Category Archives: Politics

Quote of the day—Steven Den Beste

Posted on by

Way back in the depths of time, Greek philosophers ended up with two basic and incompatible ways of looking at the universe. One way was materialism, which says that there is a material universe which behaves in a consistent way, and if you study it you can learn the way it works.

That’s the world view of engineers and scientists — and businessmen, for that matter. It’s the world view of people who understand and use mathematics, and statistics. It is a place where cause leads to effect. It’s the place that game theory studies. It isn’t necessarily inherently atheistic; a lot of religious people live in the materialist world.

But there are people who don’t. A different epistemological view is teleology, which says that the universe is an ideal place. More or less, it exists so that we humans can live in it. And human thought is a fundamental force in the universe. Teleology says that if a mental model is esthetically pleasing then it must be true. Teleology implies that if you truly believe in something, it’ll happen.

Steven Den Beste
December 6, 2009
Government by Wishful Thinking
[H/T to wfgodbold in the comment to A process failure.

As I have said before (and here, here, and here) our opponents have a “currency” which is emotionally based. I find the dealings in this currency perplexing and frequently repugnant. But what is scary to me is the number of people that advocate this currency, deal in this currency, and hold great political power.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Aziz

Posted on by

The chief problem that Marxists face is their misidentification of the present economic system as free market capitalism. How can we meaningfully call a system where the price of money is controlled by the state a free market? How can we meaningfully call a system where financial institutions are routinely bailed out a free market? How can we meaningfully call a system where upwards of 40% of GDP is spent by the state a free market? How can we call a system where the market trades the possibility of state intervention rather than underlying fundamentals a free market?

…

I’m not sure that Marxists have ever understood capitalism; Das Kapital is a mammoth work concentrating on many facets of 19th Century industrial and economic development, but it tends to focus in on obscure minutiae without ever really considering the coherent whole. If Marxists had ever come close to grasping the broader mechanisms of capitalism — and if they truly cared about democracy — they would have been far less likely to promulgate a system based on dictatorial central planning.

John Aziz
July 5, 2012
Guest Post: Is Marxism Coming Back?
[As I said after reading the Communist Manifesto, “The typical two year old child or even the family dog wouldn’t accept the conclusions unless they were forced into compliance.”

Marxists are either profoundly ignorant or profoundly evil. In either case I believe it is intentional. I suspect most fall into the ignorant category (also known as “useful idiots”) but the those in the latter category have a high probability of obtaining all the power.—Joe]

CCRKBA video on Fast and Furious

Posted on by

From the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:

They are asking for donations so this video can be run on television.

Contempt of Congress options

Posted on by

David Hardy says there are options to be considered now that Holder has been found in contempt of Congress:

The House sends out its Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the defendant, he is tried on the spot, and the House decides whether to convict.

It is a little bit of a surprise to me but the Capital has a dungeon just for such purposes. And I find it interesting and very pleasing that:

…presidential pardons appear not to apply to civil contempt procedures such as inherent contempt because it is not an “offense against the United States” or an offense against “the dignity of public authority.”

I realize spending really needs to be cut but couldn’t we find enough money to enlarge the dungeon enough to hold a few more people? You would think that after spending a few days chained to the wall they would become more cooperative with Congressional investigations.

Good question

Posted on by

Katie Pavlich, “If Operation Fast and Furious wasn’t about pushing for more gun control, then why is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a group with strong oppositions to the Second Amendment, coming to Attorney General Eric Holder’s defense?”

That’s a very good question.

And in case you don’t recognize the name Ms. Pavlich literally wrote the book on Fast and Furious. It’s a good book. Both Ry and I liked it.

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Posted on by

Concurrently, the nation’s total violent crime rate has dropped 18 of the last 20 years, to about a 41-year low. The nation’s murder rate has dropped to about a 48-year low. Polls show that support for gun control has fallen, support for the Second Amendment has risen, and gun ownership is higher now than any time since 1993. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

The Brady Campaign’s response? Go even further off the deep end.

…

We’ve all heard the popular 19th century axiom, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” It’s good advice in some circumstances, but the Brady Campaign would have been better off with the advice of W. C. Fields:  “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it.”

NRA-ILA
June 29, 2012
Learning Pains at the Brady Campaign? Pain, Yes. Learning, No
[This ties in with something Sebastian and I have commented on before. The anti-gun people are being “damn fools”. If the anti-gun people weren’t out there pushing their agenda we would spend more time on safety training instead of politics. If they wanted to reduce accidental injuries and deaths due to poor gun handling then they should become NRA certified firearms instructors and make classes available at affordable prices. If they wanted to reduce violent crime they should teach personal protection classes.

The world would be a better much place if they joined us instead of fighting us.—Joe]

That didn’t work for G. Gordon Liddy

Posted on by

Perhaps there is something subtle going on here that I don’t understand but this seems to be a settled issue:

Obviously Holder’s been under pressure for more than a year, but I think there will be an argument by the Justice Department that anytime a president authorizes something, that whomever follows the president’s orders cannot be prosecuted.

If I recall correctly G. Gordon Liddy claimed the same thing at his trial and he got a 40 year sentence for supervising a burglary.

People at the Department of Justice and/or the ATF deliberately sent guns to Mexican drug cartels in the hopes they could recover them later at “crime scenes”. Of course in this instance “crime scenes” is an euphemism for locations where innocent people were murdered. In other words people, perhaps acting under the orders of the POTUS, deliberately engaged in activities they believed would be directly related to the deaths of innocent people. They were successful and at least 300 people died as per their plan.

Liddy was sentenced to 40 years for supervising one burglary. What does that sentence extrapolate into for supervising 300 murders?

Quote of the day—Ry Jones

Posted on by

The pro-tyranny side just doesn’t get enough positive coverage.

Ry Jones
June 27, 2012
[This was while walking by Westlake Park in Seattle. The park attracts most of the demonstrators for such things as the Occupy Whatever crowd. As usual there were some people there with signs I didn’t bother to read.

For a while I thought the root premise in the statement, tyranny doesn’t get positive coverage, was correct. But I had a nagging doubt that something was wrong. If anti-tyranny gets all the positive coverage then how does tyranny succeed?

The SCOTUS ruling on Obama Care this morning crystallized the answer. A retweet from Ry put it in video:

The quote above is wrong. The tyrant and their policies receives nearly all the positive coverage and is welcomed with thunderous applause.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

Social bigotry is bad enough when practiced by the media and the gun prohibition lobby but when it becomes the official policy of an elected government panel, it then becomes necessary, if not imperative, for the courts to intervene.

Alan Gottlieb
Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President
SAF LEGAL ALERT: SAF SUES ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION
June 26, 2012
[Social bigots must not be allowed to violate the inalienable rights of people. This case is no different than if the county Board of Supervisors’ had refused to allow a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish bookstore to open and must be dealt with just as severely.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Posted on by

Undefined words have a special power in politics, particularly when they invoke some principle that engages people’s emotions. “Fair” is one of those undefined words which have attracted political support for policies ranging from Fair Trade laws to the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the fact that the word is undefined is an intellectual handicap, it is a huge political advantage.People with very different views on substantive issues can be unified and mobilized behind a word that papers over their differing, and sometimes even mutually contradictory, ideas. Who, after all, is in favor of unfairness? Similarly with “social justice,” “equality,” and other undefined terms that can mean wholly different things to different individuals and groups— all of whom can be mobilized in support of policies that use such appealing words.

Thomas Sowell
Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition pages 1 and 2.
[The phrase “special power” brings to mind “super heroes” and “super villains”. I am of the opinion that while there is ample evidence of “super villains” “super heroes” only exist in the minds of small children, some Ron Paul fans, and Democrats.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ayn Rand

Posted on by

To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.

Ayn Rand
“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,” Philosophy: Who Needs It (The Ayn Rand Library)
Via Atlas Shrugged Movie
[Those that initiate force against you are not properly identified as human and force may be required. Only in extremely rare circumstances is persuasion a good option with these animals.

Government is force. Government is an extremely inefficient, and hence impractical, means of dealing with a set of rational people. It is only when your set of people are not rational and are approximating a herd of animals that government/force is appropriate. The case can be made that our government is creating, perhaps with malice aforethought, a class of people that are best dealt with as if they were an animal herd. This makes more and larger government seem like the appropriate solution to societal issues.

Perhaps growing up on a farm makes me more aware of this but the owner of the herd does not have the best interest of the herd in mind as they care for it. Yes, the herd gets food, water, shelter, and free health care as needed. But it also gets sheared, neutered, dehorned, selectively bred, and those which will be expensive or impossible to be made productive are killed.

I highly recommend Rand’s book. Rand makes the case that whether we think about it or not we each have a philosophy that guides our life. The only question is what type of philosophy. Will it be rational, conscious, and therefore practical; or contradictory, unidentified, and ultimately lethal? One can make the case that failure to teach philosophy at an early age is extremely harmful to both the individual and society.

The inconsistencies of those supporting the current administration are a case in point.—Joe]

Extraordinary offer

Posted on by

Today Attorney General Eric Holder had a 20 minute meeting with Rep. Darrell Issa about the failure of Holder to comply with subpoenas for documents in Fast and Furious.


Apparently the meeting went something like this:



Issa: Turn them over or tomorrow we will hold you in contempt of congress.


Holder: I’ll let you peek at them if you will agree before you ever see them to stop the investigation after you have seen them.


Issa: I think we are done here. We’re voting on the contempt charge tomorrow.


Holder (direct quote to the media): “The ball’s in their court. We made what we thought was an extraordinary offer.”


Imagine for a moment that you or some gun shop owner had sold and/or given thousands (not the hundreds like the article erroneously says) of guns to criminal organizations who used them to murder hundreds of people include at least one if not two government agents. After finding out about it the prosecutor lets you stay out of jail and asks you a few questions and turn over documents and emails to find out who your accomplices were. You sort of comply but just enough to avoid claims that you are completely uncooperative.


Had you told the prosecutor you would turn over some more documents on the condition they stop the investigation before they ever saw the documents, what do you think the reaction would have been?


What is extraordinary here is that Issa didn’t have Federal Marshalls rip his jacket and shirt off, tie him face down on the table, stuff a copy of the subpoena in his mouth, give him 30 lashes with a bull whip, then tell him there would be a whipping every day at 9:00 AM until he fully complied or his flesh had been stripped off and his bones were polished clean.


I understand why Issa didn’t do that but had it been me I would have being showing extraordinary restraint had I only done that in the face of that level of contempt for the law and Congress. Prohibitions against “Cruel and unusual” punishments would just seem inadequate had they been able to even just read my thoughts. “Crimes against nature, humanity, and being an inspiration to Satan” would probably come up in my trial just for a glimpse of what I would have been thinking.

Marxist—No ethics and no shame

Posted on by

Don’t believe anything people or “news” organizations on the left tell you. Check it out for yourself:

Introduced by Andrea Mitchell saying: “I get the feeling–take a look at this– that Mitt Romney has not been to too many Wawa’s along the roadside in Pennsylvania,” Romney says: “I was at Wawa’s, I wanted to order a sandwich. You press the little touch tone keypad, alright, you just touch that, and you know, the sandwich comes at you, touch this, touch this, touch this, go pay the cashier, there’s your sandwich. It’s amazing.”

Momentarily speechless, Mitchell repeats, “It’s amazing,” as her guest breaks into sharp laughter.

Too bad the clip was taken wildly out of context.

In reality, Romney was illustrating the difference between private and public sector efficiency. After telling a story where his friend had to fill out a 33-page form twice to complete a change of address with the government, Romney holds up touch-tone sandwich-ordering as an example of private sector efficiency– not as a marvel of how the “common” man lives.

They claim they fired the producer that did a similar edit in the Zimmerman case. But the last time I looked they did not give the name of the person fired. Perhaps he got reassigned instead.

I have to suspect the ethical environment at MSNBC/NBC is the problem rather just one or two people drinking the communist Kool-Aid with no shame. “Communist?”, you ask. Yes. In both cases it was about promoting a “class struggle” view of our culture. These people promote a Marxist view of our culture and belong in dustbin of history with Marx and Marxism.

I don’t really trust non-liberals all that much either but I haven’t ever seen anything close to this level of misrepresentation in supposed news outlets.

Making choices

Posted on by

For decades Libertarians and Republicans have been saying the economic and social policies of the left were destined to be catastrophic. Eventually all looters stop. There are only three options; 1) They stop because they realize theft is wrong, 2) They are stopped by force, or 3) They run out of places to loot.

Greece is the harbinger of our future and has the opportunity to select their option. Yet even now many do not see impending doom crashing in on them:

Riding a wave of anger to rise from obscurity to contender for power, leftist SYRIZA leader Alexis Tsipras, 37, promises to reject the punishing terms of the 130 billion euro ($163.75 billion) bailout if he wins the nail-biter vote on Sunday.

On the right, establishment heir and New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras, 61, says that would send Greece crashing out of the single currency and condemn it to even greater economic calamity.

With the election set to go down to the wire, European leaders weighed in on Saturday, urging Greeks to vote with their heads.

The bailout will not be renegotiated, warned German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country’s wealth is vital to shoring up its weaker partners in the bloc.

…

Some global businesses and banks are already in retreat: Europe’s biggest retailer, Carrefour, said on Friday it was selling up in Greece, a day after French bank Credit Agricole moved to take direct control of its Albanian, Bulgarian and Romanian units from its Greek bank Emporiki.

On Saturday, Germany’s Biotest appeared to become the first drugmaker to say it was exiting the Greek market in July after its customers there failed to pay outstanding bills of 7 million euros. Others have threatened to do likewise, as the Greek health sector struggles with huge spending cuts.

Spain and Italy will probably be next in line to make a choice.

When it comes time for the American left to select an option which do you think it will be? And will those that oppose them be ready if the left choses options 2) or 3)?

A step in the right direction

Posted on by

Via Politico I found out Rand Paul has introduced legislation which from a principled viewpoint I find pathetic. Only if I put my Wookie suit in a hidden vault and delete thousands of blog posts could I praise his first piece of proposed legislation. It is “a ‘Bill of Rights’ for air travelers” (S. 3302). “Guaranteeing a traveler’s right to request a pat-down using only the back of the hand” is to be considered a “right’? Really?


We don’t need a new law like this, we just need to enforce those already on the books. I’m of the opinion the 4th Amendment is the guaranteed right. All who voted for or have been involved in the implementation of TSA should be prosecuted under 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242. Impose fines for every violation and you would see second thought given to a lot of other government infringements of our rights as well as A Security Theater going down in flames.


The other Bill, S. 3303, “ends the TSA screening program and requires screening of passengers at airports to be conducted by private screeners only”. While elimination of the TSA would earn my praise the requirement that private business violate our 4th Amendment rights nearly nullifies the benefit.


But, as I said, that is from a principled viewpoint. Principles are a serious obstacle in politics. If you want to get anything done you had best leave your principles at the door and just keep a short cheat sheet up your coat sleeve when you enter the legislative arena. If either of these bills could be passed it would be a step in the right direction. Incrementalism is sometimes all that is politically feasible and that we have legislators looking for a path in the proper direction is something to be pleased with.

Quote of the day—Jesse Ventura

Posted on by

People in this country need to understand when you go to any airport in the United States, you are not protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They can do anything they want to you and there is no where you can go to seek redress.

Jesse Ventura
June 13, 2012
Jesse Ventura No Longer Flies, Thanks To Transportation Security Administration
[Well… strictly speaking there are some options. They just aren’t legal.

What really needs to be done is to abolish the Security Theater known as TSA.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert VerBruggen

Posted on by

By the time Gross gets to arguing against a new bill that would force states to recognize each other’s concealed-carry permits — an issue on which I’m sympathetic to his position — it’s awfully difficult to take him seriously. Even putting aside that he calls the bill the “George Zimmerman Armed Vigilante Act.”

Remember, this isn’t some random clown blogging for the Huffington Post; it’s the president of a leading gun-control group. If these are the best arguments the anti-gun movement can put forth, our Second Amendment rights are safe indeed.

Robert VerBruggen
June 13, 2012
‘The NRA’s Dark Vision’?
[Yes, these are the best arguments they can put forth and they are indeed pathetic. But politics is rarely about good arguments about the merits of the legislation. Yes, good arguments about the merits of the proposed law contribute but as much as anything it is arguments about acquiring and maintaining political power that win the legislative votes.

Hence our rights and freedom are never truly safe. Eternal vigilance and frequent demonstrations of our political muscle are required.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Ransom

Posted on by

While we were all shocked and angered at the revelation of Nixon’s abuses, today the same abuses are not only ignored but tolerated- even encouraged- by the Left.

I never thought I would see a time when the U.S. government would deliberately sell guns to Mexican drug cartels just to advance a petty policy argument about gun control, while the press stood by with not a word or reproach. Or allow the Black Panthers to practice the worst type of racism abetted by the highest law enforcement officer in the land, while the press applauded.

John Ransom
June 11, 2012
Watergate at 40: Obama is the Democrats’ Nixon
[Politics in this country (probably everywhere) is pretty nasty. Even in the late 1700’s when we just formed our current form of government there was incredible division between parties. And political divisiveness goes further than just tolerance for hostile rhetoric. There is evidence that ordinary people, essentially, become sociopaths when dealing with their political opponents:

Empathy is the root of morality and cooperation. People without empathy are called sociopaths, and they are by far the most dangerous people on the planet. Every genocide features sociopaths; every mass atrocity and every continued abuse requires them. So, when a study shows empathy being almost entirely crushed, it should be jarring. To put it clearly and simply, this study showed something very scary, which is this:

When people are under the influence of politics, they turn into sociopaths.

We ask ourselves, “Why are liberals so violent?” And we ask “Why would the government sell/give guns to the drug cartels?” At least part of the answer is because they are in a political contest with non-liberals.

This does not justify the behavior. What it means is that we must guard against it. Do not underestimate the capacity of your political enemy, or your political ally, to behave in monstrous ways.

H/T to Chris M. for the heads up email on politics turning people into sociopaths.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David E. Petzal

Posted on by

In order to keep his rifle, the owner of the M-1 took it to a gunsmith who milled off the bayonet lug and then sent a letter, along with a copy of his FFL, to the License Division, Rifle & Shotgun Section, stating that the work had been done. Amputating the bayonet lug has, of course, destroyed any value the rifle had as a collector’s piece, and the owner will not, of course, be compensated.

And if you listened very carefully, you could hear “reasonable” and “sense” shrieking as they thrashed in their death struggles.

David E. Petzal
June 8, 2012
NY Gun Control: The Mad Hatter Would Understand
[I have nothing to add but my tears of anger and frustration.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mark Alger

Posted on by

The Left’s ideas are un-falsifiable. Their ignorance is invincible. This is why the notion is rapidly catching on that there is no compromising with them. They must be defeated and kept away from the levers of power. Whole swathes of society, which were abandoned to their depredations — education, journalism, the arts — must be reclaimed from them or given up altogether. Some may be converted through repeated teaching and their own experience, but — sadly — not many. It will not be a quick process. There will be many setbacks. But it must be done or the whole of civilization will be taken down by their idiocy.

Mark Alger
June 8, 2012
Comment to Seriously scary stuff.
[I really need to finish reading The Handbook of 5GW. As Ry told me, “This is where we need to be.”

Warfare, at the most fundamental level, does not mean destruction of life or property although that is a means to the ultimate goal of warfare. Warfare is about getting people to change their behavior. Sometimes that is about getting people to give up their natural resources or it might be about getting people to change their religious beliefs. Even if the purpose of the war was to extinguish an entire race or society the goal, ultimately, was about changing behavior (stop them from breathing).

Seen through this light we liberate ourselves because we release we are at war and that it is acceptable for us to go to war. The traditional tools of war including slings, arrows, chemicals, and bullets do not necessarily have to be used directly. The mere presence of our training and firearms will probably be sufficient prevent the war we are in from “going hot”,  We have other weapons at our disposal which must be deployed. We must get those in power and those that demand power over us to stop their behavior. We have votes, the courts, propaganda, education, and probably a thousand other things at our disposal. But we must win this war. Our country, no, all human society, is being laid to waste by those that believe they know better than the individual how the individual should spend the fruits of their labor. And this behavior must be stopped.—Joe]