of San Francisco 2004-2011 and California Attorney General 2011-2017. She was elected to the US Senate in 2016 and therefore doesn't intend to complete her first term in that position. She also is for open borders and limited Immigration enforcement, even if it negatively affects the US citizens she is supposed to represent. She also voted against a bill meant to protect infants born alive after a botched abortion attempt. Again, a person that feels the US needs to be "taken down a notch" and shouldn't hold itself as a world leader.
How about Elizabeth Warren? It took shaming her into a DNA test to get her to admit that she wasn't a native American, at least no more than 1/1024 (less than the national average, I believe), a claim she used for many years to get preferential treatment in jobs. She claims she didn't but is (or was) listed on Harvard's faculty roster as a minority and on her Texas bar application she wrote in native American. She is another candidate "of the people" even though she and her husband have a combined net worth of between 4 and 11 million dollars. Her political career involves her seat in the senate, prior to that she was a professor of bankruptcy law. She is semi supportive of Israel, our only ally in the middle east, meaning she may defend their right to exist but has asked that they not move Palestinian terrorists out of the territory they occupy on the west bank. Also another who voted against the bill to protect survivors of attempted abortion.
These are, so far, the front runners in the Democratic primary. We'll look at the rest of the group later, but this should give you some idea of where the left stands.
Bernie Sanders has declared his candidacy again, after getting robbed of the nomination in 2016 by the DNC. He seems to be doing well fundraising this time around, likely among millennial that hear "free stuff" and "tax the rich" without understanding what those phrases mean. Sanders claims to have started a revolution last time and thinks it's time to finish it now. This is the same Sanders who frequently pointed to Venezuela as a model society, the same Venezuela that now has their military firing on their own people to keep the from leaving or bringing much needed aid that the Maduro regime has blocked from entering. The same Sanders who honeymooned in Russia, who never held a full time job that he wasn't elected to (after he was 40 years old). The same Sanders that wrote an article claiming that all men want to dominate their women and all women have gang rape fantasies (do you want that in the White House).The same Sanders who claims to be a man of the people, but owns three houses and spent over $300,000 on private jet charters. About the only good thing I can think of is he is not opposed to the 2nd amendment like most of his colleagues, but that doesn't mean he is a supporter either. He recently voted against a bill that would require doctors to provide medical care to infants born alive after a failed abortion attempt.
His fiscal policies would definitely bankrupt this country, possibly before his first term was up, unless he used Obama's ploy of delaying full implementation until he was out of office. He supports high taxes for the wealthy (I think he forgets he is one) which usually leads to decreased revenue for the government at a time when more is needed to pay for the free stuff. His desire for a federal $15 minimum wage would drive more people to unemployment as businesses either cut staff or closed completely, further impacting the budget badly.
One last problem to mention with Sanders (there are really too many to list, just know he is a socialist with all that entails) is his age. If he gets elected he will be, by 6 years, the oldest president elected in this country at 79, meaning that he will have surpassed the life expectancy of men in the US. How long could he survive the stresses of holding that office at that age? Something to consider when choosing a leader as there is something to be said for continuity in leadership.
Next, let's look at Kamala Harris from California. This one is a definite enemy of the 2nd amendment, so if that's important to you be aware. She also proposes reparations to descendants of slaves, even though her family not only were never slaves but owned slaves. Her political background is as District Attorney of San Francisco 2004-2011 and California Attorney General 2011-2017. She was elected to the US Senate in 2016 and therefore doesn't intend to complete her first term in that position. She also is for open borders and limited Immigration enforcement, even if it negatively affects the US citizens she is supposed to represent. She also voted against a bill meant to protect infants born alive after a botched abortion attempt. Again, a person that feels the US needs to be "taken down a notch" and shouldn't hold itself as a world leader.
How about Elizabeth Warren? It took shaming her into a DNA test to get her to admit that she wasn't a native American, at least no more than 1/1024 (less than the national average, I believe), a claim she used for many years to get preferential treatment in jobs. She claims she didn't but is (or was) listed on Harvard's faculty roster as a minority and on her Texas bar application she wrote in native American. She is another candidate "of the people" even though she and her husband have a combined net worth of between 4 and 11 million dollars. Her political career involves her seat in the senate, prior to that she was a professor of bankruptcy law. She is semi supportive of Israel, our only ally in the middle east, meaning she may defend their right to exist but has asked that they not move Palestinian terrorists out of the territory they occupy on the west bank. Also another who voted against the bill to protect survivors of attempted abortion.
These are, so far, the front runners in the Democratic primary. We'll look at the rest of the group later, but this should give you some idea of where the left stands.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Some interesting court cases
I have been thinking about how the courts have been ruling on the Second amendment lately. It seems that after many decades of ignoring it they have been looking at it more closely. I have been looking at the more well known cases and have a few thoughts.
One of the earliest cases involving the Second amendment was US V. Miller in 1939. In this case the defendant, Jack Miller, was stopped by Oklahoma State police and arrested for possession of an unregistered short barreled shotgun. This was a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) which required a $200 tax stamp and background check to own several types of firearms, including shotguns with a barrel shorter than 18 inches. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the NFA violated the Second amendment. This ruling was appealed by the government and eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision, stating (incorrectly) that "a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Other arguments made by the government included 1) the theory that the NFA was a revenue collecting measure, 2) since the defendant transported the shotgun across state lines it was used in interstate commerce, 3) the Second amendment protects military style firearms for use in a well regulated militia and 4) the shotgun in question was never used in any military organization.
Let's start with the last argument first. Whether or not a piece of hardware was ever used in a military organization or not should have been of no consequence. The fact that it was a personally owned piece of property means that the government had no right or authority to take it away. Any firearm can be used in a militia, which according to founding father George Mason consists of "the whole people, except a few government officials".
Since we have determined that the militia is the whole of the people that eliminates the third argument as well. The whole "well regulated" part is often misunderstood by the left, usually intentionally. You need to go back to when the phrase was used to get the context and meaning. At the time (and in certain circles today) the phrase "well regulated" meant either "well trained" (pertaining to men or groups) or "well adjusted" (pertaining to equipment). It had absolutely NOTHING to do with government control, and still doesn't.
The second argument, that the firearms was transported across state lines and so was used in interstate commerce, comes from one of the most tortured misreadings of any part of the Constitution ever. First, the defendant already owned the firearm, it wasn't being bought or sold. Second, commerce doesn't apply to private transactions but to businesses. I'll try to go more into depth on the proper (and improper) application of the interstate commerce clause some other time.
On the first argument, while it may be true that the NFA was and is a revenue collecting measure, it was put into place as a punitive measure. At the time it was instituted the cost of fully automatic firearms was around $200, the amount of the tax. The stated goal was revenue collection, but even the BATFE admits that the real goal was to discourage purchase of those firearms.
The NFA also covers short barrel shot guns, "destructive devices", silencers/suppressors and what are termed "any other weapons". In most European countries, the use of suppressors is considered polite and is even mandated in some areas. Most industrial equipment anywhere near as loud as a firearm is required to have some form of noise reduction, Cars, trucks and motorcycles, even on some race tracks, are required to use mufflers. Why would the same device for firearms be so regulated as to need a $200 tax and 6-9 month wait for government permission to own? (sorry for the side rant).
One of the earliest cases involving the Second amendment was US V. Miller in 1939. In this case the defendant, Jack Miller, was stopped by Oklahoma State police and arrested for possession of an unregistered short barreled shotgun. This was a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) which required a $200 tax stamp and background check to own several types of firearms, including shotguns with a barrel shorter than 18 inches. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the NFA violated the Second amendment. This ruling was appealed by the government and eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision, stating (incorrectly) that "a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Other arguments made by the government included 1) the theory that the NFA was a revenue collecting measure, 2) since the defendant transported the shotgun across state lines it was used in interstate commerce, 3) the Second amendment protects military style firearms for use in a well regulated militia and 4) the shotgun in question was never used in any military organization.
Let's start with the last argument first. Whether or not a piece of hardware was ever used in a military organization or not should have been of no consequence. The fact that it was a personally owned piece of property means that the government had no right or authority to take it away. Any firearm can be used in a militia, which according to founding father George Mason consists of "the whole people, except a few government officials".
Since we have determined that the militia is the whole of the people that eliminates the third argument as well. The whole "well regulated" part is often misunderstood by the left, usually intentionally. You need to go back to when the phrase was used to get the context and meaning. At the time (and in certain circles today) the phrase "well regulated" meant either "well trained" (pertaining to men or groups) or "well adjusted" (pertaining to equipment). It had absolutely NOTHING to do with government control, and still doesn't.
The second argument, that the firearms was transported across state lines and so was used in interstate commerce, comes from one of the most tortured misreadings of any part of the Constitution ever. First, the defendant already owned the firearm, it wasn't being bought or sold. Second, commerce doesn't apply to private transactions but to businesses. I'll try to go more into depth on the proper (and improper) application of the interstate commerce clause some other time.
On the first argument, while it may be true that the NFA was and is a revenue collecting measure, it was put into place as a punitive measure. At the time it was instituted the cost of fully automatic firearms was around $200, the amount of the tax. The stated goal was revenue collection, but even the BATFE admits that the real goal was to discourage purchase of those firearms.
The NFA also covers short barrel shot guns, "destructive devices", silencers/suppressors and what are termed "any other weapons". In most European countries, the use of suppressors is considered polite and is even mandated in some areas. Most industrial equipment anywhere near as loud as a firearm is required to have some form of noise reduction, Cars, trucks and motorcycles, even on some race tracks, are required to use mufflers. Why would the same device for firearms be so regulated as to need a $200 tax and 6-9 month wait for government permission to own? (sorry for the side rant).
Friday, February 8, 2013
Firearms laws continue to fail us.
We have over 20,000 gun control laws in this country, with more being proposed all the time. We also have had a declining rate of violent crime for the past two decades. You may think that these two are related but as I will try to prove there seems to be a negative correlation between the two, meaning that more laws do not mean less crime. The areas with the most restrictive gun laws seem to have the highest rates of overall crime crime, while the areas with the least restrictive laws enjoy a lower rate of overall crime.
Lets start with the city that seems to lead the nation in number of murders, Chicago, IL. In Chicago it is virtually impossible to get permission to own a handgun. This will be changing as they have been told by the Supreme Court, in McDonald V. Chicago, that it is unconstitutional to deny the Second amendment right that the rest of the country enjoys. It is also impossible, for the time being, to carry a handgun anywhere in the state of Illinois. This will be changing as the state has been ordered to enact some form of carry as a result of the Shepard V. Madigan court case, which overturned the total ban on carrying a firearm outside of ones home. With these two restriction still in place there were over 500 murders in Chicago last year, and they are on a pace to beat that this year with 42 in January alone (just extrapolating that number gets them to almost 500, and violence tends to increase as the weather gets warmer). This in a city where the law abiding are prohibited from defending themselves outside of their homes and discouraged, via strict regulations, from doing so inside of their homes.
Or perhaps you would prefer to look at the most violent city in the US, Detroit, MI. They are at or near the top in every category of crime per the FBI statistics. 2137 violent crimes per 100,000 people, 48 murders, 60 rapes, 695 robberies, 1333 aggravated assaults. This city had, until 2001, strict licensing of handgun ownership, a habit that takes time for the people to break.
We can now move on to some place with much less restrictive gun laws, like Manchester, NH. In Manchester, indeed in all of New Hampshire, one can carry a firearm openly without getting permission from the government to do so. If you would like to carry a concealed weapon it will be issued as long as you are no prohibited from owning a firearm (basically, the chief of police in your town needs to prove you shouldn't have it), and costs a whopping $10 - for FOUR years- for a resident. The latest stats from the Manchester Police Department, for 2010, lists 2 murders, 63 rapes, 154 robberies and 290 aggravated assaults. Since the population is about 100,000 those can be taken as the rates per 100,000. These numbers are all down from the 2009 numbers as well.
In every city or state where the have loosened restriction, crime rates plummet. When Florida went to a shall issue permit law, the left predicted blood in the streets, shootouts over fender benders and general mayhem from gun owners. What happened there, and in every other place that has followed suit, is that crime dropped in every category, and in every segment of the population save one. At the time Florida issued distinctive plates for rental cars, making them easy to identify. The only segment of the population that didn't enjoy the same drop in crime was, you guessed it, tourists, as the criminals could be reasonably sure their targets would be unarmed if they were driving a rental car. A few years later Florida started issuing the same series plate to rentals as to the general population and the crime rate against tourists dropped to almost the same level as the rest of the population (some criminals work near the airports and attractions).
Law abiding citizens who get government permission to carry a firearm (which shouldn't be necessary but we'll get to that later) are not the problem with crime in this country. The biggest problem is criminals that aren't punished severely early in their career, with the police and courts playing catch and release while the criminals get taught that there are no repercussions for their actions. Another problem is the (lack of a) mental health system in this country, which allows those like the maniacs who have been committing the recent shootings to fall through the cracks. Most of them exhibited signs on mental instability in school, but as soon as they were removed from the school no one cared enough to keep track of them or report them to authorities who might of been able to enter them into the NICS database, allowing most of them to buy firearms legally. Leave the law abiding alone to be able to protect themselves and punish those who break the laws.
Lets start with the city that seems to lead the nation in number of murders, Chicago, IL. In Chicago it is virtually impossible to get permission to own a handgun. This will be changing as they have been told by the Supreme Court, in McDonald V. Chicago, that it is unconstitutional to deny the Second amendment right that the rest of the country enjoys. It is also impossible, for the time being, to carry a handgun anywhere in the state of Illinois. This will be changing as the state has been ordered to enact some form of carry as a result of the Shepard V. Madigan court case, which overturned the total ban on carrying a firearm outside of ones home. With these two restriction still in place there were over 500 murders in Chicago last year, and they are on a pace to beat that this year with 42 in January alone (just extrapolating that number gets them to almost 500, and violence tends to increase as the weather gets warmer). This in a city where the law abiding are prohibited from defending themselves outside of their homes and discouraged, via strict regulations, from doing so inside of their homes.
Or perhaps you would prefer to look at the most violent city in the US, Detroit, MI. They are at or near the top in every category of crime per the FBI statistics. 2137 violent crimes per 100,000 people, 48 murders, 60 rapes, 695 robberies, 1333 aggravated assaults. This city had, until 2001, strict licensing of handgun ownership, a habit that takes time for the people to break.
We can now move on to some place with much less restrictive gun laws, like Manchester, NH. In Manchester, indeed in all of New Hampshire, one can carry a firearm openly without getting permission from the government to do so. If you would like to carry a concealed weapon it will be issued as long as you are no prohibited from owning a firearm (basically, the chief of police in your town needs to prove you shouldn't have it), and costs a whopping $10 - for FOUR years- for a resident. The latest stats from the Manchester Police Department, for 2010, lists 2 murders, 63 rapes, 154 robberies and 290 aggravated assaults. Since the population is about 100,000 those can be taken as the rates per 100,000. These numbers are all down from the 2009 numbers as well.
In every city or state where the have loosened restriction, crime rates plummet. When Florida went to a shall issue permit law, the left predicted blood in the streets, shootouts over fender benders and general mayhem from gun owners. What happened there, and in every other place that has followed suit, is that crime dropped in every category, and in every segment of the population save one. At the time Florida issued distinctive plates for rental cars, making them easy to identify. The only segment of the population that didn't enjoy the same drop in crime was, you guessed it, tourists, as the criminals could be reasonably sure their targets would be unarmed if they were driving a rental car. A few years later Florida started issuing the same series plate to rentals as to the general population and the crime rate against tourists dropped to almost the same level as the rest of the population (some criminals work near the airports and attractions).
Law abiding citizens who get government permission to carry a firearm (which shouldn't be necessary but we'll get to that later) are not the problem with crime in this country. The biggest problem is criminals that aren't punished severely early in their career, with the police and courts playing catch and release while the criminals get taught that there are no repercussions for their actions. Another problem is the (lack of a) mental health system in this country, which allows those like the maniacs who have been committing the recent shootings to fall through the cracks. Most of them exhibited signs on mental instability in school, but as soon as they were removed from the school no one cared enough to keep track of them or report them to authorities who might of been able to enter them into the NICS database, allowing most of them to buy firearms legally. Leave the law abiding alone to be able to protect themselves and punish those who break the laws.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Long time, no blog
I really need to pay more attention to this blog. There is so much going on in the world that needs to be discussed in a logical manner, rather than relying on feelings. I think I'll concentrate on what the left calls "gun control" but what in reality is just "control".
Since the last time I posted here there have been several tragedies in this country, most notable being the slaughter of 26 innocent souls in Newtown, CT. Predictably, the left has jumped on this tragedy to promote "gun control", knowing that it will be easier to get passed while emotions are high. Senator Feinstein (D, CA) is trying to push a new "assault weapons" ban, even more stringent than the one that thankfully expired in 2004. This time she has carefully crafted it in such a way, using subtle language, that it could conceivably used to ban ALL semi-automatic firearms. The relevant passage is from page 13 and reads
3 ‘‘(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb
4 hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function
5 as a grip."
Since every firearm needs a way to hold (or grip) it, this simple looking phrase can, and likely will, be read to mean any semi-auto firearm. Since she is on record as wanting to ban all privately held firearms (60 Minutes Feb 5, 1995) this is not likely to be an accidental phrasing of her desires.
New York state was the first to actually pass new legislation after the tragedy, passing the misnamed SAFE act without even following state law requiring 3 days for reading and debate. They were so intent on passing something that they even forgot to carve out an exemption for law enforcement, meaning that even the police are now limited to 7 round magazines (while the criminals, since they will ignore the law as they always do, will continue to carry full capacity magazines). The stated goal was to remove firearms from the streets, but in reality it will only affect the law abiding. As usual, the politicians ignore the fact that criminals, by the very definition of the word, will ignore this law as they do all laws meant to control their actions.
The only reason for any laws like this (or any laws for that matter) is to control the actions of the law abiding. The best way I have heard it said concerning laws is "Bad men won't heed them and good men don't need them". The goal seems to be to just slowly tighten the noose on our rights, a little at a time, until we have voluntarily given up everything. This we cannot allow to happen. We need to push back, hard and fast, until we get our country back. And don't think it is just the Democrats that work this way. Both major political parties in this country have similar goals, just using different tactics and timetables.
Since the last time I posted here there have been several tragedies in this country, most notable being the slaughter of 26 innocent souls in Newtown, CT. Predictably, the left has jumped on this tragedy to promote "gun control", knowing that it will be easier to get passed while emotions are high. Senator Feinstein (D, CA) is trying to push a new "assault weapons" ban, even more stringent than the one that thankfully expired in 2004. This time she has carefully crafted it in such a way, using subtle language, that it could conceivably used to ban ALL semi-automatic firearms. The relevant passage is from page 13 and reads
3 ‘‘(46) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb
4 hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function
5 as a grip."
Since every firearm needs a way to hold (or grip) it, this simple looking phrase can, and likely will, be read to mean any semi-auto firearm. Since she is on record as wanting to ban all privately held firearms (60 Minutes Feb 5, 1995) this is not likely to be an accidental phrasing of her desires.
New York state was the first to actually pass new legislation after the tragedy, passing the misnamed SAFE act without even following state law requiring 3 days for reading and debate. They were so intent on passing something that they even forgot to carve out an exemption for law enforcement, meaning that even the police are now limited to 7 round magazines (while the criminals, since they will ignore the law as they always do, will continue to carry full capacity magazines). The stated goal was to remove firearms from the streets, but in reality it will only affect the law abiding. As usual, the politicians ignore the fact that criminals, by the very definition of the word, will ignore this law as they do all laws meant to control their actions.
The only reason for any laws like this (or any laws for that matter) is to control the actions of the law abiding. The best way I have heard it said concerning laws is "Bad men won't heed them and good men don't need them". The goal seems to be to just slowly tighten the noose on our rights, a little at a time, until we have voluntarily given up everything. This we cannot allow to happen. We need to push back, hard and fast, until we get our country back. And don't think it is just the Democrats that work this way. Both major political parties in this country have similar goals, just using different tactics and timetables.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
I'm back
Still trying to figure out how more than half of those inclined to vote this year thought that another 4 years of the same exact policies would be a good idea, including the House, Senate and White House. Has anything positive been accomplished during the past 4 years, other than the elimination of Osama Bin Laden? Let's go down the list of problems and how they have changed.
Unemployment was 7.8% when Obama took office in January 2009. We were promised that if he was granted the stimulus package(s) he sought, that number would never exceed 8.0% and would by this time be down to 5.4%. From the date of his inauguration until October of this year we have had unemployment of over 8% (magically, it fell in the last report before the election). These numbers are only the U3 number, which doesn't include those who have given up or taken part-time when they need full time (that would be U6 data) and are lower than they would be if it was still measured as it was during the Great Depression. Using that method we would be over 20% unemployment. The only employment segment that has done better than this has been government employees, meaning the payroll that we all contribute to has grown while those contributing to that payroll have diminished in number. More layoffs are being announced every week, some due to business closings, some due to the impending "fiscal cliff" which will impact the defense industry hardest, some due to unions thinking the companies are bluffing (Hostess comes to mind, 18,000 jobs lost rather than take pay cuts).
Personal net worth has declined by almost 40% during this period while personal income has dropped by about $5,000. This means that each person is doing worse than they were 4 years ago by any legitimate financial measure. Of course there are exceptions to this, including our dear leader. Somehow, he has managed to increase his net worth from about $1.4M in 2008 to about $11M this year. He couldn't possibly be benefiting from some of his policies could he, like investing in green energy companies on the verge of failure?
Healthcare, as some predicted, is starting to suffer. Doctors are refusing new patients, both standard and medicare, and some are retiring early to avoid the additional regulations that are being imposed. Medical equipment manufacturers are starting to announce layoffs because of increased costs from taxes and regulations in Obamacare. Related to both this category and employment, many companies are starting to cut hours for employees to less than 30 to avoid the expense of healthcare and the fines for not providing it.
Taxes are on the way up for everyone, contrary to what was promised. Even if they implemented a 100% tax on the wealthiest 5% there would not be enough revenue to put even a small dent in the deficit. The left still hasn't figured out that raising taxes will reduce revenue. The reverse is also true, and this has been proven by both JFK and Reagan. I'm not sure what the magic number is that gives people the ability to keep most of their paycheck and still allows the government to perform the tasks required of it, but it isn't higher than the current rate and is likely much lower. Personally, I don't think the government should ask for more than our Heavenly Father asks of us, 10%, and should adapt to that level of revenue.
Government regulations are increasing in every sector that I can think of. This is having negative effects on such important things as energy and education. Remember when Obama said that energy costs "would necessarily skyrocket" if he was able to implement his policies? He got his wish. He is trying to make it impossible to generate electricity using coal, which will deprive this country of about 44% of the power we use, so people will be forced to support green technologies (wind, solar, tidal) none of which are ready for prime time and all of which require backup systems (and which come with their own environmental problems, another post will cover these).
Foreign relations are doing so well, don't you think? The first US ambassador in 30 years was killed while the military was repeatedly told to stand down. The "Arab spring" is bearing fruit that no one (other than Al' Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood) wanted. Egypt now has a dictator who has declared himself above the courts and laws, and who wants to implement Shari'a law instead of secular law. Our only ally in the middle east is under constant rocket attack and the media in this country (who reside firmly in Obamas back pocket) complain when they defend themselves. And we keep sending billions, which we can't afford, to countries that don't like us much in exchange for ... what exactly?
I think the underlying theme here is the law of unintended consequences, the things you don't expect to happen because of your decisions. Running a country requires a bit more foresight than has been shown by this administration, planning for outcomes other than those desired or hoped for. It also requires learning from history, because the truth, no matter how trite it sounds, is that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Financially this country is headed for something like the Weimar Republic, socially and legally we will resemble the former Soviet Union.
We now have about 2 years to try to get the Senate back from the left and 4 years to find a candidate who will actually lead this country, rather than use the office as a personal entertainment/vacation agancy. Let's get on it and do it right this time (assuming the country survives that long).
Unemployment was 7.8% when Obama took office in January 2009. We were promised that if he was granted the stimulus package(s) he sought, that number would never exceed 8.0% and would by this time be down to 5.4%. From the date of his inauguration until October of this year we have had unemployment of over 8% (magically, it fell in the last report before the election). These numbers are only the U3 number, which doesn't include those who have given up or taken part-time when they need full time (that would be U6 data) and are lower than they would be if it was still measured as it was during the Great Depression. Using that method we would be over 20% unemployment. The only employment segment that has done better than this has been government employees, meaning the payroll that we all contribute to has grown while those contributing to that payroll have diminished in number. More layoffs are being announced every week, some due to business closings, some due to the impending "fiscal cliff" which will impact the defense industry hardest, some due to unions thinking the companies are bluffing (Hostess comes to mind, 18,000 jobs lost rather than take pay cuts).
Personal net worth has declined by almost 40% during this period while personal income has dropped by about $5,000. This means that each person is doing worse than they were 4 years ago by any legitimate financial measure. Of course there are exceptions to this, including our dear leader. Somehow, he has managed to increase his net worth from about $1.4M in 2008 to about $11M this year. He couldn't possibly be benefiting from some of his policies could he, like investing in green energy companies on the verge of failure?
Healthcare, as some predicted, is starting to suffer. Doctors are refusing new patients, both standard and medicare, and some are retiring early to avoid the additional regulations that are being imposed. Medical equipment manufacturers are starting to announce layoffs because of increased costs from taxes and regulations in Obamacare. Related to both this category and employment, many companies are starting to cut hours for employees to less than 30 to avoid the expense of healthcare and the fines for not providing it.
Taxes are on the way up for everyone, contrary to what was promised. Even if they implemented a 100% tax on the wealthiest 5% there would not be enough revenue to put even a small dent in the deficit. The left still hasn't figured out that raising taxes will reduce revenue. The reverse is also true, and this has been proven by both JFK and Reagan. I'm not sure what the magic number is that gives people the ability to keep most of their paycheck and still allows the government to perform the tasks required of it, but it isn't higher than the current rate and is likely much lower. Personally, I don't think the government should ask for more than our Heavenly Father asks of us, 10%, and should adapt to that level of revenue.
Government regulations are increasing in every sector that I can think of. This is having negative effects on such important things as energy and education. Remember when Obama said that energy costs "would necessarily skyrocket" if he was able to implement his policies? He got his wish. He is trying to make it impossible to generate electricity using coal, which will deprive this country of about 44% of the power we use, so people will be forced to support green technologies (wind, solar, tidal) none of which are ready for prime time and all of which require backup systems (and which come with their own environmental problems, another post will cover these).
Foreign relations are doing so well, don't you think? The first US ambassador in 30 years was killed while the military was repeatedly told to stand down. The "Arab spring" is bearing fruit that no one (other than Al' Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood) wanted. Egypt now has a dictator who has declared himself above the courts and laws, and who wants to implement Shari'a law instead of secular law. Our only ally in the middle east is under constant rocket attack and the media in this country (who reside firmly in Obamas back pocket) complain when they defend themselves. And we keep sending billions, which we can't afford, to countries that don't like us much in exchange for ... what exactly?
I think the underlying theme here is the law of unintended consequences, the things you don't expect to happen because of your decisions. Running a country requires a bit more foresight than has been shown by this administration, planning for outcomes other than those desired or hoped for. It also requires learning from history, because the truth, no matter how trite it sounds, is that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Financially this country is headed for something like the Weimar Republic, socially and legally we will resemble the former Soviet Union.
We now have about 2 years to try to get the Senate back from the left and 4 years to find a candidate who will actually lead this country, rather than use the office as a personal entertainment/vacation agancy. Let's get on it and do it right this time (assuming the country survives that long).
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Now I'm officially afraid of the government...
Not really, but with the latest Executive Order from the White House we all have more reason to start worrying. The latest incarnation of The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO makes some minor changes, mostly in responsibilities assigned to each cabinet position, and one, very worrying one. Previous versions of this order, going back to 1939, give the President the authority to take over some or all of our industrial capacity in order to allow for control of production during war time. Not exactly in accordance with the Constitution as written or intended by the men that wrote it, but I don't find Executive orders in that document either. This particular series of orders is (almost) understandable, during an emergency. The problem with the newest version is twofold. First, we have been in an official state of emergency since September 14, 2001. And second, the new version allows for the control to be taken during peacetime.
That's right, by executive fiat, the government can take over any business or private property, even if there is no war or other emergency. There is even a section that allows the head of the mentioned agencies to " to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations". Being forced to work for the government without compensation looks like it may violate the 13th amendment, you know, the one that outlawed slavery.
I don't know if the current administration has any intention of using this order, but given the general contempt shown for the Constitution, and the people of this nation in general, I wouldn't be surprised if they do. I am afraid that if they do try to implement this it will mean the start of the second American Revolution. I do not want this to happen, I sincerely hope it doesn't, but I also know which side of the battle I would be on.
This is, unfortunately, exactly the situation the Second amendment was written for, as a reset switch for a government gone bad. A reset switch the founders hoped we wouldn't ever need but put in place as a precaution. We, as law abiding citizens will not be the ones to start any battle, but I would hope there are enough patriots left to restart this country the way it was intended to be. Think on this, long and hard, and decide where your loyalties lie.
Not really, but with the latest Executive Order from the White House we all have more reason to start worrying. The latest incarnation of The National Defense Resources Preparedness EO makes some minor changes, mostly in responsibilities assigned to each cabinet position, and one, very worrying one. Previous versions of this order, going back to 1939, give the President the authority to take over some or all of our industrial capacity in order to allow for control of production during war time. Not exactly in accordance with the Constitution as written or intended by the men that wrote it, but I don't find Executive orders in that document either. This particular series of orders is (almost) understandable, during an emergency. The problem with the newest version is twofold. First, we have been in an official state of emergency since September 14, 2001. And second, the new version allows for the control to be taken during peacetime.
That's right, by executive fiat, the government can take over any business or private property, even if there is no war or other emergency. There is even a section that allows the head of the mentioned agencies to " to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations". Being forced to work for the government without compensation looks like it may violate the 13th amendment, you know, the one that outlawed slavery.
I don't know if the current administration has any intention of using this order, but given the general contempt shown for the Constitution, and the people of this nation in general, I wouldn't be surprised if they do. I am afraid that if they do try to implement this it will mean the start of the second American Revolution. I do not want this to happen, I sincerely hope it doesn't, but I also know which side of the battle I would be on.
This is, unfortunately, exactly the situation the Second amendment was written for, as a reset switch for a government gone bad. A reset switch the founders hoped we wouldn't ever need but put in place as a precaution. We, as law abiding citizens will not be the ones to start any battle, but I would hope there are enough patriots left to restart this country the way it was intended to be. Think on this, long and hard, and decide where your loyalties lie.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Is gun control even feasible?
Gun control advocates would have us think that by outlawing firearms we will be safer as citizens. there are several problems with this line of thinking, not the least of which is human nature itself. There will always be those who would prefer to take from others that which they have not earned. There will also always be those who are psychopathic or otherwise unfit to interact with society. These people cannot be eliminated by legislating that law-abiding people be unable to defend against the predators. All that will do is give the predators easier prey to harm.
Has there ever been a successful implementation of gun control? By this, I mean a situation where the citizens benefited by being disarmed rather than the government benefiting by having a disarmed population. Every time it has been tried the government involved has eventually killed some segment of its population. What follows is a list of government sponsored genocides from the twentieth century (courtesy of JPFO.org):
Turkey 1915-1917 1.5 million (mostly Armenians)
Soviet Union 1929-1945 20 million (farmers, political opponents)
Nazi Germany 1933-1945 20 million (Jews, Gypsies, political opponents)
Nationalist China 1929-1949 10 million (political opponents, military conscripts)
Communist China 1949-1976 20-35 million (political opponents, rural, enemies of the state)
Guatemala 1960-1981 1-200,000 (Mayans, Indians, political enemies)
Uganda 1971-1979 300,000 (Christians, political enemies)
Cambodia 1974-1979 2 million (Educated people, political enemies)
Rwanda 1994 800,000 (Tutsi)
The similarity between all of these is that some form of gun control was implemented before the murders took place. The gun control ranged from permits to own (Illinois, Massachusetts) to registration (California, New York) to outright bans (Washington DC, since overturned). In every case the government started with small, so-called reasonable, laws and progressed to bans and them to punishing those who defied them. In every case in this country where there is strict gun control, there is also elevated violent crime rates when compared to areas with more liberal laws.
Now, I can't be certain that the cause of the higher crime rates is the disarmed population, but I do know that, in the animal kingdom, predators will avoid prey that can fight back, when at all possible. As most humans are smarter than most animals, I would assume the same holds true for them, the predators (criminals) will avoid the prey that can fight back (armed citizens). What holds the higher predators, those corrupted by power, at bay in society is the realization that, if pushed too far the citizens can (and will) fight back. By disarming the citizens those in power make it easier for for them to remain in power. Gun control is not at all about guns or making people safer nut entirely about controlling the masses to enable the ruling class (which we shouldn't have) to keep ruling.
Think about it. Keep this in mind when you vote this fall. Also, remember that most of those in Washington think that the Constitution is an outdated document which should be ignored when convenient. Those need to be fired by the people they work for, namely US.
Gun control advocates would have us think that by outlawing firearms we will be safer as citizens. there are several problems with this line of thinking, not the least of which is human nature itself. There will always be those who would prefer to take from others that which they have not earned. There will also always be those who are psychopathic or otherwise unfit to interact with society. These people cannot be eliminated by legislating that law-abiding people be unable to defend against the predators. All that will do is give the predators easier prey to harm.
Has there ever been a successful implementation of gun control? By this, I mean a situation where the citizens benefited by being disarmed rather than the government benefiting by having a disarmed population. Every time it has been tried the government involved has eventually killed some segment of its population. What follows is a list of government sponsored genocides from the twentieth century (courtesy of JPFO.org):
Turkey 1915-1917 1.5 million (mostly Armenians)
Soviet Union 1929-1945 20 million (farmers, political opponents)
Nazi Germany 1933-1945 20 million (Jews, Gypsies, political opponents)
Nationalist China 1929-1949 10 million (political opponents, military conscripts)
Communist China 1949-1976 20-35 million (political opponents, rural, enemies of the state)
Guatemala 1960-1981 1-200,000 (Mayans, Indians, political enemies)
Uganda 1971-1979 300,000 (Christians, political enemies)
Cambodia 1974-1979 2 million (Educated people, political enemies)
Rwanda 1994 800,000 (Tutsi)
The similarity between all of these is that some form of gun control was implemented before the murders took place. The gun control ranged from permits to own (Illinois, Massachusetts) to registration (California, New York) to outright bans (Washington DC, since overturned). In every case the government started with small, so-called reasonable, laws and progressed to bans and them to punishing those who defied them. In every case in this country where there is strict gun control, there is also elevated violent crime rates when compared to areas with more liberal laws.
Now, I can't be certain that the cause of the higher crime rates is the disarmed population, but I do know that, in the animal kingdom, predators will avoid prey that can fight back, when at all possible. As most humans are smarter than most animals, I would assume the same holds true for them, the predators (criminals) will avoid the prey that can fight back (armed citizens). What holds the higher predators, those corrupted by power, at bay in society is the realization that, if pushed too far the citizens can (and will) fight back. By disarming the citizens those in power make it easier for for them to remain in power. Gun control is not at all about guns or making people safer nut entirely about controlling the masses to enable the ruling class (which we shouldn't have) to keep ruling.
Think about it. Keep this in mind when you vote this fall. Also, remember that most of those in Washington think that the Constitution is an outdated document which should be ignored when convenient. Those need to be fired by the people they work for, namely US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)