Category Archives: Politics

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

I was listening to the audible version of A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: The Birth of Britain today and it was implied that the power of church of early Britain was restricted by enforcing vows of poverty. That might be a misunderstanding of mine because I was driving in heavy traffic at the time and wasn’t giving the book my full attention. But anyway, that suggested something to me.

I wonder if requirements of poverty and perhaps chastity for politicians would improve the character of those who seek public office. They currently take an oath of office to uphold the U.S. constitution. But that is ignored by 99+% of them. In part because what the constitution “really means” is subject to interpretation and opinion. It can’t really be measured with numbers all that easily. Income can be measured much less subjectively. The indirect bribes of “stock tips”, “loans”, and “donations to the foundation” would be more easily detected by the lifestyle they live if they were required to live a life of poverty after gaining public office.

Of course the downside would be that very capable people would be self deselected from the potential candidates. But if one is to claim that politicians are self serving and government is too large and powerful. Such a requirement would change the character of the politicians in many that is in the generally correct direction.

Quote of the day—Richard Beary

Posted on by

Talking about firearms now is like talking about race. These are difficult conversations, and people get very polarized on each side of it.

Richard Beary
Chief of police for the University of Central Florida
President of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
October 9, 2015
Gun Debate Divides Nation’s Police Officers, Too
[Also of interest from the same article:

Jennifer Carlson, an American sociologist at the University of Toronto who studies police attitudes toward gun laws, says this divide has grown since the 1990s. A generation ago, she says, police chiefs made a common cause of legislation such as the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady bill.

“And now you’ve really seen police not taking as much as a unified stance, at least publicly,” she says. “That’s been a major shift.”

She thinks this may have something to do with the expansion of concealed handgun permits, which gun rights groups pushed for especially hard starting in the late 1990s. Police chiefs initially resisted the expansion of the gun permits, but Carlson says many of them changed their minds when they saw that increased permits didn’t cause a big increase in shootings.

Back in the 90s there were discussions about whether the concealed carry permits were something we should push for or not. The argument boiled down to “The 2nd Amendment is my carry permit”. If we concede that we have to ask permission to carry a gun they can, at some later time, deny us that permission. The only principled thing to do is to push for “Vermont carry”.

Had we gone the “principled” versus practical route my guess is we would be in a much worse situation than now. Now we have concealed carry in all states and are making progress toward constitutional carry in a significant number of states. We made progress because we were able to change the culture. We were able to change the culture at the national level because we were able to show we could be trusted with guns in public in states that were gun friendly.

I despise politics because principals and rules (such as the constitution) simply don’t matter. But politics is how laws are changed and politics are the art of the practical and the possible. And that is the path to victory. You do whatever works to get closer to your goal. You get acceptance from the culture. Then you do it again to get another step closer to your goal.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Hardy

Posted on by

It’s just a ploy to pick up the pro-gun vote, with a promise that she’d support repeal of GCA 68 and enactment of 50-State constitutional carry, plus a $10,000 gift to each gun owner, so long as we self-verify that we have no plans to commit a crime.

David Hardy
October 9, 2015
Hillary compares dealing with NRA to negotiating with Iran
[I LOL’d.

But the reality is that Hillary is saying she regards the NRA and gun owners as terrorists and if she acquires the power she will treat us as such.—Joe]

Civil disobedience

Posted on by

The American People elected a handy Republican majority in Congress, in part to repeal Obama Care. Republicans ran, and were elected, based on that promise. Then they turned tail as soon as they were sworn in. They lied. As a Party, they lied.

We are now faced with the a representation system, as a means of redress of grievances, as a means of carrying out the will of the People with regard to upholding and protecting human liberty, which has failed. With Boehner’s recent stunt of shutting down an election for a new Speaker, the Republican Party is clearly maintaining its practice of running interference for the Progressives (incremental communists), and so there is no apparent correction in sight for this situation.

That leaves us with one option left before we get out our guns; civil disobedience. Refuse to take part in ObamaCare. Don’t even acknowledge it. There are ways of dealing with this, which your accountant/tax preparer, if he’s any good at all, can discuss with you.

Some Americans, as I type this, are in the Middle East in harm’s way, taking smallarms fire, in their attempts to save some of the Christians who are under attack and being killed for no reason other than their faith. They are risking, and some will lose, their lives in standing up for what’s right. I think we can risk getting a few letters in the mail, don’t you? I’m looking forward to it.

Quote of the day—Winston Churchill

Posted on by

Here was another trading centre, to which high civic rank had been accorded. A like total slaughter and obliteration was inflicted. “No less”, according to Tacitus, “than seventy thousand citizens and allies were slain” in these three cities. “For the barbarians would have no capturing, no selling, nor any kind of traffic usual in war; they would have nothing but killing, by sword, cross, gibbet, or fire.” These grim words show us an inexpiable war like that waged between Carthage and her revolted mercenaries two centuries before. Some high modern authorities think these numbers are exaggerated; but there is no reason why London should not have contained thirty or forty thousand inhabitants, and Cochester and St Albans between them about an equal number. If the butcheries in the countryside are added the estimate of Tacitus may well stand. This is probably the most horrible episode which our Island has known. We see the crude and corrupt beginnings of a higher civilisation blotted out by the ferocious uprising of the native tribes. Still, it is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land the live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders’ hearth.

Winston Churchill
1956
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples: The Birth of Britain
[People like to believe the human race has been “civilized” for some time and mass killings and incredible cruelty are an aberration or an artifact of a particular race or religion. I don’t see it that way. I see “civilization” as a thin veneer which barely contains the true nature of people. I’ve heard people claim the atrocities of the 20th century with many tens of millions of murdered by their government will not happen again because “we have learned better”. I call B.S. on that.

Here we have Winston Churchill claiming, “It is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders’ hearth.”

This should serve as a stern warning to those who would invade a land and the natives who would aid the invaders. I’m not sure where I read it, it might have been The Good Earth, but it went something to the effect of “If you kill a man’s father he will hate you. If you take his land he will kill you.”

Invaders from whatever distant land, be it another continent or the out of touch politicians in Washington D.C. who view the property of others as plunder should study history. They should not count upon the permanence of the good nature of a society when they plunder their property. There is a threshold beyond which the thin veneer of “civilization” is removed and a terrible, bloodthirsty, barbarian emerges.—Joe]

Quote of the day—enlightenment

Posted on by

I really wish someone would start seriously wondering why having private, for-profit companies running – and ruining – the lives of millions is a good thing.

At the very least, there should be serious limits put on their role in society, because at this point, they own us all.

enlightenment
October 1, 2015
Comment to Experian says 15M have info stolen in hack of T-Mobile data
[“enlightenment” thinks serious thought should be given to eliminating private, for profit, companies? I presume that the functions performed by private companies for everything from the food supply and health care to banking, communication, manufacturing, and transportation should all by done by the all powerful, benevolent government, right?

I don’t think there has been any other political system than that which I suspect “enlightenment” desires which has been more thoroughly tested or found to have inflicted more evil upon society. In the 20th century alone there were hundreds of millions of people murdered trying to make such systems work.

People such as “enlightenment” cannot possible have a mind that functions in any sort of way that I think of as normal. The overwhelming evidence of the errors of their thinking can only mean they have total crap for brains. That such people exist, in apparently large numbers, means the right to keep and bear arms is just a critical to the security of the free state today as it was 200+ years ago..—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Cuomo

Posted on by

If the far right is willing to shut down the government because they don’t get a tax cut for the rich, then our people should have the same resolve and threaten to shut down the government if they don’t get a real gun control law to stop killing of their innocents.

Andrew Cuomo
New York State Governor
September 26, 2015
Gov. Andrew Cuomo Tells Democrats to Shut Down Government Until They Get Gun Control
[He wants people to shut down the Federal Government in an attempt to get what he wants?

Don’t make any promises you aren’t willing to keep!

A less active Federal government is what we want! Shutting it down means no Federal gun law enforcement during the down time. If the NICS system is shutdown then just about anyone can get a gun without a background check (with a three day wait).

These people have never been known for the rationality and this is just another example.—Joe]

I’ll blame public education

Posted on by

People sign petition to ban discussion of politics and religion in public.

And, not as an aside but as the central issue, notice how readily some people are led to do something that, if they thought about it and had control of themselves they would know is wrong. Some of them sign reluctantly, but they sign. You’re seeing the standard American’s hypnotic state being briefly co-opted. You can see the hesitation and the resistance, but they go along as a way of avoiding the more uncomfortable of options.

If the guy with the petition understood just a little bit more about how this works, he could have some of those people explaining in detail, specifically why the first amendment is a terrible idea, and ultimately why America should be reduced to ashes.

If we don’t get it at home, we are programmed to be pliable and moldable to other people’s will, to avoid confrontation, when we enter public education as small children.

Thank you for signing my petition to repeal the first amendment, now go back to your regular programming.

The path forward

Posted on by

Lobbying and money in politics only gets you so far. It nudges government in a one direction or the other but changes in the mindset of the people is what makes the real differences. On the gun issue we are taking new shooters to the range and creating more gun owners. We can legally carry guns in public in all 50 states (theoretically, in some jurisdictions it is still impractical or even impossible in practice). Crime rates are dropping as gun ownership increases. And most importantly the mindset of the general population is changing:

According to Quinnipiac, when asked, “Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?” 48 percent of all voters responded by opposing gun control while 45 percent responded by favoring more.

When broken down by parties, only 16 percent of Democrats opposed more gun control. A full 76 percent of Democrats–roughly 3 out of 4–want more of it. Republicans were just the opposite, with only 23 percent supporting more gun control while 73 percent–roughly 3 out of 4–oppose adding more laws.

Independents oppose more gun control by a margin of 49 to 45.

I haven’t done the math so it’s a little difficult to know what this means for the electoral vote count for President. It could be that the Anti-Gun Presidential Candidate is only looking at the short term to the nomination and will attempt to switch directions after the nomination. But we need to keep doing what we are doing and create more and more gun owners. Give or sell cheap your old guns to people without guns. Give them some skin in the game when a politician tells them how they are “a minority of people that hold a viewpoint that terrorizes a majority of people”. That’s right. Some politicians believe that just holding a viewpoint terrorizes people. Such politicians are not fit to be on a government payroll and the more gun owners there are the less likely they be successful in gaining power and if they are successful the less likely they will be to impose their anti-freedom agenda upon the good people of this country.

Have your lawyer question everything

Posted on by

I agree with Professor Reynolds. Prosecutor conduct like this should carry the death penalty:

the California Court of Appeal reveals that state prosecutors and California Attorney General Kamala Harris continue to be part of the problem. Kern County prosecutor Robert Murray committed “outrageous government misconduct.” Ms. Harris and her staff defended the indefensible—California State prosecutor Murray flat out falsified a transcript of a defendant’s confession.

Kern County prosecutor Robert Murray added two lines of transcript to “evidence” that the defendant confessed to an even more egregious offense than that with which he had been charged—the already hideous offense of molesting a child. With the two sentences that state’s attorney Murray perjuriously added, Murray was able to threaten charges that carried a term of life in prison.

My view on this sort of thing is that if they aren’t going to play by the rules and are not punished by breaking the rules then their opposition is under no obligation to play by the rules either. It’s game on.

We really don’t want to go there but I don’t see an alternative.

Quote of the day—esquire2

Posted on by

Hillary could become the 1st Woman POTUS serving from INSIDE a federal prison … The DNC can still get her elected.

esquire2
August 30, 2015
Comment to Hillary Clinton vows to be gun-control president
[I had to think about this for a bit.

Hmm… That’s probably true. Not particularly likely. But I think it is possible.

More likely is that there is more than enough evidence available such that the general public know it would convict any ordinary citizen and keep them in prison for a long time. But Ms. Clinton will get a pass because the law only applies to the little people. She then gets elected while laughing off the felony charges.

Even more likely is that she isn’t elected and nothing happens in regards to all the crimes she has committed.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Sen. Kaine is joining a mob of gun prohibitionists who are trying every scheme imaginable to discourage people from lawfully buying and selling firearms. He apparently wants to prosecute people for being unable to see into the future, or look into the mind of a customer, and he wants us to believe this will help prevent future crimes. If we go by the standard of his bill, he should face prosecution when his measure doesn’t prevent a crime somewhere over the horizon.

Alan Gottlieb
September 9, 2015
CCRKBA BLASTS SEN. KAINE’S NEW GUN CONTROL MEASURE
[I wish we had a SCOTUS ruling saying all “rights and privileges” cannot be subject to a law which causes a “chilling effect” on the exercise of those rights and/or privileges. Then that was followed up aggressive enforcement of 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242.

But as my grandmother used to say, “If wishes were horses all beggars would ride.” We need to vote people into office who respect the constitution. And to do that we need to change the attitudes of the voters. That is no small task but it is a task that everyone can contribute to in their own way.—Joe]

Action item

Posted on by

From Alan Korwin:

At your next meeting where politicians
or candidates are present just ask:

“As a candidate for office, do you support a moratorium on sales taxes on gun safes, to encourage people to buy and use them?”

Washington state does not have sales tax on gun safes. IIRC it went through the legislature and was signed by the governor without too much effort.

And why don’t we try getting subsides and/or tax credits for firearms safety training?

Quote – dustydog

Posted on by

“One definition of a liberal, is someone who doesn’t understand the problem, or the history behind it, or the concept of consequences, but is arrogant enough to think that his off-the-cuff solution should be enforced with as much violence and as much of other peoples’ money as might be required.” — dustydog on August 30, 2015

Many years ago I heard that the definition of a “liberal” is “someone who’ll give you the shirt off of someone else’s back”, but this one is much better. It sums up all the horror and mass death of the 20th century in one, concise sentence. Collectivists (Progressives, Fascists, communists, et al) are either extremely evil or blind, or both. In any case they must be kept as far away from government positions as possible.

Quote of the day—Hillary Rodham Clinton

Posted on by

We have got to do something about gun violence in America — and I will take it on.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
August 26, 2015
Hillary Clinton vows to be gun-control president
[It’s good that she is making this very clear. Maybe this will make it a campaign issue as well. With support for gun rights the highest it has been since 1993 there is a good chance this will make it a loosing issue.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Burrud

Posted on by

I had a woman who was probably in her 70s, very sharp and alert; she came into the store and said, ‘I want an AR-15’. I said, ‘Are you sure?’ She said, ‘Absolutely. Obama says I can’t have one, so I want one.’

John Burrud
Owner of Loveland Colorado firearms store Jensen Arms
August 13, 2015
Politics, not violence, increase gun permits, sales.
[Obama, the greatest gun salesman of all time.

It’s an interesting dilemma the ant-gun people have. Any serious political push results in increasing the number of gun owners. If they don’t bring the fight to us then we take the fight to them against their weakest points.

It seems to me the only hope they have is to change the minds of the public at large before they can hope to make progress. But we have a significant advantage in that regard. They don’t have anti-gun ranges where people get a big smile on their face when they learn to not use a gun.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Daniel Greenfield

Posted on by

These changes are a test of reason. If you can reason, you fail. If you can Doublethink, you pass.

Daniel Greenfield
June 30, 2015
No Truce With The Left
[Reason. I think of it as a test of someone trustworthiness. If they are unwilling or unable to reason I am uncomfortable being around them. I literally don’t have any idea what they might do or say next. Will they claim I attacked them when all I did was smile and say hello? Will they hit me in the head with a rock? I would rather be in the presence of a sociopath because I can model their behavior as looking out for their best interests and make it clear to them it would be irrational for them to cause me harm and in fact it would be in their best interests to have me as their ally.

But the irrational, non-reasoning, person is extremely dangerous. There is no loyalty. There is no mutual benefits. There is only unpredictability. There is only the prospect of chaos, suffering, and death.

Marxism, communism, socialism, whatever variety of leftism and you want to call it, has such a long proven history of poverty and death that only irrational people can support it. Venezuela is only of the most recent examples that went from an “economy was the strongest in South America” in the 1950s to the early 1980s to the massive shortages, unemployment, thriving black market, and the highest misery index score in 2013.

The USSR, mainland China, and many other countries learned their lesson the hard way with massive shortages, mind boggling corruption, and 10s of millions murdered by their own governments. Numerous experiments in the 20th century, on national scales, prove beyond any doubt the benefits of freedom and the hazards of adapting the ways of the leftists. How can anyone ignore the lessons of East versus West Germany? Or North Korea versus South Korea? China versus Hong Kong?

Freedom and capitalism has brought prosperity, and unbelievable technological advancement which benefits the entire world. Yet the political left continue to insist their way is “progress”. These are not rational people. They cannot be trusted. These people are incapable of rational thought and/or are evil. The correct diagnosis does not matter. Greenfield is right. There can be no truce with the left.—Joe]

It’s a symbol of responsibility

Posted on by

That’s why they’re afraid of it.

A fire extinguisher is made as a tool to be used by someone who can cope, to protect his property and protect those who cannot cope.

The university educated, the entertainers, and media personalities, leftists in general, tend to wear their inability to cope as a badge of honor.

We’ve all see it; the guy well into adulthood who cannot drive a car, for example, and is clearly proud of the fact. Driving is what servants do, for me– It is not something I do. He has his nose in the air when he informs you he doesn’t drive.

If you gave him the gift of jumper cables and a nice floor jack, he’d be offended and maybe even a little scared. If you required him to demonstrate a fire extinguisher on a network TV show? Same thing.

Only icky people can build things, fix things, cope with unexpected dangers, and use guns or fire extinguishers. Eeew!

The Special Little Snowflake, or as I call him, “Fragile Little Flower” gains his identity through his weaknesses. He has learned that his weakness is his power over other people.

Those of us who can cope are to blame for this situation, through our failure to correct and through our capitulation. The FLFs are in charge of much of society and culture as a result.

Someone recently brought up The Lord of the Flies to describe the world, and it fits quite nicely. When the adults fail in their responsibilities to encourage and guide the “children” into becoming capable and responsible adults themselves, then all hell will break loose. That describes world politics for the last 100 years quite well.

Quote of the day—Jon Gabriel

Posted on by

Instead of pointing fingers at the innumerates running Athens, they should consider our own situation.

…
Print

It’s an imperfect analogy, but imagine the green is your salary, the yellow is the amount you’re spending over your salary, and the red is your MasterCard statement.

Jon Gabriel
June 30, 2015
Athens on the Potomac
[I am not the only one wondering if we are watching a version our future play out in Greece.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AWR Hawkins

Posted on by

According to Suffolk University, in addition to not wanting to hear about gun control in 2016, a majority of Americans do not believe increasing gun control via expanded background checks will curb mass violence. Fifty-six percent of respondents said it would not, while only 40 percent of respondents said it would.

This makes sense, when you consider that Roof allegedly purchased his gun via a background check at a Charleston gun store.

AWR Hawkins
June 30, 2015
Survey: Majority of Americans Not Interested in Gun Control for 2016
[Makes sense? It would make sense if it were 95% instead of 56%. That 40% think expanded background checks would “curb mass violence” when the example immediately in front of them is completely counter to that hypothesis is proof of their inability to draw even the simplest of logical conclusions.

This is a demonstration the fact that for a very large percentage of the population they, at best, make reasoning sounds. The concept of reason is completely alien to them. This is really frightening to me. I would expect dogs, cats, dolphins, and some birds, let alone all primates, to have that good of reasoning skills with similar problems. Apparently humans, on the whole, can do little better than chance.—Joe]