Category Archives: Current News

This is about stuff in the mass media that generally has a short interest life span. Speculation about an election outcome a few days before the election is an example.

Experiment goals

Posted on by

As nearly everyone already knows there is an experiment in progress in southern California. I would like to share the design of the experiment and the questions I hope to answer.*

Why a new experiment was required:

After Columbine law enforcement had to reevaluate how they responded to this new situation. Their training was for a “hostage situation” and they handled it as such. Of course this was completely the wrong response. They didn’t even have a name for the type of event. It is now called “an active shooter” and the tactics and training have been modified to respond in a much better fashion. The D.C. snipers comes close but those two were of below average intelligence and had only a moderate amount of military training between the two of them, no law enforcement training, no knowledge of how law enforcement would respond, attacked random private citizens, and attempted to extort money which resulted in important clues being left behind.

This too will be something almost completely new to the police. No known data can be confidently extrapolated to this new situation.

Subject selection:

I wanted the subject to be a black lesbian with a strong affinity for leftist politicians. This would deflect the knee jerk “angry right-wing white male” response from the gun hostile media and politicians. But finding one in possession of a variety of firearms, the skills to use them, plus a law enforcement and military background proved too difficult on the tight schedule. The substitution of a black male was considered adequate.

Experiment location:

The location of the experiment was chosen as California because of the large geographical area with repressive guns laws. A multi-jurisdictional response is expected to yield a more confused and less effective response by law enforcement. A minimal set of variables were desired in the initial experiment.

New York and New Jersey were also considered but were rejected for the following reasons:

  1. Smaller geographical area for the subject to take advantage of.
  2. The higher population density makes detection and reporting of movement by the public more likely.
  3. Higher population density increases the risk to innocent private citizens.
  4. If the experiment could have been run as original scheduled in May, when I have time after Boomershoot but before the hot summer months, NY and NJ still might have still have been given serious consideration but the frenzy of anti-gun legislation in December and January pushed the schedule ahead. The winter climate of NY and NJ this time of year would have put the subject at an disadvantage.

The Los Angles police department also is one of the largest, outside of New York City, in a repressive gun law environment. This gives us important data on the effectiveness of extensive hardware and well developed command and control.

The existence of the repressive gun laws was important to demonstrate that the laws are useless or at least any effect they have still leaves the subject with sufficient opportunities.

Plus my parents honeymooned in the Big Bear Lake area and I have always wanted to visit.

Questions to be answered:

  1. Just how much damage is likely by a relatively smart and sane, well-trained, well-armed individual?
  2. How do the police handle being the hunted instead of the hunters?
  3. Do the police have any training for this situation?
  4. Does law enforcement even have even have a name for this type of situation?
  5. What changes in training will result?
  6. With the police spending significant resources on one subject what are the effects in other areas in their jurisdiction?
  7. Does the general crime rate increase during the time the subject is active?
  8. Do the targeted law enforcement departments quit their jobs or otherwise decrease the effectiveness of the police force when subject to increased stress?
  9. Do the politicians and/or media advocate for new laws to prevent events from happening again?
  10. If new laws are advocated what are those laws?

Although further experiments will be required for confirmation, the data will be used to extrapolate the expected outcomes from a small team targeting a police force. Multiple team information is desired but it is not expected to accurately extrapolate from this one experiment.

Applicability to other situations:

I would caution other experimenters to not attempt drawing conclusions from this experiment as to the expected results if it were politicians, the media, a corporation, or other group instead of law enforcement being targeted. The dynamics, mindset, strategy, and tactics of being the target versus protecting a target are different and probably cannot be accurately accounted for without actually running the experiment.

*Yeah, right. If I had the mind control technology to do something like this from 1000 miles away with no contact with the subject I would a be a multi-gazillionaire. Furthermore the entire world would have a free-market economy with free-minds and the political discussions would be over who had the purest principles and which politicians best exemplified the principles expressed by Ayn Rand, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, and Robert Higgs.

Manifesto summary

Posted on by

Most sites do not have the entire text of the “manifesto” of the former LA Cop on the rampage in California. The part where he praises left-wing politicians and anti-gun policies is missing. It’s almost as if the media don’t want people to know that someone on the left is on a violent rampage. If it were a someone with even a hint of right-wing leanings that would be in the headlines.

I found my version of his manifesto here.

My summary, if you don’t have the time to read it all, is as follows:

He is really pissed off about being fired. His side of the story is that he reported another officer kicked a handcuffed suspect. He claims a video of the suspect confirms his side of the story. A hearing determined he was lying and he was fired over it. There were also confrontations with other officers who used the n-word.

There is a large section outlining how he is going to kill a large number of police officers and their families for the injustice inflicted upon him. The only way he will stop is if the LAPD issues a public apology and says it was wrong to fire him. He calls out a number of people and groups as “high value targets”. He claims private citizens, unrelated to LAPD officers, and law enforcement from other agencies will be safe if they leave him alone. He won’t hunt them as he will the officers and families of the LAPD.

He claims he owns AR-15 carbine(s), Remington precision rifle(s), suppressors, and a .50 BMG. He has military training and scored high in marksmanship both in the military and in the police force.

That was in the first half of the document. The second half is praise for various public figures and his friends. Some of it is of the form “good-bye, sorry to leave, I will miss you”. Almost all the politicians are democrats with anti-gun policies which he praises.

Some selected anti-gun quotes:

  • “All of these small arms are manufactured by Cerberus/Freedom Group. The same company responsible for the Portland mall shooting, Webster , NY, and Sandy Hook massacre.”
  • “Mia Farrow said it best. ‘Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.'”
  • “Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB.”

To me it seemed there was a bit of a disconnect between the first part and the second. Perhaps he was in a different mood. It seems as if he was sad and saying good-bye rather than angry and plotting revenge in the earlier part.

So much for that “common caliber” meme

Posted on by

Re-think?

Original Principles

Posted on by

You cannot claim to defend the second amendment while supporting or openly accepting the NFA of ’34 and GCA ’68. Or background checks. It makes absolutely no sense.

Progressive president FDR knew exactly what he was doing. Before 1934 you could buy a Thompson sub machinegun by mail order with no paperwork. Or a BAR. Or an M2, et al. The second amendment said so. It was understood. The convenient ruse was Prohibition. Never let a crisis go to waste. Prohibition naturally led to gang warfare, widespread corruption and a general degradation of society, just as the “War on Drugs” does today. Then, as now, the violence and degradation guaranteed by a profitable, government-enforced monopoly for criminals is used as a tool to intimidate you into accepting infringements on your rights. It isn’t so much a conspiricy as a natural progression for those in power.

You don’t HATE children, do you? Of course not, and so you must give up more of your rights, and your children’s rights. Remember that, Grasshopper; this “for the children’ or “for the good of society” crap demands giving up not just yours but your neighbors’ and your children’s rights – so now who hates children? Who hates your grandchildren? Since you gave up THAT little bit (NFA, GCA, NICCS, et al) you have ceded the enemy’s point. You’ve agreed that restrictions on gun ownership are a legitimate and sensible way of addressing crime. You’ve proven to everyone that, under the right pressures, you’re willing to give up more, and more and more, until you’ve forgotten what the right was in the first place. Which is where we are now. You’re dancing someone else’s dance and you don’t even know it. It works so well that many of us are afraid to articulate the true meaning of the second amendment in public, for fear of being branded as extremists. That cheap, transparent game is as old as the hills, but it’s so effective, over and over again, that many of you reading this are still falling for it. Cowards. Don’t think that your clever rationalizations make you less of a coward. You’re clever cowards.

If we allow ourselves to be suckered by proposals for “mental health” screening for gun purchases, for example, just watch how quickly the number of people being determined to have “mental health” issues starts to climb, and climb, and climb exponentially. Don’t ask later, in bewilderment, (NRA) how it could have come to such a state of affairs. It will. And you will have helped it along (which means you’re crazy, which means you can’t have guns ; )

No, Young Grasshopper; the only way to fix this is to rediscover Original Principles, then articulate them clearly, then stand our ground, and then win it all back. The enemy wins through subtle lies, mind tricks, degradation, intimidation, smear, and outright lies. We are better than this. We win with the truth, and with the courage to stand up for it.

The problem with experts

Posted on by

Plenty of research, plenty of information, zero mention of the second amendment or the core principles behind it;

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/01/with-megyn-kelly-on-fox-news.html#comments

In other words, he didn’t make the case.  Instead he argued purely within The Enemy’s framework, proving who had all the control over the conversation.  Human rights, and the power relations between citizens and government, were apparently not even worth mentioning, yet those are THE points to be made.  Listen to their words very carefully.  Lott and Kelly both took the bait, hook, line and sinker, and ran with it.  It’s sad.  The term, “too clever by half” comes to mind.

In fact, a fundamental human right is being impugned and attacked without being mentioned– as though it didn’t exist– as though infringements on that right aren’t specifically prohibited.  “Machineguns are already highly regulated, and aren’t used in crimes” as if that would matter– as if your rights depend on statistics– as if a certain set of infrigements to your rights is all we’re going to talk about.  It would be like discussing how to cook your mother for dinner, with no mention of the mother’s moral right to life or the legal prohibition against killing her and eating her.  Cannibals are arguing over the cannibal pot, and the audience is to see one chef as the more clever culinary tactician than the other.  No doubt many of us on both sides are cheering along like mindless sports fans at a game.  We are better than this.  It’s not a goddamned game.

What is the purpose?

Posted on by

One has to wonder what the real purpose of publishing the names and a map of all the people that have a license to own a gun.

Let’s think about this a little bit. What would be the purpose of publishing the names and a map of the following people who are also exercising their constitutionally protected rights?

  • All women who have had an abortion.
  • All people of Jewish heritage.
  • All Muslims.
  • All people in an interracial and/or gay marriage (may not be constitutionally protected in all jurisdictions).
  • All people who have written letters to the editor hostile to a government official or policy.
  • All people with ancestors who were slaves.
  • All people who are members of the ACLU and/or NAACP.
  • All people who have invoked their right to have an attorney present when being questioned by the police.
  • All people who have invoked their right to a jury trial when accused of a crime.
  • All people that voted for Obama.

Certain rights are specifically enumerated and protected because they are known to be subject to disapproval and attack by certain people and government authorities. By publishing lists of people that have long been known to be at higher risk of disapproval and attack I can only conclude one thing. That information has a high likelihood of being used for criminal purposes by fanatics hostile to certain categories of people. Furthermore anyone that published such information would be highly suspect of intending the people on such a list to suffer adverse consequences for their exercise of their constitutionally protected rights.

Show me some data or a logical argument why my conclusions unfounded. Show me a reason why I should believe the people that would do such a thing have the best interests of the targets of such a list at heart. Show me why I would be unjustified in accusing them of desiring that harm come to the people on their list.

Befuddled or brilliant?

Posted on by

Last Friday the NRA responded to the Newtown shooting with a proposal “to help make sure this never happens again” that included attacks against video games, violent movies, and called for an active national database of the mentally ill and armed police officers in every school.

As I mentioned in a Tweet at the time, “Way to go @NRA. Trash the First Amendment in an attempt to save the Second. We all lose.”

And alienating all the gamers? Grrr… Now that was a big mistake.

One could go on to criticize the police office suggestion as well. How could they be paid for? Wouldn’t they just be the first ones shot in a similar attack? Isn’t this another step closer to a police state?

And a national database of the mentally ill? That’s not going to encourage people to get help or for family and friends to feel good about pushing someone to get treatment. Way to alienate still another group of people that don’t need to be alienated.

Even traditionally strong supporters of the NRA had some criticism of the NRA statement.

How can an organization that urges “Vote Freedom First” take a swing at video games and violent movies and hope to be taken seriously?

nra_freedom2

It’s like they are hopelessly confused or even incoherent.

On the other hand there are people saying (H/T to Sebastian):

Suddenly, the gun banners had to argue two ridiculous positions. The first was that allowing trained educators or police having weapons in schools is a danger. The problem is that people generally like and trust teachers and cops. The second position was even worse, that armed personnel or police are somehow utterly useless against untrained, amateur creeps who seek to confront six-year olds. All over America, millions of parents noted how none of the wealthy gun banners were disbanding their personal security teams and thought, “You know, I think I’d like having a cop around my kid too.”

…

Particularly amusing are the liberals who transform into green eyeshades misers with the public purse when it comes to cops in schools. The folks who can’t spend enough dough on fudge-smeared, patriarchy-challenging performance artists suddenly become thrifty Scotsmen when it comes to doling out a few shillings to put a cop on campus.

You know, he does sort of have a point there. Instead of pushing for the banning of guns or magazines our opponents have been deflected onto other topics. And that might just put us into an easily winnable position.

I don’t know if it that was befuddlement or brilliance but in the short term it just might have been a winning play.

Nice one from Tam

Posted on by

In or out of context, it’s a memorable one;

  “Standin’ by your man ain’t doin’ him no favors when what he needs is a rehab clinic.”

Seen here.

Anyway you look at it, or if you change “man” to “woman” it works great.  Ideally though, standin’ by your man, or woman, would be doing both of you a favor, but how often is that actually the case?

More on prescription drugs and mass shootings

Posted on by

Hmm;
http://www.infowars.com/fanapt-hoax-hides-real-connection-between-shooters-and-ssri-drugs/
— Lyle

What he said

Posted on by

This makes sense and is valuable information:

The soft-spoken academic interrupted the conversation about the nuances of gun control to point out that random mass shootings are typically suicides augmented with multiple murders as a way of dramatizing the shooter’s pain and self-hatred. Copious amounts of research show that media publicity of suicides leads to copy-cat crimes. “It seems to me,” the professor politely interjected, “that the more we report that this sort of assault weapon was used, that this person had this kind of bulletproof vest, that this person entered the school this way—that gives other people who are depressed and suicidal and want to take a whole bunch of people with them the knowledge on how to pull it off.” The media, Bell said, should self-censor their sensational, detailed coverage of mass shootings.

But as Barrett (yes, Paul Barrett from Business Week, Gun Blogger Rendezvous 2011, and Boomershoot 2012) points out:

That’s not going to happen—for the same reason that the inevitable commissions and hearings on violence in films and video games will conclude that there’s little for government to do about bloodshed in entertainment. The First Amendment protects a robust right to expression. A parallel exists with the Second Amendment, another emblem of freedom, forged in the 18th century yet still hallowed generations later. These uniquely American rights come with tremendous responsibilities—and haunting costs.

Self-censorship isn’t going to be effective in a free market. The temptation to increase readers/viewers/listeners with “uncensored” coverage will result in fuller, more sensational coverage by a few who will gain from it. There competition will either pay a heavy price in the market place or end the policy of self-censorship.

Censorship will last only if there are direct costs such as fines or prison terms associated with such coverage.

There are haunting costs no matter which direction you go.

Important Statement from the National Rifle Association

Posted on by

From NRA-ILA via Twitter:

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.

Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.

Quote of the day—dlpartyka

Posted on by

Not to worry, The Gangs got their Federal Firearms Allotment without it being traced back to BATFE.

dlpartyka
November 30, 2012
Comment to More than 100 rifles, including ‘AK-style’ weapons, stolen from train car in metro Atlanta
[It’s funny because it could be true.—Joe]

We were right again

Posted on by

Less than 10 days ago the Brady Campaign was saying:

Militant gun advocates and firearms industry lobbies will be surprised to learn that there are indeed limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and that there is no fundamental right to carry handguns in public.

Today the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said:

The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms  for self-defense, which is as important outside the  home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with  concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden. The Supreme  Court’s interpretation  of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the  decisions in the two cases before us…

This is huge! Carry of firearms outside the home has been declared to be a specific enumerated right by a Federal Court. Laws in Washington D.C., California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and other jurisdictions are now target rich environments for lawsuits to strike down restrictions on a fundamental right.

The Brady Campaign is on the wrong side of history. Again.

Update: As pointed out by David Hardy this is a circuit split and it will almost for certain go to the Supreme Court for resolution.

Reflections on assumptions, principles, and world-view after a painful loss

Posted on by

It is easy to argue with others and say that they must be
stupid or insane or whatever to vote a certain way. But, when you lose, you
have to confront the fact that you were out-voted, and therefore, in a
minority. Introspection to see whether you
made a mistake, or if they were
mistaken, or if there are other forces at work, must be done or you will keep
losing. We all have our assumptions and principles, and these form our basic
world-view, and it may be time to check out or investigate theirs, as well as
my own. Assumptions and principles are different, and should be evaluated for
clarity and reasonableness.

All of Euclidian Geometry follows from a very small handful
of postulates, common notions, and definitions. People are more complex, but
that doesn’t mean that our assumptions HAVE to be far more complicated or
vastly more numerous.

Some people have a very simplistic “if it feels good do it”
sort of worldview, because that sums up their principles, and their sole
assumption / value is “feeling good right now is what matters most.” If you don’t
agree with that basic assertion, then you see them as shallow, hedonistic, short-sighted,
etc. But you can’t get them to change their view, or see YOUR view, until you get them to formally recognize
and question those underlying ideas, and acknowledge yours. Similarly,
you can’t understand why they do what
they do until you recognize and understand what their fundamental principles and values are. Same facts, utterly divergent
views.

Simplistic example: Men generally value freedom more than
security, and women vice-versa. Men generally earn more than women. A
politician offering much freedom and low taxes, at the cost of limited
safety-net and therefore personal uncertainty, will attract more men than
women. Another politician offering an image of dependability and security (such
as free healthcare) at a cost of high taxes and regulation, will attract a lot more
women than men. Men see the cost in taxes and on their freedom, women see
benefits of not having to worry about it. Same fact, different values, different
votes. Looked at short-term, before the cost of the free health-care bankrupts the
nation, the female vote is perfectly
rational, and if she votes against it she’ll be accused of voting against her
own self-interests. OTOH, a man voting against it will be accused of being
selfish or uncaring. Looked at long-term, as the burden of it destroys many
other things and increases uncertainty, it’s
very self-destructive to vote for
the health-care pol. But one just calling the other stupid or callous doesn’t
help find common ground or resolve the dispute and decide the best course for
both short AND long term concerns.

My basic assumptions about the people of the world are:
A) People tend to change their behavior when their perceived incentives change (see “O” below).
B) People will work much harder for themselves (to make more money or improve
their situation) than for anyone else, i.e., they will work in their own best
interests (as they see them).
C) Most people are basically good, and want to do good, BUT
D) people tend to be lazy, and can be envious, spiteful, cowardly, have other
anti-virtues, AND
E) some folks just are not wired right (psychopaths, narcissists, psychotics, sociopaths,
OCD, idiots, etc)
F) People are people – any assumptions you make about the “common man” or
business leaders, you must ALSO make about people with a badge, or in elected
office, or any other government employee. (Corollary: If you don’t trust folks
to take care of themselves or run business, you can’t expect them give them a
monopoly on government force and expect them to act like angels.)
G) Risk can never be eliminated, and trying to do so creates other, much more
subtle and dangerous, risks (Corollary: you CAN’T save everyone. NON-corollary:
it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to save anyone).


My assumptions about economics are:
H) The world is not a zero-sum game.
I) TANSTAAFL- ALL choices are trade-offs, and better choices can be made if
consequences are clear, direct, and known to the chooser at the time of the
choice being made. (Related: Costs should align with benefits, preferably in an
obvious-to-the-beneficiary way at the
time of benefit)
 J) People tend to change their behavior
when the incentives change (yup, same as above – it’s important)
K) Things not earned are not valued properly or understood well. (Corollary:
giving people stuff, either “free stuff” or power, corrupts the spirit and
distorts values and other incentives).
L) Because people have different values, aiming for equality of outcomes is unwise.
M) There will always be relative winners and losers in ANY system, and changing
the rules simply changes who wins or loses most. (Related: the more rules there
are, the more people will attempt to game the system to personal advantage, and
the worse the side-effects)
N)  When incentives of self-interest are
aligned with desirable outcomes, there is little resistance to “good” action (corollary:
when they conflict, coercion will be required).
O) Failure is not a bug, it’s a necessary
feature, a feed-back mechanism. It’s not only an option, it MUST be a VISIBLE and
PAINFUL option, if people are to evaluate risk and reward to choose wisely.
P) What works best is usually what aligns self-interest with desired outcomes.
Q) Marginal costs can tell you a LOT about how well thought-out a plan is.
R) That which cannot be sustained, won’t be.


My principles and values are: more freedom is better than
less; private property is private, and that includes your body, your time, and
the product of your labor; I really don’t care that much about what you say about
the intended result of your actions –
I care much more about the actual
real-world results, effects, and side-effects; dependency is bad; coercion is
bad; coercion and charity are incompatible; clarity and accuracy are more important
than hurt feelings; things of value are best earned or given freely; a person
should do all that they promise to do; a person should not harm another, or
their property, without just cause (such as self defense); all people should be
treated equally under the law, BUT not all people are of equal worth; honesty
is good, even if it is uncomfortable.

Questions, challenges, any missing / contradictory /
redundant items? If I can get it concise – simple, clear, short, and complete
enough – whenever I get in an argument that I think can be broken down to
fundamentals, I can ask which ones they disagree with. If they DON’T disagree
with any of them, and don’t have any others, I could build up, like a Euclidian
proof, why my position makes more sense than theirs (or at least, why their
position doesn’t make sense to me), and if they DO disagree or have other
additional items, I can get a much better handle on why/how/if I can approach
the disagreement to find common ground.

Protest Songs

Posted on by

Advertising is expensive, and people are good at tuning it
out. Memes catch on because the are pithy and may be hitting at a core truth.
Music can carry a message, tell a story, or just get into someone ear and buzz
there for a while. To get a message across, to teach, you can use massive repetition, or strike an emotional chord
in someone’s brain to trigger a this is
important signal, or massive repetition. Political advertising goes for the
massive repetition, from both sides. But protest songs are almost almost exclusively
a tool of the left. I think it’s because artists tend to be on that side of the
spectrum. What we (the conservative / right) need are some good protest songs to reach the young and the undecided’s in the middle.
The thought came to me that

“Four dead in Benghazi” sounds an awful lot like “Four dead
in Ohio”

A person could either make the song to Neil Young’s tune,
and change the words appropriately, something like:

Two soldiers and no-one’s coming
We’re abandon, on our own
This winter I’ll hear the piper
Four dead in Benghazi

Gotta get to the annex
Terrorists cut ambassador down
We warned higher ups long ago
If you knew him
And found him dead on the ground
How could you tell us to stand down?

SEALS and marines are ready to go
Jets are fueled on the strip
Targets are all lit up
AC130 overhead being called
On for help
Need some rounds on the ground

Two soldiers and no-one’s coming
We’re abandon, on our own
The winter I hear the piper
Four dead in Benghazi

Or they could make a mocking, sarcastic, satire, something
sung to the tune of “Hero of Canton” from firefly, which was (in the show) a
serious folk song, but to us (the audience) is was hysterical because it
misrepresented the facts and Jayne so badly. For that, something that mocks and ridicules
the entire Obama presidency would be best. Something like:

O, the man they call O! / He robbed from the children / and
he gave to the old! / Stood up to the kings / Then he bowed to the floor!

It could reference many of the different doings, from
fund-raising scandals, “green energy, deficits, no budget, Benghazi, etc.

 Know any bored song-smiths?

Looters and the right to keep and bear arms

Posted on by

There are reports of looting in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy. The National Guard has been mobilized to help stop the looting but what I don’t see or mentioned are people defending their homes and stores like what we saw after hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Most people in New Jersey and New York probably do not have a firearm which would give them a decent chance against the supposedly planned “flash mob robberies”.


I wonder if this will change any opinions on the right to keep and bear arms. Will more people purchase a firearm and get some training so that next time they will be better prepared? Or will government workers with guns do such a wonderful job that people will see no need for private citizens to own guns?


A search of Google news for hurricane sandy gun turns up nothing of interest. I wonder why that is.

Election predictions

Posted on by

There is an election coming up, so I thought I’d update my
last prediction.

You can create your own scenario here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_create_your_own_electoral_college_map.html

As I write this, at RealClear FL, NC, VA, CO, NV, IA, WI,
MI, OH, PA, and NH are considered “Toss-up”, and Obama has a solid 201 Electoral
College votes, Romney a solid 191.

I think that the polling data showing a MAJOR shift in party
self-identification from D to R (shifting from about a 5 point D advantage in
2008 to about a 2 point R advantage now), a shift in independent support toward
Romney now giving him a double-digit percentage lead (52% to 39%), greater R
enthusiasm / fear-of-consequences, and the persistently underwater job approval
numbers on Obama will all lead to Romney coming out ahead, beyond the
margin-of-fraud, in FL, NC, VA, CO, NH, and IA, for 267 (two shy of a tie). I think he’ll most likely
also take OH, WI, and NV, giving Romney 301 EC votes. That also means Romney could
afford to lose or have contested any one of those, even for FL, or Ohio AND Wisconsin,
and still have 270+.

If the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy suppresses voting in
Philly significantly, or the Benghazi thing blows up further in the DMC
(Democrat-Media-Complex, aka ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc), he may get PA and MI,
too, for 337 EC votes. I consider this only about one chance in five.

If Benghazi goes politically nuclear in the popular press,
and the political rights’ worst fears are realized and popularized prior to the
election (slim chance, but theoretically possible), then the O implosion loses
OR, MN, and ME2, because so many Dems stayed home rather than vote for their former
hero, giving Romney 355, almost as many as Obama did – which would also mean
that the Rs get a solid lead in the Senate, and keep the House. Maybe as much as a 5% chance, here.

If a lot of Dems stay home in disgust because of the national scene, then McKenna wins in WA state as Gov, but Cant(vote)Well will still win re-election in the Senate, because the R party can’t put forth any good candidates in WA, and the Libs in WA are still clueless as to the importance of senators and Cantwell’s ineffectiveness. If party “turnout” is normal, then it’s too close to call, but I’m afraid Insley will have enough friends counting votes that he’ll pull it out.

About voting fraud

Posted on by

Since the left is convinced that you cannot be trusted with a gun, cannot be trusted to educate your own kids, feed your own kids, feed yourself, deal directly with your medical care providers, chose the vehicle you want, run your own business without being told how to do it, hire the right people, chose your own light bulbs, chose the energy sources you want, or keep your own money, et al, why on Earth would it trust you to vote?  Why should it?


If the very future of the planet itself is in jeopardy, as is claimed, well then; the left would be “out of its mind” so to speak, to allow any election to go the wrong way if there were anything that could be done, by any means necessary, to fix it.


If we want to go further with this line of thought, we could make the same case.  If we’re headed for the cliff due to socialist creep, and there is very little time to make a correction, and since the constitution is no longer a functional barrier to socialist creep, since we’re now a de facto pure democracy seemingly bent on self destruction, then what are OUR options?


No; we don’t need election fraud.  The left needs it.  All we need is the truth, the light of day, and to find a way to begin restoring and enforcing the constitution.  We know that the Republican Party as constituted today will not do that, so we’ve refined the context of the question, but not answered it.  What are our options?


As little help as it may be, I can answer that in the negative; One option that we do NOT have is that of trying to make everyone like us.  We’ll have to tell it like it is, with malice toward none (and that’s a challenge, isn’t it?) and let the chips fall where they may.  Pandering and beating around the bush, being afraid of the bare truth, is what got us in this mess, and it is what defines the Republican Party today.

It’s a Model City alright

Posted on by

Detroit, that is.  I’ve been thinking of a Model Cities post for a while, but PJMedia already has a nice one;


 



Hat Tip; Kevin.


It’s a Model City alright, for exactly the same reasons that North Korea and Cuba are Model Countries.  That video should be part of every right/left debate from now until all leftist ideas are shunned from polite society forever.

Friends or tools?

Posted on by

I’m sure you have all heard the old saw “the enemy of my
enemy is my friend.” Well… No. I think a better version is “the enemy of my
enemy is a useful tool.” And I think
that is what we are seeing evidence of unfolding before us right now.

Obama & Co announce a record $ 181 million in donations
in Sept, largely in small amounts from “first time” donors, too small to require tracking. At the same time, a
breaking story is about extremely lax verification of donor credit card legitimacy (i.e., essentially none) ,
and a LOT of hits to Obama’s “contribute” page (something like 2/3) come from
overseas, and there is not much in the way of addressing matching with the card payment. I would be VERY unsurprised if a lot of OverSeas America Haters made
donations, in violation of US law and with complicit looking-the-other-way by
the Obama fundraisers, because they know that while Obama may not be their
friend, he is an easily manipulated fool who isn’t very fond of America and is
working to destroy it. Not because he really wants to per se, but because he is too stupid and narcissistic to realize
what real effect his actions have. The folks surrounding him want to hang on to
power because it’s shiny and what ALL the cool kids want, but they really are NOT
very good at wielding it (or even understanding it), and REALLY don’t
understand dealing with those that only understand the power of tribe, bribe,
and force, for whom our western values are antithetical to their fundamental
values.  These people (the power players
in China, Saudi Arabia / MENA, Russia, drug cartels, radical Islam, etc) would REALLY like to
see Obama pull out a win, because America’s weakness is their gain.

News is also coming out that there was a LOT of warning
about security problems in Benghazi, and a SEAL team was pulled out only a
month before, displaying massive incompetence on behalf of the administration.
His foreign policy in general is now being widely
seen as increasingly ineffective, and his biggest supporters are those that
would gain from our weakness.

It is widely acknowledged that the first debate was a
disaster for Obama. Even the New Yorker magazine cover showed Romney Eastwooding
at the debate. I think there is also
a very real potential that the second debate, on foreign policy, will be as bad
or worse (if for different reasons), in part because of the above facts. I’m
not saying that the fat lady is singing her final notes, but I do get the strong
feeling that she’s starting to warm up for a really rock’n finale.

Then, of course, we’ll have to hear about the election being
stolen, voters being too stupid to know what’s good for them, etc., for the
next half-dozen or more election cycles, but that’s a price I’m willing to
accept.