Thursday, November 21, 2013

Who needs who, redux...

Boeing corporation is in the midst of a labor negotiation with the unions, and they seem to have reached an impasse. 

Never fear, a solution is at hand!!

Newly elected Seattle councilman Kashma Sawant has exhorted the workers to seize the means of production.

Sawant is calling for machinists to literally take-possession of the Everett airplane-building factory, if Boeing moves out. She calls that "democratic ownership."

“The only response we can have if Boeing executives do not agree to keep the plant here is for the machinists to say the machines are here, the workers are here, we will do the job, we don't need the executives. The executives don’t do the work, the machinists do,” she said.
Sawant says after workers “take-over” the Everett Boeing plant; they could build things everyone can use.

“We can re-tool the machines to produce mass transit like buses, instead of destructive, you know, war machines,” she told KIRO 7.

Oh, really?
The workers don't need the executives?

They will sell products designed by whom?  With raw materials delivered on time by whom?  The contracts will be written and executed by whom?

Look, I am not a fan of lawyers, purchasing agents and Human Resources, but you will need them to do business in the modern world. 

The workers a Caterpillar learned the hard way during the 1990's who really needs whom.  They went out on strike and the managers came in an ran the plants themselves.  The results?  Costs went down, quality went up. and Caterpillar posted record profits.  It was huge disaster for the unions and it was very clear that the executives need the worker far less than the workers need the executives.

I don't expect the socialist politicians to understand the real world.. After all, they don't have to live in it. 

But factory workers need to get a clue. 

Running a business is not easy and the workers are far better off under Capitalism than any other economic system.

Monday, September 9, 2013

If One Million Muslims protest with 2 Million Bikers revving, does it make any noise?

The planned Million Muslim March on 9/11 has caused some controversy.   People are annoyed that the Muslims would march on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.    I am not sure, however, that there is much to get annoyed about.  The Facebook page for the event has only 57 likes – or one for each state, as one wag put it.

So the Million Muslim march will likely be a complete bust, with a few hundred or few thousand attendees, at most.

The real event on 9/11 will be the counter-march.

The 2 Million Biker march.

And this is not the spandex and 10-speed biker crowd.  This is the Harley, leather and American Flag biker crowd.  These are the people that ride to military funerals to block out the sight and sound of the Westboro Baptist church nut bags.  These are patriotic Americans with a willingness to put their bike where the mouth is.   Or something like that.

The Muslims have been granted a permit to hold their event, but the Bikers have been denied a permit to ride through without stopping.
 Undaunted, the Bikers are going to ride anyway. They will simply have to obey traffic signals, etc.
This should be an interesting event.  I am guessing the Muslims will be outnumbered 100-1.  The Bikers will ride slowly and peacefully around the city, snarling traffic and deafening bystanders for the entire day.

It will be fascinating to observe how the media reacts to this.   Other than completely ignoring the bikers, it will force them into verbal gymnastics to spin the days events.   The few hundred Muslims will be completely overshadowed by the sight and sound of hundreds of thousands of Harley's cruising through the city.
I look forward to complaints from the Muslims that riding a Harley is racist. 


Thursday, September 5, 2013

New York, meet Detroit...

Republican Mayors have run New York for the past 20 years. (Ok, Bloomberg is pretty liberal, but he is still less Lefty than the Democrats in that state).

Things have been pretty good in New York during that time.  Crime is down. Incomes are up.  The city is one of the shining examples of western civilization.

It looks like that run is about to come to an end.  The odds on favorite to win the mayoral election this fall is Bill de Blasio, a hard core socialist and wealth redistributor.  As noted in this article in TPM:

de Blasio for Commisar!
"But de Blasio’s campaign is framed around the problem of inequality and he’s been pretty specific about what he’d do. The centerpiece is a sizable hike in the taxes of upper income New Yorkers to pay for universal pre-k and after school programs throughout the city. The rest center around policies and laws to prop up the low-end wage structure."

The TPM article laments the fact that despite many candidates talking about income redistribution, no one has really done anything about it.  It goes on to say

"How much you can really move the needle on these questions in a single city with two other states nearby is a very open question. But New York, given its size and the relative immobility of some of its major industries, is perhaps the only city where you could take a stab at it. So it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. "
In other words, he is planning to soak the rich, and he is hoping that they will not move away and foil that plan. 

Good luck with that.  

Detroit found out the hard way that when you soak the rich and subsidize non working class, you destroy the entire city.

The assertion that New York's industries are immobile and therefore can be heavily taxed with little risk that they will move on to greener pastures is absurd.

Detroit had the quintessential immovable industry -- large smoke stack factories with a huge embedded supply chain of smaller factories.    And yet virtually the entire industry has moved away from Detroit.

New York does not make cars.  It sell financial instruments.   This is a completely mobile industry  -- all you need is an Internet connection.

If you start taxing New York millionaires, don't be to surprised when they become Hilton Head millionaires.

If de Blasio and his fellow travelers get their wish, they will destroy New York City.

R.I.P. Parody

The Obama Administration, and Democrats as a party, are officially beyond parody.

There is no joke you can make, or mocking barb you can toss, that is not immediately bought to life by some Democrat.

When Obama started to wobble on Syria, the wags and the bloggers pointed out that he surely was about to blame Bush for the current mess in the Middle East.

The ink was still wet on that particular lampoon when James Carville (D - Middle Earth), decided to make that argument.

Here is the exchange with Bill O'Reilly:

O’REILLY: Libya a mess. Iran is defiant.
CARVILLE: Come on, look. When is all of this — when was it not? I mean, Gaddafi is gone. It is a mess, I agree with that. But, you know what, it’s a mess and we haven’t lost any kids over there which says something and –
O’REILLY: I’m not sure that’s a litmus test, it doesn’t seem to be any clear vision on the part of President Obama. He doesn’t have — ‘here is what I want.’ He doesn’t have that.
CARVILLE: You know, what I would say and maybe a little bit of a different view here. I think what really is freaking people out is the incompetence of the Bush administration in Iraq.
O’REILLY: You’re going to blame Bush?
CARVILLE: Of course, the Iraq thing is why people have so much trepidation about going into Syria. They said the last time we went over there, look what happened. I really think this has something to do with it.

So there we have it people. 

It is all Bush's fault.

And Parody is dead.

Monday, August 19, 2013

What is Venezuelan for 'Atlas Shrugged'?

The Wall Street Journal today discussed the current state of Venezuelan economics and the picture ain't pretty.

Hugo Chavez was a champion for the poor and a foe of the dreaded oligarchs and capitalists.  So he did what all agrarian reformers and socialist parasites do.  He helped the poor by destroying the rich.  He nationalized the oil company, the factories, the large farms.  He imposed price controls and heavy regulations.

In short, he imposed socialism on the wealthiest nation in South America during his 14 year tenure.

A few short years later, the results are becoming apparent:

  • Venezuela went from a net exporter of rice, beef, and coffee to a net importer of these staples.
  • Imports have quadrupled to $60B per year since Chavez took power.
  • 30% of the non-poor have fallen back into poverty
  • The budget deficit is running at 12% of GDP and inflation is at 42%
  • Bauxite production has fallen 70% since they adopted a model that shuns profit making and focuses on cooperatives
  • Rice production on some farms has fallen 30% for lack of spare parts, fertilizers and herbicides
  • The entire country ran out of toilet paper and police were raiding the homes of people suspected of hoarding extra rolls of Charmin.

All of this is, of course, entirely predictable. This is textbook socialist dysfunction right out of Atlas Shrugged.

Every socialist economy has failed, and Venezuelans are about to pay the price for Chavez's communist ideals.

After the 2010 nationalization of the countries primary supplier of farm supplies, it is now routinely late in delivering the basics like fertilizer and herbicide.  The farmers cannot get spare parts for tractors, and the price controls on rice make buying new equipment impossible.  So the farms fall in to disarray and production falls. 

The socialist rot spreads across the entire economy. In a capitalist economy an alternate supplier would step into the breach and fill the need, resulting in farmers getting what they need. 

The entire economy is propped up on oil production.  If that falls further than it already has or if prices fall, god help the Venezuelan people.  30% of the people who were middle class have now fallen back into poverty.

I guess Chavez loved the poor so much he decided to make millions more of them.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

This is NOT helping

I asserted last week the that Trayvon Martin trial was going to be a disaster for this country.

I predicted that there would be retaliatory violence attempting to avenge Trayvon if Zimmerman is found to be not guilty of Murder.

This week the loony Left has been out in force on Twitter making death threats against Zimmerman and making general threats against 'white people'.

There are riots.

There are beatings and murders "for Trayvon".

The Department of Justice is taking a break from organizing anti-Zimmerman protests to gin up civil rights violation charges.

The prosecutor in the case, having failed utterly to prove her case in court, is now out on the talk show circuit calling Zimmerman a murderer.

Talk show hosts are calling Zimmerman a racist, and proclaiming a 'return to Jim Crow'.

Liberal magazines are calling the neighborhood watch "Slave Patrol", claiming that keeping an eye on your homes is the equivalent of tracking down runaway slaves.

Now that the word is out that Zimmerman is only half white (making him as white as, say, Barack Obama) they have resorted to claiming he is a 'white Hispanic' and that he has 'opted out' of being a minority and embraced white privilege.

The Left is bashing the entire country (as usual) as a fever swamp of racial animus.  Jesse Jackson has even asked the UN to look into civil right issues around this issue. 

The Democrats are trying pass laws against Profiling (whatever the heck that is) and self defense.

Racial tension are once again on the rise, and the Obama Administration is doing it's level best to fan the flames.   Eric Holder is out there telling audiences that he worries for the safety of his own children in the face of racist cops.
"It is Racist to criticize me for fomenting racism!" Eric Holder*

This is a huge disaster for race relations in this country. 

This entire incident has been manufactured by the Democrats and the Race Baiting industry -- not one of their assertions is backed up the facts -- and so, the blame for the fallout can be laid squarely at their feet.

Sadly, the real and lasting damage is to Black people themselves.

As Obama undoes all the economic and racial progress that has been made over the past 30 years, this trial and the faux-hysteria that follow will only serve to reinforce the perception that blacks are being held down by The Man.
"the whole damn system is corrupt..."

This attitude (whether accurate or not) is self defeating and helps keep the black community mired in poverty and violence. 

When the deck is stacked against you, why bother to even try?
When The Man is racist, why cooperate with the cops to put criminals in jail?
When the entire system is rigged against you, why get an education and 'sell out' to the whites?

All of this is self defeating, of course, and the only beneficiaries of a permanent black underclass are the parasites that feed off of their votes.  

I am talking to you, Democrats.

I am taking to you, Barack Obama.

* Not an actual quote

The Veto as Political Farce

Governor Quinn recently vetoed the legislation that would have permitted Illinoisans to carry concealed weapons.  The legislature, as promised, promptly over-rode his veto.  Concealed Carry is now (or soon to be) the law in Illinois.

 So why did Quinn veto a bill that passed with overwhelming support?

His reasoning was specious and overtly political.
The entire spectacle came about when the courts ruled last year that the then-current complete ban on concealed carry was a violation of the Constitution, and that citizen’s must be permitted to keep and bear arms.   Illinois is the only state in the entire country that does not permit some form of concealed carry.

Quinn’s veto was expected, but his comments asking for amendment were not. 
He makes a number of unsupported assertions liked to flawed logic and emotional appeal.  For example:

"The bill provides no cap on the number of guns or on the size or number of ammunition clips that may be carried. Instead, it allows individuals to legally carry multiple guns with unlimited rounds of ammunition, which is a public safety hazard,” Quinn wrote in a message to lawmakers.

The obvious question here is… based on what facts?   There is no evidence or study or statistics that link the number of guns or bullets that law abiding citizens can carry to crime.  This statement is false.  In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that when the number of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens increases, the crime rates decrease.
It also betrays Quinn's ignorance about guns.  Multiple guns?  It is hard enough to conceal one gun effectively, never mind multiple guns.  Apparently he watches too many movies and thinks people are wont to carry an arsenal around with them.  If his objection is that people who intend to do harm can now carry multiple guns, what makes him think that a law will stop them from doing exactly that?
“Recent shootings, such as the horrific tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where a gunman fired 154 bullets in less than five minutes, have put a spotlight on the extreme and unnecessary danger posed by high-capacity ammunition magazines,” Quinn wrote.

This is emotionally appealing until you remember that the Newtown shooter did not carry concealed.   Nor did he use a handgun.  Nor was he issued a concealed carry permit or a gun permit of any kind.   The Newtown shooting has exactly zero connection to the concealed carry debate unless you consider that all of the adult victims were not allowed to defend themselves in the ‘gun-free” school zone.
The best argument FOR concealed carry is that a lone madman was able to gun down nearly 30 people in a gun free zone with impunity.   Like every other mass shooting, the Newtown massacre ended when someone else showed up with a gun.  Too bad every adult in the building was, by law, unable to defend themselves and the children.

Under the bill, loaded guns would be allowed in stores, restaurants, churches, children's entertainment venues, movie theaters and other private properties, unless the owner visibly displays a sign prohibiting guns. As a matter of property rights, the legal presumption should always be that a person is not allowed to carry a concealed, loaded gun onto private property unless given express permission.

"Gun Owners can Suck It!"*
 Quinn has an interesting new-found concerns for the rights of private property owners.   Of course, what he is referring to is not truly private property.  He is referring to public spaces on private property.  Places where the government has usurped the property owner’s rights in a multitude of ways.  (Just try to limit the people that can enter your store based on skin color or religion.)  
All of these objections are designed to give him political cover with his base, and to continue the narrative that guns are bad.  Democrats are openly hostile to the concept of liberty and independence and are therefore implacable foes of self defense firearms.  
* Not an actual quote

Check Yourself

If you are outraged over the verdict in the Zimmerman Trial you need to check your facts, check your premises, and check your priorities.

Zimmerman was acquitted because ALL of the facts, circumstances and evidence back up his story. In fact, some of the most damaging testimony came in answer to questions the prosecutor asked. 
As David Burge points out, this is all political theater.
Gems like:

Prosecutor: So what other (than shooting Martin) options did George Zimmerman have?
Witness: None.

Even the prosecution stated that everything Zimmerman did was legal. Watch the closing arguments from both sides -- the prosecution had no case whatsoever and resorted to simply making things up.

Since Trayvon Martin died hundreds, no, thousands of black teens have died by gunshot, with the vast majority of that being black-on-black crime. A black teen was shot this weekend in Chicago because he refused to join a gang. If you want to be outraged, get some perspective and get mad about the rivers of blood running through the streets of cities like Chicago.

It would be nice if we could channel all this emotion into something that would help reduce the ongoing tragedy that is life in our inner cities instead of whipping up hysteria and faux-racism charges.

 Go to for a summary of the actual facts and testimony. 

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Zimmerman Gets Railroaded

Justice?  Or Race relations disaster?
George Zimmerman is getting screwed.   And our country is getting set up for a fall that will damage race relations for years to come.

The facts are pretty straight forward.  Trayvon was wandering around in the rain, smoking dope, and generally looking like he did not belong in the neighborhood.   George Martin noticed this and called the police.   Before the police could arrive, an altercation began that ended when Zimmerman shot Martin at point blank range.

Zimmerman was not charged with a crime in the immediate aftermath of the incident, and all the facts and evidence seemed to support Zimmerman’s story.  He was in fear for his life because Trayvon Martin was on top of him and pounding his head into the concrete.   There is absolutely zero evidence that Zimmerman has told anything but the whole truth.

It was only months later after a firestorm of controversy was manufactured by the professional race-baiters that charges were brought against Zimmerman.

It has been pretty clear from the beginning that George Zimmerman was being set up as a fall guy by media.  A few examples:

·         The entire incident happened months before the controversy came to light.  The outrage and indignation were not spontaneous.  It was a manufactured crisis that was dredged up by the race baiting industry, not a real grass roots reaction to the incident that was treated as though it was breaking news.

·         The charges against Zimmerman are clearly politically motivated, and not a result of police work.  No new evidence has been introduced.  There has been no change to Zimmerman’s story.  The government has simply decided to charge him with a crime based on the nasty things being said about him on the news.

Bing Search Results still using the 13year old picture
·       The Media is making Zimmerman into a villain. MSNBC deliberately edited the transcript of his call to 911 to make him sound like he was profiling based on race.  Zimmerman gave a description of Martin that did not include any reference to skin color.  The 911 operator asked about skin color.  Martin then replied “He’s black”.  MSNBC cut out the 911 operator part, making it look like Zimmerman was volunteering the skin color.  The most commonly used picture of Zimmerman was in a prison jumpsuit, reinforcing the image that he is evil.  The picture that has been painted of Zimmerman is very unfair.

·         Trayvon Martin was portrayed an innocent young teen who went out to buy skittles.   The pictures that the media used were of Martin at age 13.  In reality, he was a full grown 17 year old standing at 6'2".   There are a number of menacing ‘gangster’ photos that are much more recent than the 4 year  old “St. Skittles” picture.  The only pictures that the general public ever saw, however, made Martin look like a sweet little boy.  There is no discussion of the huge gaps in the timeline between when Martin left the house until he was spotted lurking about in the rain. Taking a long walk in the rain is not normal behavior.

·         By all accounts, Trayvon Martin was a troubled youth, with drug use, guns, and school suspensions on his record.  His phone and Facebook profile have many 'gangsta' photos including someone brandishing a gun.  None of this is being widely reported, and some of it, like the pictures on his cell phone, are being actively suppressed.   Martin is being portrayed as a saint but the truth is more menacing.

·         Photographic evidence that supported Zimmerman’s story  (blood running down the back of his head, etc.) was ignored, while great emphasis was given to pundits speculating that he was some sort of racist vigilante.  They even lied about Zimmerman’s race, referring to him as white when he is actually Hispanic. The media has grossly distorted the facts through unbalanced and fraudulent reporting.

·         President Obama gratuitously volunteered that “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon”.  It is an interesting use of the bully pulpit that can only inflame this situation by making it about skin color.  This is grossly irresponsible and will results in bloodshed when Zimmerman is acquitted.

The pattern is clear.  Zimmerman is being set up as the racist murderer, and Trayvon Martin is portrayed as St. Skittles, an innocent youth gunned down for no reason.
This narrative is not supported by the facts.   Martin may or may not have been up to no good, and Zimmerman may or may not have confronted him.  This does not give Martin the right to attack Zimmerman and pound his head on concrete.   The attack alone justified the defensive use of a firearm.

Zimmerman was within his rights and within the law that night, and the police were correct in not charging him with a crime at that time.

To make matters worse, the prosecutor in the case has wildly over-charged Zimmerman.   A jury may conclude that Zimmerman aggravated the situation and therefore is guilty of Manslaughter.  .  But the DA has charged Zimmerman with Murder 2 – murder with a depraved mind.  This is the most difficult murder charge to prove, and has made it even more likely that Zimmerman will be acquitted. 

Now we have a trial going on that will have a disastrous outcome no matter what the verdict:

If George Zimmerman is found not guilty:

·         The minority community will be outraged and there will be the potential for rioting.

·         There will be ‘revenge’ attacks and murders on white people to avenge Trayvon.  (In case you doubt this, think again.  It has already happened in a number of cases)

·         Minorities will have the perception of injustice and racism reinforced.

St. Skittles in a more natural pose

If George Zimmerman is found guilty:

·         An innocent man will have his life destroyed (or more destroyed than it already is given that he has been in hiding or jail for the past year)

·         It will have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to get involved in Neighborhood Watch or otherwise try to reduce crime and violence.  You would have to be crazy to call the police on suspicious characters if the downside is that you end up in prison. The Kitty Genovese factor will get worse when you run the risk of public humiliation and prison.  

·         The Rule of Law will have been further eroded.  Zimmerman is clearly being prosecuted for political reasons, not because he violated the law.

Either way the race baiting industry has created a win-win situation for themselves.   If Zimmerman goes to jail, it is a victory for them and will embolden their efforts to make minorities a special untouchable class of citizen.  If he is found not guilty, Martin becomes a martyr for race, and a grievance that the race hustlers will use to invoke the idea that America is a hopelessly racist country.

It is a lose-lose for the American people and the concept of equal justice and the rule of law.  Our feckless President has managed to turn a tragedy into a racially charged flash point that will damaged race relations for years. 


Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Moral Depravity Redux: Bloomberg's Movement Hits Rock Bottom

The Left is depraved. 

Morally bankrupt, intellectually stunted, and incapable of reason.

Here is the latest example.

At a recent anti-gun rally, one of the speakers was listing off the names of some of the victims of gun violence.

They listed the Boston Bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

As a victim.... 

Of gun violence....!

I will state it clearly for those of you who might have missed this part.  Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a terrorist that murdered a police officer, shooting him in the face at point blank range.  He then charged at the police with guns blazing and was shot down in the street like a mad dog.   All reports indicate that he was still alive after being shot, only passing into Hell after his brother ran him over in an attempt to escape.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is not a victim.  And he is certainly not the victim of gun violence.  He is a perpetrator and a terrorist.

This is not some fringe-whacko gun control group that is vomiting this stupidity, either.  This occurred at an event that was sponsored by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns movement, founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, reading the names of those “killed with guns” since the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary outside their “No More Names” bus.

The inability of the Loony Left to make a distinction between the murderer and the victims  is one of the many signs that Progressivism and Socialism are mental disorders.

15 Columbine crosses for 13 victims and 2 killers
This is not the first time that anti-gun zealots have advance the shooter-as-a-victim ideology.  After the Columbine shootings, several memorials were erected with 15 crosses or trees planted.  15 to represent the 13 victims plus the 2 shooters.

Sanity prevailed.  The father of one of the real victims angrily chopped down the 2 extra offending linden trees while the crowd looked on in silence.  And the entire row of 15 crosses was removed amid the hue and cry.   Better that that there be no memorial at all than to honor the killers as victims. 

This is the equivalent of posting the pictures of the SS guards at Auschwitz claiming that they, too were victims.

The Gun Control movement is deranged. They should not have a place at the table in civil discussion until they renounce their absurd idea that the killers are victims too.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Quelle Surprise!

Apparently, being a Liberal means being in a state of perpetual surprise.  Having a fact and logic free agenda also means that you have to be ignorant of history and unable to make the simplest predictive connections.

Take for example the recent violence here in Chicago.

We have the first warm weekend where gang bangers, drug dealers and assorted ne’er do wells can hang out on the street corners without getting chilly. 

We also have the strictest gun control regime in the nation, thus ensuring the general population is disarmed and defenseless.

Naturally, the confluence of events over the weekend turns Chicago into a free fire zone, with 7 murders and 31 shootings.

The Liberals gasp “Quelle Surprise! How can this happen??  Who could have known?!?!? Mon Dieu!”

This is only a surprise to the feckless, the daft and the ignorant.

Anyone with a 3rd graders grasp of facts and logic could have predicted that gun control only disarms the victims and creates more crime, and that warm weather brings increased trouble on the streets.
Gun Control backfires every time is it tried.
The fact that Liberals are perpetually surprised by the facts indicates that they are unable to function as adults and are not fit to hold public office.



Rise of the Caliphate

Muslims believe that the end of the world will come with the return of the 12th Imam and the rise of the Caliphate.  The Caliphate is understood to be a Islamic super-state that unites the Muslim world in a single political entity.

The rise of the Caliphate has seemed like a distant and far fetched dream over the past few decades.  The most recent attempt at a unifying political state fell apart with the collapse of the UAE, and the many Muslim states throughout the Middle East were constantly bickering and fighting.

It would take a great Muslim leader to create the conditions for the unification of Islamic Caliphate.  A leader that could destroy the status quo and provide a unifying theme for the Muslim world.

Islam has finally found such a great leader and a great cause, and the domino's are falling in a way that virtually guarantees the rise of the Caliphate.

That man is Barack Obama and the theme is Jihad

Let’s take a look at the accomplishments of Obama over the past few years:

Iran:   A popular uprising of students against the radical Islamic state threatens to overthrow the jihadist regime in Tehran.  Obama remains silent and offers no support to the protesters.  The Iranians violently suppress the protesters, and the radical government presses onward to build nuclear weapons.  Obama’s inaction protect a radical Islamic regime.

Tunisia:  The moderate government is struggling to control a burgeoning radical element that is orchestrating street protests.  Obama refuses to intervene, and the government falls to radical elements, setting up a pro-Jihad regime in North Africa.

Libya:  The Gaddafi's regime is no friend of the US, but it has been largely quiet since Reagan bombed them in the mid-80’s.   Radical Islamists, encouraged by events in Tunisia, take to the streets and start an open civil war.   When it looks like Gaddafi will successfully battle back the al-Queda led rabble, the US intervenes with air strikes and weapons.    Radical Islamists take over the country and it’s stockpile of anti-aircraft weapons.

Egypt:  The Mubarak regime is stable and largely pro-US.  (or as pro-US as Arab nations get).  The Muslim Brotherhood, a known radical Islamic political organization, incites a street revolution.  Unlike Iran, Obama announces our support for  the rebels.  The moderate Mubarak government falls, and the radical Jihadists take control of the largest and best equipped military in the Middle East.  And then we ship them hundreds of additional tanks and advanced aircraft.

Syria:  A vicious civil war is being fought between the despicable and oppressive Assad Regime and the Islamic Radicals.  The war has raged for months with no clear winner.  The outcome hangs in the balance, with no clear benefit to the US if either side wins.  So, naturally, Obama is poised to intervene in support of the Radical Jihadists that control the al Nusra Front. 

In every case Obama and his State Department have intervened (or not intervened) in a manner that has supported the radical Jihadists. 

Mere incompetence would suggest that at least some of the policy decision would favor US interests.

I personally don’t believe that the 12th Imam will usher in the Islamic Caliphate.  But Obama is certainly making an excellent case that he should be considered for the job.

What's a Fella Gotta Do??

What’s a fella gotta do around here???

I have blogged.  Tweeted.  Facebooked. Commented on other people’s blogs...

I have written Letters to the Editor, to my representatives, and even the White House.

And, nothing.

Not a single damn thing.

What does a fella have to do around here to get raided by the Secret Service?!?!?

I mean, really. 
Tom Francois posts a few lousy tweets, and he gets the Secret Service coming to visit to attempt to intimidate him and shut him up.  
Some people have all the luck!

I mean, what’s this country coming to when a guy like me I can’t get a little respect from the totalitarian Obama regime?
Where’s my fair share of raids and intimidation?

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Under Pressure

From a friend of mine....

I just heard on CNN that Dianne Feinstein has introduced a bill in the Senate that bans pressure cookers in the U.S. Nancy Pelosi has introduced a companion bill in the House that bans anything that looks like a pressure cooker as there are obvious, distinguishing features of pressure cookers that "everyone" knows can add to the lethality of these heinous devices. She called out heavy duty power cords as an example of one of these dastardly features. Both women stated in their respective press releases, "if we can save just one life by banning pressure cookers, it will be worth it". 

In a related event, Piers Morgan (CNN's Tonight Show) has a commercial airing on CNN about a one hour documentary coming up with the title, "Pressure Cookers - The Scourge of America". The narrative from the commercial mentions that pressure cookers are not used in the U.K. and, as a result, the rate of bombings are much less there than in the U.S. (of course, you have to factor out all of the IRA bombings from the late 90s, but that fact detracts from the obvious menace to society that pressure cookers represent - the means justify the end). 


MSNBC this morning had a supposed expert on, demonstrating how food could be prepared without pressure cookers by simply using a boiling pot of water over an open fire. He claimed that pressure cookers were not needed to prepare one's food. He said that his progressive group was also looking to ban crock pots. Even though they technically aren't pressure cookers, they have an eerie resemblance to pressure cookers and should be banned for good measure. The same expert claimed that he believed pressure cookers were actually invented by the TEA Party as a means to create unnecessary panic and terror amongst our fellow citizens. He said the actions of the TEA Party in this regard are shameless and represent the extremist views of this right wing hate group. He was quoted as saying, "I hate these extremist, ring-wing idiots. Why can't they be more tolerant and accepting of our common sense ideas? Idiots they are!"


President Obama is planning a news briefing in prime time tonight, asking for the American people to drop their unnecessary use of pressure cookers as there are so many other options for preparing food. In fact, the First Lady is planning an episode on the Food Network next week to show the country how to prepare food, stating in an article in Vanity Fair, "My heart-felt desire is to be the positive example and role model for all of those food preparers in the U.S. who are too naive to use other means of food preparation." The President's message went on to state, "Without a doubt, the Bush administration left us a huge mess with an enormous supply of pressure cookers and no controls for their distribution - it will take us months to clean up this problem we inherited. Mark my word, if we haven't reduced the supply of pressure cookers in half by the end of my second administration, I promise not to open my Presidential Library in downtown Chicago after my presidency." Rumors are that the President has already broken ground for the Presidential Library on Lake Shore Drive, but Rahm Emanuel (Chicago Mayor) is denying that any permits were issued or construction has started.
The text of the President's speech goes on to encourage all of us to take a common-sense and balanced approach to using any food preparation device that could be considered lethal. He also wants to set up a federal agency that performs background checks on potentially lethal cooking devices and apparatus before they are sold. These background checks would be followed up by the creation of a national database to document owners of these potentially deadly devices. Early releases of the news briefing text had this quote from the President, "Let me be clear, if congress doesn't do its job and pass a law banning pressure cookers, I will use my power as the President and issue an Executive Order requiring the removal of these devices from all retail outlets and the immediate termination of all domestic manufacturing and foreign imports of pressure cookers." The Chinese, who are major suppliers of pressure cookers to the U.S., have threatened to retaliate and ban all imports of organic food from U.S. producers. As a result, Secretary of State, John Kerry, is planning an immediate trip to China to negotiate a deal that surrenders complete control of the South China Sea to the Chinese if they purchase at least a few dozen organic eggs from the U.S., stating, "This is a great deal for America given the circumstances." The organic chicken wing of the environmentalist group, "Save the Planet from People", was planning to make a large campaign contribution to Secretary Kerry's 2016 presidential campaign.


Ridiculous isn't it. Just shows how intellectually bankrupt and clueless our politicians and the left are on the real dangers in the world. I am not making light of the victims of the Boston bombings. Their losses are a tragedy. But, they were not killed by pressure cookers - just evil, twisted people.

Monday, February 11, 2013

The Shot Heard 'Round the World

The gun control fanatics have a very explicit goal: ban all firearms and have everyone turn them in.

They don't say so out loud very often, but they have explicitly stated this goal a number of times.

I don't think that they have much of a chance of getting this passed as a law anytime soon.   Depsite incredibly biased new coverage and an intense propaganda campaign against guns, almost 70% of Americans oppose a ban on firearms.

But let's speculate on what would happen if public opinion turned against guns, the Constitution was amended or the Heller decision affirming the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was overturned, and the Congress passed a law banning guns. 

I would assume that we would have 90% compliance with such a mandate.  After all, we are assuming that guns are so unpopular that this ban was passed in the first place.

So what happens to the remaining 10% that won't turn in their now-illegal fireams voluntarily?

10% of the gun owning population in this country is still a pretty big number.  It is estimated that 70-80 million people own over 300 million guns in the United States.   90% compliance leaves 30 million guns in the hands of 7 or 8 million defiant gun owners.

Too low a compliance rate, you say?  Ok, 99% compliance still leaves 3 million firearms in the hands of three quarters of a million gun nuts. 

How will the government forcibly disarm nearly a million people? 

A million pitched battles on ranches, in the suburbs, or in the crowded city streets?  The Revolutionary war started because the government was attempting to confiscate some guns.  The resulting battle and ultimately the war was touched off by the 'shot heard round the world' fired by one of a few hundred militia men.

Using the above assumptions there will be over 1,500 people per congressonial district and 15,000 per state that refuse to turn in their guns.  The new 'shot heard round the world' will be heard in every corner of the country.

This cold hard reality is why the gun banners always shy away from the question of confiscation, and all of their proposals grandfather in all of the existing guns.  They know that they will spark an outright civil war if they attempt to confiscate guns.

If they don't confiscate guns, then what is the point of having bans in the first place? 

The answer is control. 

Gun Control is not about guns. 

Gun Control is about control.

To Protect (themselves) and Serve (their political masters)

The police are one of the essential ingredients in a civil society.  They exist to keep the peace and enforce the law.

They are supposed to serve and protect the public.  Many Americans believe the police will protect them in the event that they are attacked or robbed.  We also believe that the police will go to great lengths to avoid harming the innocent or arresting the innocent.  We also view the police as a line of defense against unconstitutional laws.  We like to believe that the police will never enforce unconstitutional edicts or shoot down citizens for no reason.

More and more recently, none of this appears to be true.

During hurricane Katrina the police went door-to-door searching for weapons at the order of the government.  More correctly, they kicked in doors and confiscated weapons from innocent civilians.   This is grossly unconstitutional, and none of the confiscated weapons were ever returned to the rightful owners. 

The Governor of Massachusetts issues a state wide travel ban during a 'snow emergency', forcing citizens to remain in their homes during the storm.  The police were enforcing a totalitarian-esque  bans on travel without permission, formerly a feature of life only found in communist states.

Police in California are being attacked by a lone gunman that has a grudge.  The police have reacted as you might expect, launching a massive manhunt as they take precautions to safeguard themselves and their families.  They are also arming themselves to the teeth and gunning down innocent women merely because they were driving a car that resembled that of the suspects. 

There are hundreds of incidents each year in which the police raid the wrong house or are acting on bad information and kill innocent civilians who have done nothing wrong.

I am not deriding the police here -- they have an extremely dangerous and difficult job.

I am merely pointing out that those of you who are hoping that the police will 'be on our side' during protests or resistance against a tyrannical government are in for a big disappointment.  Oh, sure, there might be a Sheriff or two that refuses to enforce a federal law.  But the vast majority of the police will do exactly what they are told to do including shooting you in the face if they think you are a threat to their safety. 

There are many people in this country that fantasize about how things will be when Obama finally tries to confiscate guns.  They imagine that the police will refuse to act, or that the citizenry will form militia groups to resist gun confiscation.

Think about this: a lone gunman is hunting the police and they react by indiscriminately blasting any vehicle that happens to look like the one they are seeking.  Imagine what will happen if they have groups of citizens acting against them.   They will be leveling entire city blocks without regard for casualties.

Where will they get the firepower to do such a thing?  No problem. Almost every hamlet in America now has a SWAT team that is armed like an infantry platoon.  Almost every Federal agency, inlcuding the Department of Education and The Social Security Administration now have fully armed SWAT teams. The deparment of Homeland Security recently purchased 1.2 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition.  Since it is illegal to use hollow point ammo in a war against invaders, we can only assume that these rounds are intended for more domestic targets.

Human history is replete with examples of the police and the army subjugating the citizenry.  Don't think it can't happen here. 

In many ways, it already is happening here.

Your Papers Please!

Travel restrictions are one of the hallmarks of a fascist or communist state.  Internal visas and the constant checking of your papers for internal travel were regular features of life behind the Iron Curtain.  It is no coincidence that the phrase "Your Papers, Please" somehow sounds more correct in a slight Germanic accent.   This is such a widely accepted feature of life in a totalitarian state that in in Casablanca the entire plot revolved around travel restrictions imposed by a tyrannical occupying government. 

Americans have never had travel restrictions.  We have always been free to travel about the country as we please without interference from the government.

Not any longer. 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts banned travel during the recent 'weather emergency'.  Citizens were subject to arrest and fines if they left their homes during winter storm 'Nemo'.

Let me restate that: Governor of a state forcibly subjected every citizen to house arrest if they ventured out into the snow without the permission of the state.

A friend of mine had to travel during the storm in order to rescue his elderly parents from the cold.  He called the police to get permission to drive 3 miles to their home.   Permission was denied.  He was told that they could not give him permission to travel, but they advised him to do it anyway and hope that he did not get caught. 

In America.  He had to ask the government for permission to save his parents lives in America.

This is outrageous.  It is an affront to liberty and the Constitution.

It is also a sign of just how far the nanny state has progressed.   The government tells you how much soda to drink and when you can go out to playing the snow and when you are grounded and must stay in the house.

Are the people of Massachusetts so daft that they don't know when to come in from the cold?  Do they really need to be protected from their own stupidity by being locked in their rooms until the storm is over?

It is a sad day when the police are arresting people for no other reason than traveling without authorization.

Fascism has come to America in the form of the Nanny state.

Every American should be marching in the streets right now in protest over this event.  

Just don't forget your papers when you leave the house.

Monday, February 4, 2013

We Have Got To Do Something If It Saves One Life!

President Obama today opined on the subject of gun control in the wake of the Newtown shootings:

“We don’t have to agree on everything to agree it’s time to do something,”


This is utter nonsense.

He keeps demanding that we 'do something' while refusing to make a detailed proposal of his own or explain how any of the laws that his fellow democrats are proposing would have any effect on crime or have prevented the Newtown shooting.

What does he mean when he says "do something"?  No doubt he is echoing the mantra of the media who demand daily that something 'be done' about guns.

But what?  Everyone of the proposals put forward to date are either unconstitutional, ineffective, unrelated to the problem, or all of the above.

"But if it saves just one life" they bleat in response to the argument that what they proposing is not going to help solve the problem.  Since when is 'save one life' the standard we use when evaluating safety?

We don't use that standard when evaluating other aspects of modern life:
  • We could save 30,000 lives if we banned cars, but no one is proposing that, except, perhaps, for the Global Warming wackos.
  • We could save hundred or thousands of children is we banned bicycles, swimming pools, 5 gallon buckets, and electricity.  But we are not proposing to impose the 'one life' standard for those items
  • We could save several hundred lives a year by banning antibiotics. Hundred die each year, particularly children, due to allergic reactions to antibiotics.  Where is the call to ban them to 'save one life'?
We don't apply the 'one life' standard in these areas because it is an asinine standard.  It is a ridiculous standard for many reasons, but primary among them is that it does not consider relative risks or substitution.

If we banned antibiotics to save the few that die from allergic reactions, we would condemn millions to death by infection.  You have to consider more than one simplistic angle when making these safety decisions.  Using antibiotics is not absolutely safe but it is relatively safe, when compared to not having them at all.   So we consciously decide that despite the risks, we will use antibiotics.

It is tragic when people are murdered, particularly children.  But the absence of legal guns does not guarantee that you wont be murdered by one. Statistics indicate that the absence of legal guns actually increases the danger from guns.  The risks associated with non-gun ownership include increasing violent crime rates, including rape and assault.

Overall, gun ownership is a net positive to safety, particularly when you factor in the risks of totalitarian governments and the predation that has resulted in millions of deaths over the past century. 

Gun Control in the wake of Newtown

There has been a great deal of press recently about the tragic shootings at the Newtown elementary school.

This is a horrendous event that we all wish had never happened, and we all hope will never happen again.

There has been a chorus of people calling for gun control in an effort to prevent such an event from happening again in the future.  The problem is that none of the measures that have been proposed will have any effect on crime.

As we have noted previously, there is no room for gun control.  

All of the small gun control measures will fail. Even the most well thought out proposals will not work.

Here is a sample of one of the more cogent arguments:

I demand you press for legislation that closes the gun show loophole completely, once and for all.
There is no such thing as the gun 'show loophole'.  Private citizens are allowed to sell and buy guns from each other.  This is not a loophole, but an express provision of the current gun laws.  There is no evidence that 'gun show' guns are used in crime more than any other source of guns.   Most crime guns are stolen guns, with less than 1% being procured at a gun show.

I demand that ammunition designed to inflict massive tissue damage or pierce armor be completely banned except for the military and police.
His first reference is probably referring to hollow point ammo.  This ammo is used for hunting expressly because it is more lethal.  And almost any rifle ammunition will pierce armor -- they are simply too powerful to be stopped by body armor.  But by banning hollow point AND full metal jacket ammo, he is calling for a ban on all ammo.   It would be helpful if the people trying to regulate these things had at least some idea what they are talking about. Unless, of course, that is what he intends all along.

I demand that the sale and possession of all ammunition be regulated at least as stringently as Sudafed and other drugs, including strict monthly and annual purchase limits. Individuals found in possession of more than their allotment should be fined and jailed just like drug dealers.
Just like drug dealers? Since the war on drugs has been so effective?  The massive burden of administering such a program would cost billions with no real effect.  How many rounds is he envisioning for a limit?  A small limit would be impractical, making guns completely useless.   A large limit would not stop 99% of crimes.

Incidentally,  linking his ideas to the War on Drugs, he exposes the fallacy in the entire gun control argument.  Bans on drug have not worked.  Bans on drug components have not worked.  Bans on drug paraphernalia have not worked.  What makes the author think that a ban on ammo will work?

I demand you lead a call to ban and confiscate any weapon capable of holding more than 6 rounds of ammunition, being reloaded by a pre-loaded ammunition clip or otherwise capable of firing more than 6 rounds without pause for manually reloading each bullet or shell. Hunters and sportsmen can still own rifles and shotguns that meet these criteria. Handguns that hold 6 or fewer bullets would also be permissible.

This is a call for the elimination of virtually all firearms.  The only legal guns would be revolvers, some bolt action rifles, and some shotguns.   Everything else would be eliminated.  This is not only unconstitutional, but completely impractical and counter productive.  Never mind that if you were magically able to make all these gun disappear, it would be a matter of minutes before a steady stream of guns was smuggled over the border and into the hands of criminals.  How hard would it be to strap an AK-47 to each bale of illegal drugs?

A gun confiscation would be a disaster, likely leading to civil war and millions of dead.  With 20 million 'assault rifles' in circulation even a 99% peaceful confiscation would still leave 200,000 rifles to be seized from the cold dead hands of the owners.  Does the author really think that the death of 20 children justifies 200,000 dead and open civil war?

I have read the Constitution and nowhere do I find the words ‘stand your ground’, a complete perversion of the ‘duty to retreat’ common-law principle understood at the time the Constitution was ratified, or the concept of ‘concealed carry’. We must repeal laws that allow these dangerous and unnecessary practices.

The reason that these words are not in the Constitution is that there was no such thing as concealed carry in 1776 because everyone that carried a gun carried it openly.  There is no common law principle that says you have to retreat.  You are allowed to defend yourself.   The 'stand your ground' laws were passed as a reaction to insane court rulings where people were charged with crimes for shooting intruders in their own homes.  Americans believe that you have the right to defend yourself and do not subscribe to the insane notion that the outlaw has more right to be in your home than you do.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that these laws contribute to the overall crime rate. Most gun deaths are gang related or crimes of passion committed by people who live in the home already.  These laws are simply not a factor in crime rates.

I urge you to direct the Justice Department to prepare a brief detailing how gun manufacturers might be subjected to the same legal approach used against tobacco companies.

If we can sue GM and Ford for cars with exploding gas tanks, ban lawn darts, and restrict over-the-counter medication deemed to have potential criminal uses (e.g., Sudafed), surely weapons designed for no other purpose than mass killing can be sued out of existence as well.

This is a call for legal extortion.  Guns are designed to kill.  His complaint is that they are too good at that for which they were designed.  His proposal is not to subject the gun companies to the normal laws (warranty of merchantability, negligence, etc). After all, his complaint is not that the guns don't work, his complaint is that they DO work.   He is seeking the ability to sue a company because he doesn't like what they make.

This is a gross violation of the rule of law.

I urge you not to be diverted or bogged down by the efforts to enlarge the scope of problem to the point it becomes intractable and unsolvable:
    • A lack of religion in schools is not the problem.
    • A lack of men in schools is not the problem.
    • Mental illness is not the problem.
    • Video games are not the problem.
    • Quentin Tarantino is not the problem.
    • More guns are not the answer.
The unfettered and ineffectively regulated access to guns is the problem, plain and simple.

This is completely counter factual.  In simple terms, it is a lie.  Guns are more plentiful than ever, yer murder and crime rates are at all-time lows.  There is no evidence that access to guns is the problem, and there is ample evidence that gun control laws are the problem.  Look at the crime rates in places like Chicago and Washington DC and explain me how gun control is working.

I don't have a simple answer for the causes of crime, but I do know there is no evidence that guns are causing it.

The right of some to possess guns should never supersede the right of children to safely attend kindergarten without an armed guard at the door.

This get to the crux of his flawed argument: the right to safety.  There is no such thing.   
We do not have a right to safety, and we certainly do not have a right to safety 'without an armed guard at the door'.    There is risk in everything that we do.  Children are in far greater danger on the school bus than they are of being shot in the classroom.   If there is a 'right to safety' then why are police not legally required to protect you? 

This argument is fatuous.  Obama's children are protected by armed guards at school everyday.  Is this protection a violation of their rights?

Armed guards (or other armed adults) are the most effective and proven way to stop armed attackers.  To argue that children have a non-existent right to safety and a right not to be protected by the most effective means possible is the argument of a non-serious person.

These 20 children and 6 courageous adults of Newtown must not be allowed to die in vain. Their legacy must be that they were the last to be ignored in this endlessly escalating cycle of violence and death.

Again, the author is wrong.  The 'cycle of violence' is declining, not increasing.  49 states have passed concealed carry laws, gun ownership is at a all time high, and yet violence and murder are at all time lows.

In summary, not a single argument in favor of control stands up to the facts or logic.