Monthly Archives: January 2013

What The News Said And What Actually Happened

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article yesterday about some recent news stories about shootings at gun shows. The contrast between the headline and the actual facts is almost comical.

The article reports:

The headlines speak volumes without even digging into the nasty messages underneath. 5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day. Holy cow! Five people were gunned down? That’s awful! I’m sure you wouldn’t go and get all snarky about shooting victims though, would you?

Now let’s look at what actually happened. In an incident at a North Carolina gun show. The article reports:

A man identified as Gary Lynn Wilson, 36, of Wilmington, brought the 12-gauge shotgun to the show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds and was attempting to remove it from its case when the weapon went off shortly after 1 p.m., police said.

Linwood Hester, 50, of Durham, was struck in the left hand by birdshot, according to Joel Keith, police chief with the state Department of Agriculture. The birdshot also struck a woman identified as Janet Hoover, 54, of Benson, and Jake Alderman, a retired sheriff’s deputy from Wake Forest who was working at the event.

The article also reports:

The second incident, in Indianapolis, concerned a guy who accidentally shot himself with his new gun after leaving the gun show. The final one was in the Buckeye state.

And in Ohio, a gun dealer in Medina was checking out a semi-automatic handgun he had bought when he accidentally pulled the trigger, injuring his friend, police said. The gun’s magazine had been removed from the firearm, but one round remained in the chamber, police said.

Admittedly, some of the people involved in these incidents were not acting responsibly, but there was no violent or criminal intent. The answer to these incidents would be to encourage all gun owners to follow safety procedures when participating in gun shows–not seeking laws that violate the U. S. Constitution to advance a political agenda.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Consequences Of ‘Leading From Behind’

Posted on by

The U. K Telegraph reported yesterday that most of the weapons used by al Qaeda-linked militants to storm a gas facility in southeastern Algeria came from Libya, The weapons and yellow flak jackets with brown patches, known as “chocolate chip” camouflage worn by the terrorists were also used by Libyan rebels in the war against Muammar Gaddafi.

We may have deposed some tyrants in the Middle East in the Arab Spring, but it seems that in the process we have provided weapons to Al Qaeda and created unrest in the entire area. Unfortunately, the leaders who replaced the dictators that were toppled are no more democratic than their predecessors.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Really Does Not Sound Like Co-operation

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted an article stating that the Democrat Senate intends to pass a budget this year. Sounds like good news, but wait a minute.

The article reports:

But now a prominent Democratic lawmaker says his party will finally pass a budget — for the express purpose of raising taxes.  “We Democrats have always intended to do a budget this year,” Sen. Charles Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”  “It’s a great opportunity to get us some more revenues.”

“You’re going to need more revenues as well as more cuts to get the deficit down,” Schumer said.  “And I’ve talked to Leader Reid. I’ve talked to Budget Chair Murray. We’re going to do a budget this year. And it’s going to have revenues in it. And our Republican colleagues better get used to that fact.”

Great. More taxes. The article also explains why the Democrats have not passed a budget since 2009:

The Democrats’ strategy has long been clear.  The last time Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed a budget through the Senate was in April 2009, when huge Democratic majorities in Congress passed steep increases in spending.  Since then, Democrats have funded the government through a series of continuing resolutions — essentially locking in the 2009 budget as the new baseline for spending.

The article concludes:

Schumer, with 55 Democrats in the Senate, is now saying: Think again.  We’re going to raise taxes, and you can’t stop us.  The battle between the two sides will likely consume the Senate for the next two years.

The question is simple. Are there enough grown-ups who vote in America who realize that we cannot continue to spend money we don’t have? Raising taxes does not necessarily increase revenue. (Please see the Laffer Curve.) Raising taxes also slows the economy, increases unemployment, and ultimately causes the cost of government to increase while slowing growth in the private sector.

Part of our current economic problems is the relationship between government spending levels and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Traditionally spending has been about 18 percent of GDP and tax revenue has been about 18 percent of GDP.  Unfortunately since 2009 (when the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives), spending has been approaching 25 percent of GDP. Unless the government takes almost all of the money that Americans earn away from them, there will never be enough tax revenue to fund that spending.

The chart below (from The Big Picture) shows where we are:

The American voters will determine in 2014 whether or not America survives economically.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes You Just Wonder…

Posted on by

On Saturday the New Zealand Herald reported that Leonardo DiCaprio is taking a break from acting for a while.

The article reports:

In an interview with Germany’s mass circulation daily Bild, the 38-year-old American actor said: “I am a bit drained. I’m now going to take a long, long break. I’ve done three films in two years and I’m just worn out.”

“I would like to improve the world a bit. I will fly around the world doing good for the environment,” added DiCaprio, in comments published in German.

The article goes on to explain that the actor’s house has solar panels and that he drives an electric car. That’s nice. Has it occurred to him that flying around the world to help the environment is somewhat counter-productive? Is he flying commercial or in a private plane? Has he considered the carbon footprint of his trip around the world to help the environment?Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Think About On A Very Sad Anniversary

Posted on by

This week marks forty years since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade. Since that 1973 decision, 55 million babies have been aborted in America. I am not posting this to judge those who have had abortions, I am posting this to show you the beauty and miracle of life. It is posted at YouTube and is about 10 minutes long. It is well worth watching. Enjoy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Just In Case You Still Believe The Mainstream Media

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported that John Dickerson, who Slate describes as its chief political correspondent is also the political director at CBS News. Why is this important? It isn’t unless you take a look at some of Mr. Dickerson’s writing for Slate. For example:

Go for the throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.

…The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. …

Obviously, Mr. Dickerson is entitled to his personal opinion, but his rhetoric seems a little harsh to me. Why should I believe any political reports on CBS News if their political director is that biased?

I need to note here that it is okay for a reporter to be biased, as long as he or she is honest about that bias. The frustrating part of the mainstream bias is that it not only colors the stories they report, it causes them not to report the stories that would provide a balanced viewpoint.

The article at Breitbart.com concludes:

And yet, even as they do, even as they openly celebrate their left-wing biases out of one side of their mouth, out the other, they will claim they remain objective and unbiased.

The Big Lie has officially arrived.

And somewhere Dan Rather‘s thinking, “Oh, so now it’s okay!?”

Thank God for the internet and the alternative media.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Gun Owners Rally In Boston

Posted on by

Yesterday Fox News Boston and GOAL (Gun Owners’ Action League).org reported on a rally held at the statehouse in Boston by gun owners protesting the new laws being discussed in the state and in Washington.

Fox News reports:

Gov. Patrick unveiled a bill on Wednesday that would tighten access to high-powered rounds of ammunition, create four new types of firearms-related crimes and mandate buyers to undergo background checks before purchasing weapons at gun shows. It would also restrict gun owners to purchasing one firearm a month.

The bill would also allow Mass. courts to send all relevant mental health records to the state’s criminal justice information system so the federal government could include this information in a national gun license registry. Patrick said that would bring Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

The bill includes $5 million for Department of Mental Health programs, including training teachers to recognize symptoms of mental illness in students.

The only part of this proposed legislation that would have any impact on recent mass murders in America is the mental illness aspect of this. I have no problem with criminal background checks for gun owners, but I have a major problem with a national gun license registry. No one needs to know who has a gun and who does not.

The article at GOAL.org reports:

For years Massachusetts residents who lawfully own firearms have endured abusive restrictions and regulation which do nothing to lower crime and in fact have had the opposite effect.

Today, in the shadow of more legislation introduced over the last week by Governor Patrick and Rep. Linsky, many concerened citizens said “enough” and stepped out into the light to make their voice heard and to say “no more”.

All who attended were concerned about this new legislation, having witnessed the failure of the acts of 1998, and knowing that this increased scrutiny will only lead to the criminalization of the law abiding.

We need to remember as we listen to this debate that new laws will not impact criminals–they don’t follow the laws to begin with. New laws will only impact law abiding citizens. Is that really our intention?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Losing Revenue By Raising Taxes

Posted on by

Hot Air is reporting today that the Midland, Mich.-based Mackinac Center has released a report stating that in 2011 New York had the highest cigarette smuggling rate in America. In 2006, when the cigarette tax was $1.50 a pack, New York was the fifth highest. In 2008, the tax went to $2.75 a pack, in 2010 it went to $4.35 a pack. That increase was enough to move New York from fifth place to first place in the number of cigarettes smuggled into the state. It is now estimated that 60.9 percent of all cigarettes smoked in New York are not taxed there!

What can we learn from this? Simple. People don’t like to pay taxes and will do almost anything to avoid them. Some state is making money on the sale of these cigarettes–it’s just not New York. New Hampshire seems to be where most of the smuggled cigarettes are coming from–New Hampshire does tax cigarettes, but only $1.68 a pack. I suspect New Hampshire collects more revenue from its lower tax than New York does from its higher tax. Maybe we could learn from that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bad News From Algeria

Posted on by

The Associated Press is reporting tonight that hostage crisis at the natural gas complex in Algeria has ended with the deaths of all 32 of the the terrorists involved, and unfortunately the deaths of at least 23 hostages. Algeria has a history of dealing with terrorists with military action rather than negotiations.

The article reports:

Immediately after the assault, French President Francois Hollande gave his backing to Algeria’s tough tactics, saying they were “the most adapted response to the crisis.”

“There could be no negotiations” with terrorists, the French media quoted him as saying in the central French city of Tulle.

Hollande said the hostages were “shamefully murdered” by their captors, and he linked the event to France’s military operation against al-Qaida-backed rebels in neighboring Mali. “If there was any need to justify our action against terrorism, we would have here, again, an additional argument,” he said.

There are a few things to remember here. One is that kidnapping and hostage taking is one way the terrorists raise money for their activities. If you follow the link above and read the entire article, you will realize that the terrorists had no qualms about killing any westerner they happened to take prisoner. Another thing to remember is that President Morsi of Egypt (and the Muslim Brotherhood) is pressuring the United States to release the blind sheik.

It was reported in the New York Post today that:

Trapped terrorists made a bizarre offer to end the 3-day-old Sahara showdown: We’ll trade the blind sheik for US hostages.

The lives of two Americans seized in a brazen attack on a remote Algerian gas plant would be spared in return for the release from federal prisons of Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman and a fellow terrorist.

Terrorism needs to become unprofitable and socially unacceptable. Unfortunately that will not happen until the civilized world unites against it. The United Nations is useless in combating terrorism because the Islamic states have formed a voting bloc that prevents the United Nations from acting (also because of the anti-Semitism that seems to have found its way into the United Nations).

As much as I regret the loss of innocent lives, I think the Algerian military handled the situation well. To me, the best example of a successful hostage rescue is the Israeli Defense Forces raid on Entebbe on July 4, 1976. The Israelis did their homework–they knew the layout of the airport and they managed to rescue the hostages with a minimum number of casualties. That example needs to be studied. I understand that there were certain aspects of that raid that could not be duplicated, but we need to learn from our successes.

My condolences to the families of those lost this weekend.

Enhanced by Zemanta

These People Vote ?????

Posted on by

Hot Air posted a man-on-the-street interview segment on Friday from the Jimmy Kimmel show. The innocent pedestrians were asked their opinion on President Obama’s inauguration for his second term (despite the fact that it has not yet happened). At one point the interviewer asked one person how she liked it when Michelle Obama threw teddy bears into the crowd. The person being interviewed said that she thought that was very nice. I am hoping the people interviewed are not a representative sample of the American voter.

Here is the video:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Altering The News To Fit A Political Agenda

Posted on by

The Independent Journal Review posted an article on Tuesday detailing some of the erroneous reporting on the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. At issue is the type of guns used–the shooting is used as a justification for banning what are called assault weapons, but it has recently come to light that assault weapons were not used in the killing. So why is the President in such a hurry to ban them?

Pete Williams, who is NBC’s chief Justice correspondent, reported that only four handguns were found inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The article further reports:

The correspondent makes it clear over and over again that he confirmed this information with federal and state officials. Now, a lot of media reports contradict this one, but somebody’s lying. The report that an ‘AR-15-style’ assault rifle was in the trunk of murderer Adam Lanza’s car is up for dispute as well. If one examines footage from police breaking into Lanza’s car, one sees police clearing a round from a “long gun of some type” that does not appear to be ‘AR-15 style’ or ‘assault-style.’

…In a nation of 311 million people, the odds of being killed by a rifle is about one homicide per million people, which is far less than the odds of being murdered by a blunt object. But we don’t hear the media arguing about regulating hammers and clubs. Again, when 99.7% of registered gun owners are law-abiding, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control.

Before we limit our Constitutional rights to solve a problem that isn’t there, we all need to step back and take a deep breath. If an assault rifle was not used in the crime that has caused us to rush to legislate stronger restrictions on gun ownership, what is the reason for the rush to legislate?Enhanced by Zemanta

The Real Cost Of Irresponsible Journalism

Posted on by

The U. K Daily Mail reported yesterday that two homes listed on the gun owners map published by the Journal News have been burglarized since the publishing of the list.

The article reports:

Thieves ransacked a house that features on the gun map published by the Journal News, just days after another home on the list was also targeted.

Burglars broke into the house in New City, New York, on Wednesday and pried open two safes, before leaving with another one.

The criminals escaped with two handguns, two pistol permits, cash, savings bonds and jewelry. The firearms were in the stolen safe.

Publishing the list of gun owners made it easy for criminals to target homes that had guns if that was what they wanted or to target homes where they knew the owners would be unarmed. Either way, publishing the map of gun owners was an invasion of the privacy of the gun owners and created problems for both gun owners and non gun owners. The people whose names and addresses appeared in the newspaper would be totally justified in exploring lawsuits for invasion of privacy and putting them and their families at  unnecessary risk.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Guess It Wasn’t Too High On The Priorities List

Posted on by

Politico reported today that as of yesterday President Obama’s Job Council has gone one year without an official meeting.

The article reports:

The group, formally known as the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, last convened on Jan. 17, 2012 for a White House session where it presented formal recommendations to Obama. It was the panel’s fourth official meeting since it was created in early 2011.

The article reports that although the Council has not met for the past year, they have had a number of conference calls which were not made public.

The article further reports:

Though those calls were not open to the public, the public recently got some insight into what those discussions may have been like when Jobs Council member Robert Wolf scored a half-hour-long interview with Sperling earlier this month for Wolf’s Reuters TV show, “Impact Players.”

Wolf, former chairman of the  American division of Swiss bank UBS, launched the show in September. The Reuters website describes Wolf as “one of President Obama’s major fundraisers and outside advisers on economic issues.”

There are some questions I have about this Council. Robert Wolf is described in the article as “one of President Obama’s major fundraisers and outside advisers on economic issues.” Are those two things related? Also, how much are we paying the Jobs Council?

The article reminds us that the Council is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. Considering their activity level, why wait?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Should The Federal Government Have Limits On Its Borrowing Or Spending?

Posted on by

This article has two sources–The Western Center for Journalism and CNS News. Both sources report that the Democrats want to repeal the debt ceiling that limits the amount of money that the government can borrow.

The Western Center for Journalism reports:

House Democrats are pushing legislation to repeal the federal debt ceiling, saying the borrowing limit has no practical purpose and has come to be used for political maneuvering that can have devastating economic repercussions.

New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler said the debt ceiling is arbitrary, doesn’t affect the deficit and has become a Republican means to “blackmail” the country to advance the GOP’s political agenda.

CNS News reports:

Nadler, [Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)],along with fellow House Democrats Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), held a press conference to introduce a bill that would repeal the debt ceiling entirely.

Nadler, taking questions for the group, said the debt ceiling should be taken “off the table” in any negotiations over federal spending, and he refused to say if Democrats should offer any bill that would solve either problem.

“Basically what we’re saying is that the debt ceiling should be taken off the table. There’s plenty to fight about, unfortunately, the levels of taxation, the levels of spending – there are real disagreements on that. You need both houses and the president to agree on that.”

Has anyone bothered to put this in the context of your personal finances? If you were thousands of dollars in debt, with no prospect of paying back what you owe, how would the bank react if you went to them and asked that they raise your debt ceiling? As American citizens, we are not able to continue to spend more than we earn, why are we willing to let the government do this?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Are We Sending Advanced Fighter Planes To These People?

Posted on by

PJ Media posted a story yesterday about recent remarks made by Egyptian President Morsi.

The article reports:

It’s no news that Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood is an extremist, anti-Semitic monstrosity. The disgusting eruption of Jew-hatred from Morsi in 2010 is nothing new. What is new is the fact that the Obama administration and the New York Times are shocked — shocked — to discover the Morsi is a rabid Jew-hater. The Times wrote today:

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s scurrilous comments from nearly three years ago about Zionists and Jews, which just came to light, have raised serious doubts about whether he can ever be the force for moderation and stability that is needed. That kind of pure bigotry is unacceptable anywhere, anytime. But it is even more offensive in public discourse, coming from someone who became the president of a major country.

The sad truth is that defaming Jews is an all too standard feature of Egyptian, and Arab, discourse. Teaching children to hate and dehumanizing one’s adversaries is just the kind of twisted mentality that fuels the conflicts that torment the region.

CBN News reported today:

After coming under fire from the Obama administration, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi is trying to explain away his racist remarks about Jews in a 2010 speech.

Morsi said his comments calling Jews “bloodsuckers and “descendants of apes and pigs” were aimed at Israeli policies and taken out of context.

I guess I’m a little confused. How can those remarks be seen as ‘taken out of context?’ Anti-Semitism from President Morsi is in no way a surprise, but the question is, “Do we want to sell advanced weaponry to a country that is likely to use them against a country (Israel) that is our best ally in the region?” The other thing to understand here is that Israel may be the first target, but the United States will be the second target.

As one of my facebook friends posted–“It’s time to stop giving foreign aid to countries that hate us and allow them to hate us for free.” I think that is a really good idea.

Enhanced by Zemanta

If Mommy Is A Commie Then You Gotta Turn Her In…

Posted on by

Back in the early sixties when folk music was the rage, there was a group called the Chad Mitchell Trio that recorded a song called “The John Birch Society.” It was a great song. Some of the lyrics stated:

Oh, we’re the John Birch Society, the John Birch Society

Here to save our country from a communistic plot

Join the John Birch Society holding off the Reds

We’ll use our hand and hearts and if we must we’ll use our heads

Do you want Justice Warren for your Commissar?

Do you want Mrs. Krushchev in there with the DAR?

You cannot trust your neighbor or even next of kin

If mommie is a commie then you gotta turn her in.

It was a great song, with some really good harmony. The last line illustrates the way I feel about one aspect of President Obama’s new gun control policy initiative. Any conversation I have with my lawyer is considered confidential by law. My children’s medical records are not accessible to me once my children are eighteen. There are measures taken to protect the privacy of medical patients with certain diseases. Why then are doctors being asked to rat out their patients who have guns?

The Weekly Standard posted an article today outlining the President’s gun control policy concerning the role of doctors.

The article states:

Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

The law further states that there should be no restriction on doctors and healthcare officials warning law enforcement about threats of violence. Another part of the law states, “We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.” Exactly what does that mean?

In theory this may seem like a good idea, but the intrusiveness of the law is breathtaking. The federal government is telling your doctor what to talk to you about. If you are a legal gun owner, that is no one’s business but your own. Again, how is this going to stop a disturbed person from shooting up a movie theater or a school?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Of Many Reasons The Damage From Hurricane Sandy Has Not Been Repaired

Posted on by

On Monday the Wall Street Journal posted an article telling the story of one homeowner‘s struggle to rebuild her damaged home in Connecticut.

The article relates the homeowner’s story:

Our first exposure to the town zoning authorities came a couple of weeks after Sandy. We’d met with insurance adjusters, contractors and “remediation experts.” We’d had about a foot of Long Island Sound sloshing around the ground floor of our house in Connecticut, and everyone had the same advice: Rip up the floors and subfloors, and tear out anything—wiring, plumbing, insulation, drywall, kitchen cabinets, bookcases—touched by salt water. All of it had to go, and pronto, too, lest mold set in.

Yet it wasn’t until the workmen we hired had ripped apart most of the first floor that the phrase “building permit” first wafted past us. Turns out we needed one. “What, to repair our own house we need a building permit?”

Of course.

Before you could get a building permit, however, you had to be approved by the Zoning Authority. And Zoning—citing FEMA regulations—would force you to bring the house “up to code,” which in many cases meant elevating the house by several feet. Now, elevating your house is very expensive and time consuming—not because of the actual raising, which takes just a day or two, but because of the required permits.

The article further explains that there is also a zoning limit on how high your house can be–so if you meet the requirement to raise it, you have to make sure you don’t raise it too much.. The homeowner goes on to detail the maze of government gobbledygook encountered in trying to repair and re-occupy his home.

The article concludes:

We’ve spent a few thousand dollars on a lawyer to appeal to Zoning, many thousands in rent, and hundreds getting a fresh appraisal of our house. The latest from our lawyer: Because of our new appraisal, we may be able to “apply for a zoning permit.” “Apply,” mind you.

I used to think that our house was, you know, our house. The bureaucrats have taught me otherwise. But then I also used to think that Franz Kafka wrote a species of dark fantasy. I know now that he was turning out nonfiction.

Our problem is not the lack of money to repair the damage from Hurricane Sandy–it is the government bureaucracy that is hindering the homeowners from getting back into their own homes.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Overreacting To A Perceived Threat

Posted on by

CBS Baltimore reported yesterday that two six-year old boys were suspended after playing cops and robbers during recess and using their fingers as toy guns. Needless to say, the children‘s parents are furious.

The article reports:

Dr. Kaine (child psychologist Dr. Joe Kaine) says most six-year-olds’ minds aren’t developed enough to understand why their idea of fun play might make adults upset.

“I can certainly appreciate that at school, that’s not a type of play that they are going to endorse and I certainly support that, but that’s where we educate the time and place for doing things,” Kaine said.

A number of parents agree.

“Suspending them is a bit harsh and I don’t think that’s gonna do any good for the parent, child or school,” said Janet Geotzky.

The number of suspensions has been on the rise in Maryland. School leaders say they will try to reduce those numbers.

I am neither a violent person nor a mass murderer, but I will confess to playing cowboys and Indians as a child and using my pointed finger as a gun. With all the truly gory violence children are exposed to on television and in video games, it seems to me that the least of our worries is children imagining that their pointed fingers are guns. Have we forgotten how to let children be children?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exploiting Children For Political Points

Posted on by

It has already been announced that President Obama will have children present when he announces his program of gun control today. It’s always good to have props to distract from the fact that you are about to violate the Second Amendment. But it’s worse than that…

The Weekly Standard posted a story stating that today, just hours before the President’s press conference, the White House has released letters from little kids pleading for gun control. There were no little kid letters released by the White House asking for policemen in the schools or guns for the teachers–just little kids pleading for gun control. Wow! Eight year old Constitutional Scholars.

Meanwhile, back in New York State, a gun control bill was passed that conceivably could limit the number of bullets a policeman could have in his gun. That wasn’t the intent of the bill, so amendments are being looked at, but evidently the law was not thought through before it was passed. We know that if policemen are only allowed seven bullets in their guns that criminals will also follow that law. Right?

The violence in our society has to do much more with the culture of our society than it does with guns. Part of the problem is not effectively keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and part of the problem is the devaluing of life. It is a tragedy that 26 people were killed in an elementary school in December and that many of those people were children, but it is also a tragedy that over 1 million babies a year are aborted. Where is the outcry over those innocent lives that were violently ended. Until the lives of the unborn are valued, we cannot realistically expect the lives of the living to be valued.Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Understandable But Scary

Posted on by

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about a group of people organizing a community in Idaho. Doesn’t sound like news–builders construct golf communities, retirement communities, etc., all the time, but this is radically different. The community is called the Citadel.

The article reports:

Citadel organizers envision their project to be a community where residents are bound by a desire to “live together in accordance with Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of Rightful Liberty,” which they have determined to mean “that neighbors keep their noses out of other neighbors’ business, that neighbors live and let live.”

“Marxists, Socialists, Liberals, and Establishment Republicans may find that living within our Citadel Community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles,” the group — which claims no leader other than the “ideal of Jefferson’s Rightful Liberty” — explains on its website.

There are a lot of aspects of this community which frighten me. The article further reports:

The plans for the community — which they expect to build in Benewah County, Idaho, starting this summer — include at least 2,000 acres surrounded by a defensible perimeter that is “inaccessible to tourists.” Each neighborhood will also have separating walls “dividing the town into defensible sections/neighborhoods.”

What is the community planning for the relationship between the Citadel and its surrounding communities? Are state and federal authorities given the appropriate authority within the community? How does the community plan to handle legal matters? What prevents a small group of petty tyrants from taking over the community and turning into a place it is impossible to leave?

Maybe I have been reading too many conspiracy novels lately, but I think the risk here outweighs the benefits. I personally would prefer to take over my own private desert island and sit under the palm trees drinking drinks with little umbrellas in them. I think that is as likely as the success of this community.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Facts Beneath The Noise

Posted on by

It’s time for both parties to threaten the American people with doom and gloom–the debt ceiling has been reached, and Washington wants more of our money. The President is saying that Social Security, the military and the veterans won’t be paid (notice he never says that he and Congress won’t get paid), and the Republicans say they are not raising the debt ceiling until someone shows some fiscal restraint. Good luck with that.

Heritage.org posted an article this morning that does actually shed a little light on what is actually at stake underneath all the rhetoric.

The article at Heritage.org reminds us:

“Suggesting that the United States might default on its debt is factually wrong and shameful behavior on the President’s part,” Heritage’s J.D. Foster, the Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy, said yesterday.

The U.S. is not going to default on its interest payments, Foster said, and “this assurance rests not on congressional action to raise the debt ceiling, but on the simple fact that the Treasury has far more than enough funds to pay all interest as it comes due.”

The President stated that raising the debt ceiling was not an increase of spending but simply the paying money due from past spending. He compared the Republicans in Congress to someone who eats dinner and refuses to pay the check. Just for the record, the Republicans did not support much of the spending he is referring to. The excessive spending is due to the fact that the Senate has not passed a budget since 2009 and is using the bloated baseline of the 2009 Budget (when the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives) in continuing resolutions. Since the Senate has not passed a budget, there has been no serious Congressional debate on cutting spending since 2009. The President is essentially asking the Republicans to pay for the Democrats dinner!

At any rate, default is not an issue–it is a red herring. I suspect that if the President and Congress were not going to get paid until a deal was worked out, we would have a deal rather quickly. Stay tuned. It might not be a bad idea to get out the popcorn!Enhanced by Zemanta

Chutzpah On Parade

Posted on by

There is currently a debate in Congress on how to prevent mass murders. When you consider that mass murders are as old as civilization and have involved everything from knives to guns, that is quite a quest. The focus seems to be on gun control–regardless of the fact that the Second Amendment does not allow for the infringement of the right to bear arms. Anyway, Senator Chuck Schumer has added a new level of chutzpah to the debate.

Gateway Pundit reported yesterday:

Schumer on Sunday released a letter he sent to major retailers asking for a voluntary moratorium.

The New York Democrat says consumer demand for guns has gone up in the weeks since the December mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Schumer says Congress is debating the issue, and if measures get passed that limit these type of weapons, it won’t help if more of them have recently been sold.

Has it occurred to the Senator that the reason people are stocking up on these weapons is that they fear the weapons will be unavailable in the future?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Three Pinocchios To Bill Clinton For His Comments On Mass Shootings

Posted on by

As the debate on gun safety continues, it is wise to listen carefully to evidence cited on either side of the argument. On Friday, the Washington Post awarded three Pinocchios to Bill Clinton for his recent ‘facts’ on mass shootings.

Bill Clinton stated, “Half of all mass killings in the United States have occurred since the assault weapons ban expired in 2005, half of all of them in the history of the country.”

That is not totally true. The article reports:

With gun shootings, you immediately get into some definitional issues. Depending on how one defines a “mass public shooting,” the answers might turn out to be different. There is also surprisingly little historical data about mass murder in the United States to go back all the way to the nation’s founding.

Grant Duwe, director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, assembled a data set going back 100 years for a 2007 book titled, “Mass Murder in the United States: A History.” He used the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, which date from 1976, and then supplemented the FBI reports with news reports (principally The New York Times) dating from 1900.

Duwe says the Times turned out to be a relatively reliable guide for mass murders across the country, since much of the post-1976 information also turned up in the contemporaneous FBI reports. As far as he knows, he is the only person who has assembled such a historical data set.

According to his research, he has identified 156 mass public shootings in the United States in the past 100 years.

…Since 2005, when the assault ban expired, there have been 32 such mass public shootings, including seven in 2012, Duwe said. So that’s just over 20 percent of all mass public shootings, which is much less than Clinton’s 50 percent.

There are a few things to keep in mind as this discussion continues. First of all, how many of these murders were committed by people who legally owned the guns they used? How many of these mass murders were committed in ‘gun free’ zones? How many of these murders had a past history of mental illness or had people around them who were not shocked at what they had done? How does our society treat and handle the mentally ill? Can any government stop an insane person from doing something insane?

Stay close to a good fact checker as the debate continues.

Enhanced by Zemanta