Category Archives: Politics

Let them start with John Kerry

Posted on by

While I can understand the impulse if this were to be implemented I think it should be first applied to the likes of John Kerry who says stupid things like:

The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

This was in regard to the Tea Party who he claims “held the country hostage” during the debt ceiling debates.

“Everybody knows”? I would like to suggest Senator Kerry reexamine the last election results in terms of how many people believe what the Tea Party candidates have to say.

It’s going to get worse before it gets better

Posted on by

S&P downgraded the U.S. debt rating. And it’s not looking good for the future either:

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’.

And with each downgrade the interest rates increase which makes the debt burden more difficult to bear which makes it more likely another downgrade is coming.

Hope and change just keeps coming.

Mass printing of money is almost for certain in our future. I figure than in another couple years I can probably pay off our mortgage with that half ounce of gold in one of my safes or a few hundred pounds of lentils…

Gold and silver

Posted on by

The price of gold is now $1670.00 an oz. Silver is $41.80.

I think it’s the hope and change taking effect.

Quote of the day—Tea Party

Posted on by

US Treasurys Now a Toxic Asset.

TeaParty@TeaParty.org
August 2, 2011
Subject line to this email.
[If only there were somebody we could unload the toxic asshats in Washington on. Someone with an abundance of tar, feather, and rails would please me.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carolyn McCarthy

Posted on by

I don’t understand why people can’t have common sense. Large magazines do not need to be part of it. The large manufacturers, they should even take a moral point of view in not selling them to ordinary citizens through the gun stores. The police and military can still use them. But I just morally think they should not look to sell them to the average citizen.

Carolyn McCarthy
July 28, 2011
Norway shooter: Ammo clips were from U.S.
[Yes, it’s “the shoulder thing that goes up” Carolyn McCarthy demonstrating her ignorance and bigotry again.

“Common sense” is a big issue with these folks isn’t it? It must be because arithmetic is beyond them and/or they know the numbers don’t support their conclusions.

And how does one “morally think”? I’m pretty sure that is one of the same argument used by those opposed to mixed race and homosexual marriages. That’s sure some good company you keep there McCarthy. I’ll bet you and Fred Phelps would get along just fine as long as you both consistently and appropriately swapped the words “gays” and “guns” during the conversation.

The entire article could be a case study in “layers of editorial oversight”. There are things like, “The Norwegian press has written extensively about how Breivik legally acquired his weapons and ammunition, but the mail-order purchase of his ammo from the United States has received little attention in the English-language press.” Apparently the author, Reid J. Epstein, doesn’t know the difference between ammo and “clips”. Although I was surprised that there were two instance where he appropriately used “magazine”.

And McCarthy must be reading the gun blogs because she wasn’t quoted as saying “clips” even once and she is quoted as saying “magazine” twice. Perhaps she is capable of learning. I wonder if someone were to introduce her to the “in common use” part of the Heller decision if she could grok that as well. But probably not. I pretty sure Dorothy Parker had people like her in mind when she explained about horticulture.—Joe]

Debt reduction via a police state

Posted on by

As the Federal debt started exploding a few years ago I tried to look ahead and figure out what would happen. Lots of bad things of course, but one potential outcome, as I mentioned in a blog post a few days ago, was that a new wave of politicians would get elected and scrap most or all of the nanny state agencies to cut expenses. Sort of “every cloud has a silver lining” kind of thing.

I should know better than to think any government operation could have a “silver lining”.

What I had never considered, not even in my most pessimistic moments was that the Feds would find a way to turn the crisis into a way to further expand their control. Instead of control weakening as funding became harder to get there is a path whereby funding is obtained by increasing control. Sure, I know about the war on drugs and confiscating property “involved” in a drug crime being used to fund law enforcement. But this is much, much worse.

I recently had a reliable source tell me the EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory agencies have been told to explore how they can supply their own revenue such that they become self supporting. “Run like a business” and even potentially make a profit. My source explicitly called out the EPA and OSHA but one can easily imagine how this mandate will be extended to the ATF and hundreds of other government organizations.

If the color didn’t just drain out of your face and you nearly fainted you either don’t have a very good imagination or you have a government job.

The only way these regulators can “make” money is through fines and confiscation of property. One of the examples given to me was of dust production in a particular type of facility of which there are thousands all across the country. I’ll not name them to avoid giving the Feds easy targets but these facilities have existed for many decades and are an essential part of our infrastructure. The regulations say that if more than 0.125” of dust builds up on the interior surfaces of the buildings they must be cleaned or else they can be fined. The problem is that no one knows of a fix for the problem. It would take 7 to 8 hours to clean a facility. It’s a problem similar to the classic “If one man can dig a post hole in two minutes how many minutes would it take two men to dig a post hole?” It just can’t be done in less than 7 to 8 hours. Once the facility goes back into production the dust will exceed spec in about 30 minutes. Obviously a facility that is in maintenance mode 15 times as much as it is in production mode is not viable. So maybe they could just pay the fine and figure that is “just the cost of doing business”. That doesn’t work either.

If the Feds come back a week later and they are out of spec the fine can be doubled. And doubled again the next week (or day) if they are still in production. Basically it amounts to after the first fine the operator will have to shutdown the facility or find a permanent fix to the dust problem—and no such solution exists. Dust, in many situations, cannot be significantly reduced.

Numerous other examples were given to me of extremely low-hanging fruit that the Feds can “harvest” at will if they only know where to look. This type of problem exists essentially everywhere. It’s Huffman’s rule of firearms law on a massive scale applied to nearly every industry and every person (remember Three Felonies a Day?). That is how they can generate revenue, “become profitable”, and our country becomes a police state.

Origins of progressives

Posted on by

According to one source the origin of the term “progressive” came about in the late1800s:

The first citation of the term “progressivism” in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated to 1892, in England. At that time the St. James Gazette used it as a term of derision, equating it with “radicalism”. However, the St. James usage doesn’t suggest that a neologism was being coined for the occasion (nor does the OED say as much).

…

As it turned out, the identification of biological evolution with social advancement was based on confused and ultimately false ideas; but Spencer’s elaboration of an essentially inevitable and indefinite social progress proved extraordinarily popular — even among those who would today be described as conservatives. (Spencer and Sumner were both arch conservatives.) Among those most taken by Spencer’s ideas was the young Englishman Winwood Reade, who popularized them in The Martyrdom of Man. Reade’s book, originally published in 1872, was read so widely that it reached an eighth edition just twelve years later — shortly before the St. James Gazette would use the term “progressivism” in its pages.

In the U.S. the Progressive Party was formed in 1912 and supported many of the positions associated with progressives today. As a third party in the U.S. it did quite well but still withered and died as the other two major parties adopted the more popular ideas from them.

The progressives of Europe in the early 20th Century were a somewhat different origin. They were the students of Marx and Engels who believed a proper study of history would allow the prediction of the future. The end of capitalism and the rise of socialism and communism was inevitable. Those advancing communism were progressives and those opposed to communism were anti-progress. This “progress” could only come through revolution.

According to Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands—Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, Stalin used this label in his exterminations of millions of people. He was advocating the inevitable progress of society and he and his supporters were progressives. Who could be against progress? Whoever such people were they were deserving of death. The utopia of a perfect communist society was just ahead and these people, these millions of murdered people, were a small price to pay to these progressives. They were starved in great famines caused by the seizing the food in the Ukraine, which was the food basket of Europe. Think about that. Millions of people starved to death in the major food production area of the continent due to progressives.

Millions more were arrested then sent to the Gulag after show trials or simply shot in the basements of the police buildings by the progressives of the Soviet Union.

In the U.S. progressives advocated for a vast increase in government power. In the USSR and elsewhere progressives used expanded power of government to murder tens of millions of people.

I see the social inequities which progressives use as their talking points. I understand the appeal of the “progressive” approach to social inequities. But progressives appear to not understand the terrible risks that have been demonstrated by their political ancestors.

I believe a much better term to describe their political persuasion is that advocated by Ayn Rand—looters.

Quote of the day—Thomas Sowell

Posted on by

Egalitarians create the most dangerous inequality of all — inequality of power. Allowing politicians to determine what all other human beings will be allowed to earn is one of the most reckless gambles imaginable. Like the income tax, it may start off being applied only to the rich but it will inevitably reach us all.

Thomas Sowell
[I really like this. It translates into a “sound bite” rebuttal. Those that advocate for the equalization of outcomes cannot implement such a system without creating an inequality of power.-Joe]

Quote of the day—Winston Churchill

Posted on by

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
 
Winston Churchill
[Socialists and communists claim a more equal and just society. Before you buy into that ask someone who grew up in such a society. Even in very small groups (how many communions have been created and failed in this country?) it has a strong tendency to fail. In groups larger than a few hundred I am of the opinion it is not possible for it succeed in a form its advocates claim. In very small tight knit groups, such as a family, where shame and social rejection are powerful tools I think it can work. But it just doesn’t scale. Those that claim otherwise are ignorant, stupid, or power hungry.—Joe]

Quote of the day—jason

Posted on by

Now on the topic of guns, we must ban them. Plain and simple.

…

Ban them all.

jason
July 26, 2011
Comment to Even Democrats Oppose Obama On Gun Control Treaty.
[No mention is made of that little speed bump known as The Bill of Rights. The rest of the comment is just as disconnected from reality. I thought it was an interesting mix with a rant about the 14th Amendment causing us to become subjects of an elected monarch with a demand that all guns be banned.

As is probably the case with most fervent believers in the utility of gun bans he hasn’t been taking his anti-psychotic mediations recently.—Joe]

Quote of the day—PT

Posted on by

Joe Huffman, somebody to take on the “E” in “BATFE.”

PT
July 27, 2011
Comment to Time for a St. Louis Revolt?
[This is in regard to, somewhat tongue in check, nominations for the NRA board of directors. While I haven’t really brought it up before I think it should be fairly obvious that explosives should be covered in “the right to keep and bear arms”. It just not quite the right time politically to bring that up. Although if there were a serious move to abolish the ATF I have a story or two that would fuel that fire.—Joe]

The Top Video…

Posted on by

…on this page is excellent.  I couldn’t have said it better myself, and that’s saying a lot.


John McCain should be out in a nice pasture right now, munching on sweet grass and chewing his cud.

Quote of the day—Frank Gelett Burgess

Posted on by

Without bigots, eccentrics, cranks, and heretics, the world would not progress.

Frank Gelett Burgess
[I’m elaborating still more on what some people claim is the basis for “progress”. Soon I’ll tell you about the origins of people who call themselves “progressives”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Samuel Butler

Posted on by

All progress is based on the universal innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income.

Samuel Butler
[While this is widely attributed to Samuel Butler it is not found in a search this particular Samuel Butler’s work. It could be it is a different Samuel Butler or the collection is incomplete. But regardless of who should be given credit I think it is worthwhile to note that while this statement has a great deal of truth to it catastrophic failure is also associated with living beyond one’s income. If you question the validity of this latter claim you should run for public office. If you “know” it is false and can convince enough people of your delusion you too could become president.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Fabio Periera

Posted on by

This is a tragedy, both that 80 lives were lost & that right-wing gun nuts exist worldwide.

Fabio Periera
July 23, 2011
Saved from the memory hole by Linoge.
[One has to wonder how Periera would like to remedy the problem of that existence. Certainly others had and implemented effective government programs for that sort of problem. And it is because of the existence of people like Periera that I have Boomershoot.—Joe]

Enhanced Penalties

Posted on by

Over the years, mostly in the 1990s IIRC, there has been a lot of talk about certain enhanced penalties for “gun crimes”.  Even some supposedly on the pro rights side have advocated them, presumably as a compromise to prevent some other, more egregious infringement.


I thought we had dispatched the whole concept years ago, but it came up again in comments here, so I figure it’s time to update some folks who might be new to this game of official, wholesale coercion and persecution of different groups, verses liberty.  Besides that, we all know by now that the leftist playbook is very short, and so they have to recycle the old ideas and find a way to make them new again every few years or so.


What you’re saying when you advocate special punishments for “gun crime” is that the same, or very similar, crime committed without a gun is somehow less criminal.  What you’re saying is that gun owners are to be treated the way black people were treated before civil rights.


Do you really want to go there?


My sister and her approximately three year old daughter were murdered in their own home by an invader.  The killer used a kitchen knife to brutally stab and slash my sister to death, in the presence of her daughter, and then the daughter was strangled to death with a shoestring as the murder weapon.


So you’re saying; “Oh, well thank goodness they were killed with a knife and shoestring, because being shot with a gun would be…just terrible!”  And you’re saying to the murderer; “Thank you, my good man, for using a knife and a shoestring instead of a gun.  That’s the way we like to see it. Now you’ll get off a little easier.”


WTF..Really?


One of our music store customers in his early teens was minding his own business one night when a carload of other kids stopped, got out, and clubbed him with a baseball bat.  He dragged himself some blocks to the steps of a nearby business, and died from the massive head injuries.


“His parents should count their lucky stars their boy wasn’t shot, ’cause that would have been bad news!”


Really?


That’s just as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to slavery, we should just have enhanced penalties for black people who commit crimes, and referring to that as “pro civil rights advocacy”.  With friends like that I don’t need enemies.  I know the enhanced-penalty-for-the-presence-of-guns concept has been bandied about by supposedly pro gun legisladiots, and that you might have been fooled for a moment, but don’t let it happen again.  Now you know– such ideas come either from the anti rights movement or from people who can’t think straight and don’t understand what the words “rights” and “justice” mean.  We can all do much better without them mucking up the waters.


ETA; Maybe the slavery reference wasn’t the best one.  Maybe it should be, “…as stupid and bigoted as saying that, as an alternative to outright lynchings, we should have enhanced penalties for blacks who commit crimes…”  Makes everybody happy, right?  Everyone gets a little something.


In any case, when we stick to the basic truths, we win.  When you compromise the basic principles, you’ve relegated the concept of rights to the back of the bus.  You’ve just lost.  Creating enhanced penalties for one group verses another is outright dumb, and evil, regardless of the political/tactical environment.  If you can’t stand on the principle of basic rights, equality, liberty and justice, well thank you for applying but no– we just can’t use you at this time.  Coward.

Quote of the day—Otis Rolley

Posted on by

It is undeniable that we have to do more to reduce the devastating impact gun violence is having on our community. While the courts have consistently ruled against significant gun control legislation, there is still a way to decrease crime: substantially increase the cost of its’ commission.


Increasing the cost of guns won’t work because many criminals don’t purchase new guns and they can be borrowed or even rented in some areas. Therefore, as Mayor, Otis will move to impose a $1 per bullet tax (or about $50 per pack). That will increase substantially the financial cost of committing a crime and, unlike guns, bullets cannot be shared after their initial use. This will also dramatically cut back on the random firings that too often happen around holidays and celebrations.


Otis Rolley
Candidate for Mayor of Baltimore
July 19, 2011
THE ROLLEY PLAN TO MAKE EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN BALTIMORE SAFER
[It would appear that Rolley is arithmetically and logically impaired. There would be constitutional challenges to this which almost for certain he would lose because he openly admits, “This is not a revenue enhancement tool”.


But ignoring the constitutional issue with high taxes you would get smuggling with this proposal. Just think about it a bit. What is the tax on recreational drugs in this country or the tax on bullets and guns in the U.K.? Oh yeah! It’s a few years in prison and those items are still readily available. And with the tax on ammunition purchased inside the city limits all he will accomplish is to create a virtual ban on the legal sale of ammunition within the city. This will create a new black market. In other words a Mayor Rolley would increase crime instead of decrease it.


Now the arithmetic part. I don’t have the numbers for just Baltimore but I do have them for the U.S. as a whole. Each year private citizens purchase, and presumably consume, something on the order of 9 billions rounds of ammunition. There are approximately 70,000 injuries or deaths each year due to criminal use of firearms. Suppose that on the average, each of these injuries and deaths were the result of two shots fired. This would mean that his proposed tax would cost people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms nearly $9,000,000,000 while costing the criminals only about $140,000. Or a ratio of about 64,000 to 1. This is not a “tax” on criminal use of firearms. It is a “tool” for infringing on people exercising a guaranteed right.


Furthermore looking at it from the standpoint of per criminal use his proposal would increase the cost of the crime, assuming the criminals actually purchased the ammo instead of stealing it or smuggling it in from outside the city, by about $2.00 per crime. When the “cost” of the crime is already many months or years in jail how can anyone think that increasing the cost another $2.00 is going to make a difference?


This guy has crap for brains. No wonder he is running for mayor. He isn’t qualified for a real job.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Orrin G. Hatch

Posted on by

When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I hoped that I would be able to assist in the protection of the constitutional rights of American citizens, rights which have too often been eroded in the belief that government could be relied upon for quick solutions to difficult problems.

Both as an American citizen and as a United States Senator I repudiate this view. I likewise repudiate the approach of those who believe to solve American problems you simply become something other than American. To my mind, the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land “conceived in liberty”, they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against government interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.

Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
FEBRUARY 1982
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, R E P O R T OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES SENATE, NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
[And those that do not value this right have no desire to be free. May their chains set lightly upon them, and may posterity forget that they were our countrymen.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Wayne LaPierre

Posted on by

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen – not for the government.

…

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Wayne LaPierre
July 14, 2011
NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty
[The rest of the remarks are of a similar tone. It’s not that long and it’s worth reading the whole thing.

Although it would take two thirds of the Senate and an anti-gun president to get it through I have often considered a version of this treaty as the biggest threat we are facing. An anti-gun president isn’t that hard to come by and in the long term thirds of the Senate might be feasible under some circumstances.

MAIG also deserves a high ranking but their agenda is more susceptible to local political action and court challenges. A ratified treaty is a much different and more difficult beast to deal with.—Joe]

Ten years and $1,000,000 fine

Posted on by

I wonder if this is why President Obama is ramping up his fundraising machine (H/T to Cam Edwards).

I still think BoomershootWife has the better idea about what to do with him.