Tell Us Something We Didn’t Already Know!

tiredoflibbs10 Comments

Another proggy myth disproven! Of course, the proggy politicians already knew this.

Really all you had to do was look where gun control was in place and see the crime statistics!

Gun Control Reduces Violent Crimes

The proggy drones will be out in force regurgitating the mindless talking points. (Since this posting, they have not – I guess they did not get their marching orders).

In short, as we defenders of the 2nd Amendment have long known, the observable facts simply will not support the strictly emotional arguments of the aping gun grabbers regarding both violent crime and suicide. Interestingly, the study also relates a survey of incarcerated felons that confirms that a criminal’s greatest fear is that his victim may be armed. That certainly makesthe case for a well-armed citizenry regardless of the definition of militia. The fact that the most recent acts of gun violence were conducted in gun free zones (by mentally troubled individuals who should have been in an institution – another leftist barrier), also shows the folly of the left’s mindless arguments.

Regarding “Hate” Crimes

Leo Pusateri113 Comments
I don’t believe in the concept of “hate crimes.”

There are precious few crimes, especially murders, that are “love criimes.” 

In my opinion, the psychological intent or the mind state of the person committing the murder is already summed up in degrees (first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc). 

The reasons for premeditation are immaterial. If the person intended with forethought to visit bodily harm resulting in the death of an innocent person for reasons not related to self defense, that perpetrator committed murder. Period. It is immaterial whether the perp is a racist or whether the perp is Mother Teresa. 

To assign an instance of the wanton deprivation of another’s life as more or less severe simply because the perp was a racist or did it out of racial spite is superfluous. Premeditated murder is premeditated murder. 

When society assigns the gravity of premeditated murder as dependent on the mind state of the perpetrator, you are now jumping into the realm of THOUGHT CRIMES. 

Do we really want to go there? 

Unfortunately, there are many on the left who do. 

As the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case clearly illustrated, those on the left are more than happy to fall all over themselves in immediately assigning motives of racism and “hate crime” (read: THOUGHT CRIME) status when a fellow-traveller is on the receiving end and a white person (even a ginned-up “White Hispanic” person) is on the giving end. 

When one or more of their own is on the giving end, however, not so much. Rare indeed is the case when black on white violence ends up being prosecuted as a “hate crime.” 

Which leads me to believe that to a critical mass of our population (not at all exclusively black, mind you, but exclusively “progressive” at any rate), the whole concept of “hate crime” is not borne out of a thirst for blind justice; rather, the concept of “hate crime” seems to serve as a tool to exact revenge on those progressives identify as enemies of their ideology at worst, or as tools to advance their sense of ideology and/or personal political agendae at best.

 
It looks as though the thugs who murdered Delbert Belton will not be charged with a hate crime. 
 
I’m sure there was nothing but bored love in their hearts as they beat him senseless and took his life.
 
 

The Petro Currency System

Cluster23 Comments

The reserve currency issue is an issue that should transcend partisan politics, as leaders of both parties have ignored this issue over the years to our country’s possible peril.  I want everyone to really think about this issue, because the financial storm that would ensue following the end of our reserve currency status and the eventual collapse of the dollar would make the 2008 housing crisis look like a spring shower. Here’s an excerpt from a 2011 article from CNBC warning of the prospects of losing reserve currency status:

“I think you could see a 25 percent reduction in the standard of living in this country if the US dollar was no longer the world’s reserve currency. That’s how valuable it is.”

That was a comment made back in 2011, and since then we have added a few more trillion dollars of debt, and printed a few more trillion dollars of QE (quantitative easing), “stimulus” money. For those of you unfamiliar with QE – this is a policy that started in 2009 wherein the federal reserve is literally printing and pumping into the economy approximately $80 billion a month, and the mere mention from Bernanke that he was going to slow down the printing presses made the DOW tumble a few hundred points. He quickly backed off that statement. QE is not only used to prime the DOW but it is also used to keep inflation and interest rates in check. In the article, it is mentioned that if the CPI were adjusted for actual economic realities, we would see 5% – 7% inflation on food and energy prices.

Fast forward to 2013. Recent international economic signals do not bode well for the continuance of our reserve currency status:

– China’s subtle dumping of the dollar — using bilateral trade agreements with other developing nations and, more recently, major economic powers like Germany and Japan

– The massive gold-buying spree undertaken by China and Russia — even in the face of extreme market manipulation by JPMorgan Chase and Co. and CME Group Inc.

– The dumping of long-term U.S. Treasuries by foreign creditors in exchange for short-term Treasuries that can be liquidated at a moment’s notice.

– The fact that bonds now are supported almost entirely by Fed stimulus. When the stimulus ends, America’s ability to honor foreign debts will end and faith in the dollar will crumble.

–  Blatant statements by the International Monetary Fund calling for the end of the dollar’s world reserve status and the institution of special drawing rights (SDRs) as a replacement.

These bullet points were taken from another excellent article on this issue found here, (hat tip to Spook for sending me this article) and it is a must read. Why the loss of faith in the US dollar? The fact that our government spends approx. $1 trillion more than it brings in, the fact that our government does not work within a defined budget and funds the government from continuing resolution to continuing resolution (CR’s), the fact that our debt to GDP ratio is now 101%, and the fact that there are no imminent signs of financial discipline or restraint by our federal government. This year our federal government is expected to bring in approx. $2.5 trillion in revenue, which would equal an historical high, yet they are spending $3.6 trillion and they say they need more. So the next time you hear a politician say that we need more money for education, and/or more “investment” in infrastructure, know that they are pushing us closer to the brink of financial collapse.

In spite of all of this, I remain the eternal optimist. We can avoid the loss of reserve currency status and the eventual collapse of the dollar but it will require that our elected officials define our nations priorities, put in place a budget that reflects those priorities and operate within it. It will also require that we aggressively act upon the impending economic boom of the 21st century and that is – energy. We must tap into our domestic crude oil and natural gas reserves to not only fuel our current society, but also to become a net exporter of these resources. That will generate the money necessary to put our country back on sound financial footing, but will also fuel the eventual transition to a new, greener, more sustainable energy platform.

Should We Go to War in Syria?

Mark Noonan25 Comments

As the Obama Administration lets on that it is planning US military action against Syria and our forces move in to position we do have to ask, is such a war necessary?

First and foremost, is there any vital US interest at state in Syria?  To a certain extent, yes.  Syria’s government has long been allied with Iran and has fostered the terrorist group Hezbollah.  Destroying the Syrian regime, though, would only be useful if the potential successor regime would no longer be allied with Iran or any other US enemy and/or if such a regime would cease supporting terrorism…given the grab-bag collection of Islamists who make up the bulk of the Syrian opposition, it is almost certain that if they gain power they will continue to support terrorism and if not allied with Iran, would ally with some other enemy country, or countries.  Indeed, a successor regime run by the Islamist opposition might even re-ignite Syria’s war with Israel (which has never officially ended).

Secondly, is there a moral demand that we act – some times a nation must go to war even without a vital, national interest at stake simply because there is a vital, moral issue at stake.  Given the very nasty brutality of the Syrian regime, there is a moral case to be made for war.  Though if we were to move on this, it would smack a bit of hypocrisy because the Syrian government isn’t doing anything it hasn’t been doing for decades, accompanied by a resounding silence on our part.  Additionally, the Islamist opposition to the Syrian regime has been engaging in routine brutality of its own – especially, it appears, against Syria’s Christian minority.  Given their nature, we can expect an Islamist regime to crack down even harder on Christians, and on any Muslims who don’t live up to the Islamist ideal.  Morally, there is no problem with targeting the Syrian regime, but the result of knocking off the Syrian regime is almost certain to be a regime even more horrific.

Overall, the result of a successful military operation against the Syrian regime appears to be something worse than we have now.  That Assad is a brute and his regime inhuman is beyond doubt, but given the nature of the opposition, a successor regime would be at least as bad and, perhaps, more destabilizing to the overall region.  A tenet of the Just War Doctrine is that the war must not cause a worse situation than currently exists – given the  strong arguments against a good result (ie, getting something better than we have now), an argument can be made that a war against Syria does not meet the Just War criteria.

I tend to come down on that side – in Syria, we can’t make a result better than the current state of affairs and our efforts will, indeed, very likely make a worse result.  We should, therefor, stay out of Syria.  Our goal in this mess should be, instead, to work against overall enemy forces – which include both the Syrian regime and those fighting it.  Right now, with Syria wracked by civil war, proper American policy should be to leverage Syria completely out of Lebanon and by so doing also get Hezbollah out.  We cannot fix the whole world, but we can take advantage of this situation to help fix a small part of it – Lebanon has been a stomping ground for Syrian imperialists and Islamist terrorists for decades.  It has become a standing threat to Israel and the non-Islamist population of Lebanon suffers grave injustice from the Syrians and the terrorist groups.  Getting Syria and the terrorists out of Lebanon won’t usher in global peace, but it will help out the Lebanese and the Israelis as well as strengthening the overall US position in the area.  We should be doing what we can – directly and indirectly, to clear out Lebanon while sealing off, as far as possible, the Syrian civil war.  Once a winner emerges, then steps can be taken depending upon the circumstances.

America’s Shame

Mark Noonan59 Comments

From KXLY.com:

WWII veteran Delbert Belton survived being wounded in action during the Battle of Okinawa only to be beaten and left for dead by two teens at the Eagles Lodge in Spokane on Wednesday evening.

Belton, 88, succumbed to his injuries Thursday morning at Sacred Heart Medical Center.

The Spokane County Medical Examiner’s Office says Belton died of blunt facial and head injuries.

Witnesses say Belton was in the parking lot of the Eagles Lodge at 6410 N. Lidgerwood, adjacent to the Eagles Ice-A-Rena, around 8 p.m. Wednesday when the two male suspects attacked him as he was about to head inside to play pool…

We are not a decent nation when this can happen.  We are not raising up a civilized generation when this can happen.  He was 88 years old.  He was completely defenseless.  He was beaten to death by two fit, young men.  Two young men who, had we been raising a decent generation, would have been like Belton 60 years ago…brave and willing to sacrifice.  We used to turn out quiet heroes like Belton, now we turn out savages.

We’ve got to change, completely.  All this garbage we’ve been feeding on must be brought to an end…until such time as an old man can be safe and young men are raised up modeled on that old man.

Welfare Must End

Mark Noonan40 Comments

Two things about welfare – first off, a Cato study which shows that in some States you can “earn” more being on welfare than by working a full time, minimum wage job.  Then a sensible, liberal critique of Cato pointing out that if Cato gets its way, low wage jobs will go to hordes of immigrants, thus depressing wages even more, in turn making welfare even more appealing.  The sensible liberal – Mickey Kaus – also points out that a huge problem of getting people to get off welfare and start working is that, well, working requires work.  A lot of our senseless liberals will claim that no one wants to be on welfare – which is complete twaddle because for a lot of people it makes no sense to bust one’s hump working when you can get as much, or a little more, by doing nothing…and even if you get a little less, there’s still the compensating factor of not having to get up in the morning and go to work.  I think I can speak for everyone when I say that even those of us who wouldn’t dream of using welfare except in a crisis still wake up, from time to time, and say “good grief; do I really have to go to work today?”.  Work isn’t always fun – which is why its called work, rather than play.

The risk we have is that we’re building up a dependent class which has been on welfare so long that they lose all inclination to work and start to build up a sense of entitlement to welfare.  A nation can carry on with 10% of the population freeloading, but once you start towards 20 and 30% or more doing it, collapse stares you in the face…and I’m talking civil war, end of the country sort of collapse…because those who do work will increasingly resent having to support those who don’t.  We’re at that point – and its time to get off the welfare treadmill to destruction.

The receipt of any aid for a working-age, physically fit person must be dependent upon working, period.  We can make it so that for the first month after losing the job or suffering other catastrophic financial loss is covered without having to put back in, but once we get past that first month, the recipient better have a job, or that person will have to be put to work on something in order go give back for what is obtained.  I don’t care if its picking up trash around the city or scrubbing graffiti off of walls – something must be done by every able-bodied person.  Not full time – we do want them to have the time to seek education, training and new employment – but at least 15-20 hours a week doing the grunt work of society in return for benefits.  This is only fair; those who are paying the welfare bills will see that work is being doing and those who are getting the benefits will have the sense of pride which comes with contributing to the overall benefit of society. And those who have to do such work will have a vested interest in getting off such work and in to something which works out better in the long run.  We make a deal – if you are in a financial crisis we’ll see to it you don’t starve, you keep a roof over your head, you are clothed and have essential medical care; you’re job is to stop needing such assistance as soon as possible or, lacking that, putting your back in to it a bit for what we give.

And just in case any of you liberals out there think I’m being un-Christian, I direct your attention to 2 Thessalonians 3:10:

In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.

Remember, it is “unwilling” to work – not “can’t find a job”; not “I’m disabled”.  You only get stuck in the “neither should that one eat”  if you can work and refuse to work.  The basic concept here it to return to the truth of the matter:  living requires working.  No one gets a free ride.

Secession is the Answer

Mark Noonan27 Comments

From the Washington Times:

You’ve got North Carolina and North Dakota, so why not Northern Colorado?

Voters in several rural Colorado counties will be asked whether they want to form a new state tentatively named Northern Colorado the November election, a reaction to the Democrat-controlled state legislature’s “war on rural Colorado.”

The Weld County Commissioners voted unanimously at Monday’s meeting to place a measure on the Nov. 5 ballot asking voters whether they want the county to join other rural counties in forming another state.

“The concerns of rural Coloradans have been ignored for years,”  William Garcia, chairman of the Weld County Commissioners, said in a statement. “The last session was the straw that broke the camel’s back for many people. They want change. They want to be heard.”

Three other rural counties — Cheyenne, Sedgwick and Yuma — also plan to place the 51st state referendum on the fall ballot. At least three more counties plan to consider the proposal this week at their commission meetings, said Jeffrey Hare, spokesman for the 51st State Initiative…

I’ve long argued in favor of this – you see, the government is just not responsive to the people, on the federal or State level.  This is especially true in the Western States where the States were created, willy-nilly, when they had tiny populations.  Gigantic geographic areas, mostly empty at the time of Statehood, were pushed within State boundaries and since that time, with population growth and economic development, the interests of the various regions of the States have often diverged.  More extreme than the Colorado example is the example of California.

There were fewer than 100,000 people living in California in 1850 when it became a State.  Most of the State, of course, was completely empty of people.  Over the past 163 years, the population has increased to more than 38 million and these people are spread out over the vast territory of the State and have developed lives of their own.  California isn’t a unified entity with a strong community of interests – it is a cobbled together grouping of several different communities which, however, are politically dominated by the two largest concentrations of people in the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with LA and SF – they are people with a full right to decide for themselves how they want to live…the trouble is that by being in the same State as Victorville and Palmdale, which have vastly  different ideas than SF and LA, the people of LA and SF get to dictate to the smaller populations of Victorville and Palmdale.  That just isn’t fair – doesn’t matter how Palmdale votes, they will always get a government which adheres to the wishes of San Francisco and Los Angeles.  California is not one State – it is four States (at least) forced to live under the domination of one State (the coastal area of California running from Long Beach up to San Francisco).

By breaking up the States along lines of interest, we can have States which reflect the will of their people, broadly speaking, and which take care to protect the interests of the State (no more will northern California’s logging interests be at the mercy of anti-logging San Francisco, for instance).  Additionally, by breaking up the States we ensure that representation in the United States Senate more accurately reflects all of the people – right now, both of California’s Senators are from San Francisco and while they heartily and ably represent the interests of San Francisco (and Los Angeles), they aren’t really putting before the United States Senate the interests of the other States currently contained within California’s borders.  This break up of the States should also be coupled with increasing the size of the House to at least 601 members – thus making our House representatives more representative of the people.

The one thing I can’t stand is domination of one party by another.  People in their localities should pretty much do it as they want, limited only by the strictures of the Constitution.  It is way past time that we completely reformed American government to ensure that the local people rule their own lives.  Secession is the answer to the problem – by making government smaller and closer to the people, it will be less corrupt and oppressive.

ObamaCare Train Wreck Update

Mark Noonan12 Comments

Three bits of ObamaCare news today:

Half of all ObamaCare statutory deadlines have been missed.

Forever 21 is cutting the hours of some of their employees to 29.5 per week to avoid ObamaCare mandates.  These people were advised yesterday, August 18th, that their health benefits will terminate as of August 31st.

More than 100,000 New Jersey residents in a program for low-cost health insurance will lose their coverage because their plan doesn’t cover all the whistles and bells mandated by ObamaCare.  They’ll be lucky if their replacement plans only cost twice as much.

Did you vote for Obama?  Then be ashamed.  This is just a horrible thing…and it is horrible because Obama and leading Democrats cobbled together a pile of legislation and passed it without reading it or thinking through the consequences.

The Failure of Democracy

Mark Noonan70 Comments

Which is worse:  a democracy where minorities are oppressed or a dictatorship where minorities are protected?  Before you answer that question, do keep in mind that every single human being on earth is in the minority at some point – whether its because of your gender, skin color, religion, political beliefs or what have you, at some juncture in your life there are more of them than there are of you.  All of us are minorities and thus all of us are a potential target for a democracy ruled by demagogues – ruled by those who single out a minority as the source of evil which must be destroyed. 

In a very real sense, the primary purpose of government is to protect minorities – because only when minorities are protected can justice be said to exist to any extent, at all.  It doesn’t matter how democratic a nation is or how regularly it votes – if a minority is being oppressed, then it is an unjust society and the government is not carrying out its primary function.  Government must ensure that each of us – especially when we are in the minority – are as far as possible allowed to go about our lives without let or hindrance from anyone else.  Given this, better, say, a military dictatorship which will protect all the minorities than a democracy which deliberately attacks some minorities.

Of course, vastly better than either is a government of free people which also protects minorities.  Once upon a time, our government was the best example of that humanity had ever devised.  It is in tatters and shreds right now – so bad that the government is deliberately breaking the law in the matter of the debt limit, domestic spying, ObamaCare implementation and other matters and hardly a peep is raised about it.  But it is still to some extent in existence – we are still partially free; partially protected in our minority rights, that is. 

What is happening in Egypt should send a chill down our spines – because that is what democracy becomes when people are convinced that a vote of the majority rules all.  The Morsi government won the election fair and square and proceeded to do whatever it pleased – because “the people” had said so.  Of course, it wasn’t all of the people – the people will never be unanimous.  There will always be a minority which doesn’t agree – and the first duty of the government, even if supported by 99% of the people, is to ensure that the 1% disagreeing get what they want, even (and especially) if that is no more than to be left alone.  In the United States there are plenty of Americans who now think like the Morsi supporters:  they’ve won the election and so they get to do whatever they want and the minority must knuckle under.  That, however, is a failure of democracy – a failure to understand that we have a democracy not to determine what everyone must do, but to ensure that everyone can do as they wish, as far as practical.

For democracy to work there must be built in to it massive prohibitions against government action – for the very purpose of ensuring that a transient political majority doesn’t get it in their heads that victory at the polls is last word in government.  Our Bill of Rights is our primary bulwark against the failure of democracy.  What many people – mostly on the left – don’t understand is that if they don’t keep up the bulwarks, then the whole thing will come crashing down in to revolt and eventual civil war.  Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed – but, remember, only their just powers.  Just powers cannot be all powers because all powers cannot be granted to the government for the simple reason that not all people will consent to it.

I urge everyone not to tempt fate.  Do not push things too far.  Resign yourself to the fact that people will disagree and will have a right to disagree even to the point where you are offended.  We are straying very close to a precipice right now – our government has grown arrogant; our political pressure groups think they are invincible.  Some people are thinking that “history” is on their side, again (the Nazis and Communists thought that, too).  Democracy is failing – here and around the world – because in too many lands a temporary majority thinks it has the right to re-order everyone’s lives.  Stop it.  Now.  And let democracy be a success, again.