Quote of the day—Mike Jensen

I’m all for shared sacrifice.  But I think it should be shared sacrifice of those responsible for this mess in the first place.  So instead of punishing the super rich, who didn’t spend us into oblivion, let’s have shared sacrifice among those responsible for this mess.

I propose this:

  1. Collect the name of every member of Congress—Republican or Democrat—who ever voted for a federal budget that included a deficit.
  2. Determine which of these members are still living.
  3. Add the names of all living presidents.
  4. Increase THEIR taxes.

I propose that we tax all former members of Congress at a 50% flat tax rate.  Former presidents would be taxed at a flat 75% of annual income.  Finally, current members of Congress and the current president would be taxes at 100% of their annual income.  Any other Americans who would like to can volunteer to join either of these groups (time to walk the walk, Warren!).  These tax rates will stay in effect until the debt is erased and we have a balanced budget.

How about we stop coddling those who caused this problem in the first place?

Mike Jensen
August 30, 2011
Coddling
[Yup. Those responsible should be the ones to pay the price for fixing the problem.

And if insufficient progress has been made by the time their term in office is over consideration could be given to auctioning off their body parts.—Joe]

Stumbling Into the Hard Truth

…and then denying it.  Pete Sessions, NRCC Chairman, sends out regular e-mail alerts.  Every single one of them can be interpreted as “Look at those dirty rotten Democrats!  Give us money!”

Today’s e-mail alert title was “Threatening is Not Governing”.  Even though it’s completely wrong of course, I might be tempted to see that title as a sign of some positive development in Mr. Sessions’ understanding in that it touches upon an important point, but I know him too well.

What he referred to as “threatening” was Obama’s “threat” to “…veto any plan aimed at fixing our budget crisis that does not include his demand for a new $1.5 trillion tax increase.”  That contains so many layers of idiocy that I won’t even get into it.  Forget the president and that it’s fully within his job description to “threaten” to veto anything Congress pukes out.

The point is that any and all governing is threatening.  Every law, rule, ordinance, every tax or restriction, every subsidy– they’re all backed by threats, and all government threats include a group of people with guns who are ready, willing, and I dare say eager to make good on those threats.

I’d say I’m hopeful that even Pete Sessions has stumbled upon an important truth, but he of all people will never admit to understanding it.  Maybe, since he has broached the subject, more of us can expand on it.

Mr. Sessions; I see your accusations in much the same way I’d see a drunk sitting at a bar with a martini in his hands accusing the drunk next to him of being a drunk.  Only worse– the typical drunk probably isn’t going to work every day to find new ways to formulate threats against the whole of The People.

Quote of the day—Paul Krugman

Fortunately, physicians no longer believe that bleeding the sick will make them healthy. Unfortunately, many of the makers of economic policy still do.

Paul Krugman
September 19, 2011
Decline in manufacturing capacity is probably only the beginning of the bad new: Paul Krugman
[He is apparently oblivious to the irony as he goes on to say, even though the U.S. Government is broke, “For the time being we need more, not less, government spending, supported by aggressively expansionary policies from the Federal Reserve and its counterparts abroad.”

Krugman believes that budget austerity is the equivalent of “bleeding the patient” when sane people would recognize it as reducing the hemorrhaging. One has to wonder if Krugman is practicing doublethink, doublespeak, or both. In any case he has crap for brains if he thinks the majority of the people will believe him.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Carrie Severino

I’m not sure exactly what these folks are pledging to do. Are they living constitutionalists pledging fealty to the Constitution on the day they sign the pledge? Or some future Constitution the exact substance of which they don’t even know when they sign the pledge? Is each person pledging to their own Constitution which just doesn’t change to them? Unless, of course, they are all pledging to a Constitution that actually has a definite, knowable, unchanging substance — in which case I look forward to joining them in celebration of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia’s service at the next Federalist Society convention.

Carrie Severino
September 16, 2011
More on the Living Constitutionalists’ ‘Pledge’
[People who “believe in a living constitution” haven’t thought things through. Do they also believe in “living contracts” where the terms of the contract change without all parties to the contract agree to the changes or even being notified that the contract no longer means what it says? To say, “we have a living constitution” means we have no constitution.—Joe]

Quote of the day—4moreDubya

Look at it this way, do you think it’s up to the states to set their own rules on slavery? Or search and seizure?

4moreDubya
September 14, 2011
Comment to House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines
[States have powers to set their own tax rates, build (or not build) roads, license businesses, and many other things. States have not been given the power to infringe upon specific enumerated or natural rights. Some people just don’t grasp the difference between exercising powers granted to them and infringing upon rights specifically protected. Some people just aren’t very bright.—Joe]

Seldom Do I LOL…

…even when I’m watching good comedy.  Maybe it comes from growing up in a large family.  If you LOL, shut up already.  I’m trying to listen, and anyway, how can you listen while you’re cackling?  (In a live social situation, at least the deliverer of the comedy usually has the sense to wait for some degree of quiet, so that’s different)  Stuff like that.  But I LOL’d at this, from Tam;

Meanwhile, I’d like to offer my services to moderate the next GOP debate:

“Now, if you will all look down at your podiums, you will notice that you’ve all been provided with a short document. A few of you might even be vaguely familiar with it. If you don’t mind, could you each just look in the part headed ‘Article II’ and point out to me the sentence or phrase that indicates that ‘job creation’ or ‘the economy’ is within the presidential purview?

We’ll start with you, on the end, with the hair. No, not you… the other one on the end, with the hair…”

It’s absurd in its truth.  Funny and sad.

When thinking of the most recent, absurd rationalizations and excuses for government meddling, and the obvious expectation from politicians that we revere them (why is never explained) I find, more and more frequently, the phrase, “None of your filthy, stinking, rotten business, you sniveling, made-up, hairsprayed, lying piece of shit with the painted-on smile” comes to mind, followed by the thought that if you actually told them to mind their own business they wouldn’t understand– they actually believe that your business IS their business.  Tam made it funny is all.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I should clean my guns.

An opportunity

Paul M. Barrett is at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous. I talked to him for a couple hours last night.

Barrett is the author of this article which includes:

The rise of the Glock and other semiautomatic handguns cannot be linked to variations in overall crime rates. But that doesn’t mean it would be pointless to take small steps to reduce mayhem, such as restricting magazine capacity. One lesson of Tucson is that there is a difference between a 33-round clip and an 8- or 10-round clip.

If I get another chance to talk with him I’m going to show him this video:

Then I will bring up the constitutional issues.

He just sat down by me. Time to get busy….

Quote of the day—The Vancouver Action Plan

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

The Vancouver Action Plan
June 1976
Agenda item 10 (d)
[Via an email pointer from JoeyD Sr. to a web page about Agenda 21.

I am reminded that Stalin had a particular interest in the land owners of the Ukraine and several million people died as he tried to “create a better society”. He and his followers considered themselves “progressives” and those that opposed him were called “regressives”. Sound familiar?

I would like to remind “public planners” (I prefer to call them “the central committee”) that rural land owners in this country are much more likely to own firearms than the population at large. My limited sample suggests nearly 100% of them own firearms.

Μολὼν λαβέ! can equally well and should apply to acres as well as guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jack Steen

THIS IS THE REASON THE REPUBLIKLAN WILL GO DOWN IN DEFEAT IN THE 2012 MANDATE ELECTIONS THAT WILL RETURN THE NATION TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULE FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS !

Jack Steen
September 02, 2011
Comment to Republican gun raffle in Giffords’ county draws criticism
[Caps in the original.

I’m struck by the parallels between the mindset of anti-gun people, “the anointed” as described by Thomas Sowell, and the army leaders during the lead up to the war with the Nez Perce Indians. They don’t, and perhaps can’t, understand the other side, they “know” they are right and it is obvious their opponents are wrong to the point of being insane. A final parallel is that when things turn out different than expected instead of revising their mindset they proclaim their superiority even louder.

If it weren’t a matter of life and death it would be amusing.—Joe]

What would Hillary do?

In response to Lyle’s post yesterday in regards to our military involvement in the mid-east ubu52 said, “My ideal candidate was Hillary and I think we all know what she would do.”

I honestly have no idea what Hillary do in regards to the mid-east if she were president. I suppose I could do some research on it but I don’t want to destroy this rather pleasant image I have of her flying over the desert on her broomstick turning princes into frogs.

From the Horse’s (Jihadist’s) Mouth

Here we go again I suppose.  I posted a few days ago that I wanted clarification of Ron Paul’s military and foreign policy.  No one offered any, but it sure provoked a storm of comments.  I asked in a comment on RP’s own web site, what he would suggest we do about small, rogue states that want to kill us, don’t yet have the means to do it, but are very active in working to attain the means and the allies to eventually kill us.  Not only did Ron Paul or his web site managers attempt an answer, none of his supporters offered any answers, AND there was an instant troll patrol mobilization that buried the discussion in an argument over the definition of Zion.

Strike One; No coherent position on his own web site.

Strike Two; No answers to a serious and level-headed series of questions.

Strike Three; He seems to have a troll patrol that can be dispatched on demand on short notice, to provide a smoke screen.  Whether they operate at his behest, or totally on their own, someone clearly sees a need to cover for Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas, or lack thereof.

The primary response I get from those willing to talk, i.e. not Ron Paul, is; “Pfffft!  That little fly spec is no threat!” followed by a litany of sins committed by the U.S.

As for the first part– the “pfffft” part, it doesn’t take a super power to do a lot of serious damage.  As for the second part– it’s hard to square with the first part, unless I translate it as, “we don’t deserve to survive” or “we don’t deserve to take action against any but the most cataclysmic of threats, because that would be meddling and meddling is evil”.  Without that translation, the litany-of-sins part of argument is nothing but a change of subject in that it does not address the question of what we should do about specific current threats, or future threats as they might emerge.

There are plenty of threats in the world, and a few that wander in from the outer solar system once in a while, but jihad seems to be a popular one for discussion.  I’ve heard quite a few words from the jihadist’s mouths before, and Joe, years ago, posted a list of demands from Bin Laden.  From what I’ve actually seen and heard, The Reasons for jihadists hating us center around the basics of our culture and not our foreign policies of the past or present, except for our support of Israel, which is only sometimes mentioned.  Whole jihadist diatribes exist that don’t mention it at all.  You will also remember that Israel was not created by the U.S. and that the Soviets, the Germans and more recently the Chinese, have had their long and sometimes brutal fingers in the Mid East, and THEY are not “The Great Satan”.  We are.  The facts, as I understand them then, do not support, do not even suggest other than in the most ethereal way, the idea that they hate us enough to want to wipe us off the map simply because of our meddling foreign policy.

This recent explanation, from an actual “Sharia Shall be the Law of the World” jihadist, is right along the lines of everything else I’ve heard;

Aside from railing against democracy, he goes on to unabashedly claim that sharia is his ultimate goal. Further showcasing his view that “rule by the people” is completely unacceptable, he continues with the following:

“once Allah’s law is applied, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme.”

I’ve heard that many times– “The Koran, God’s law, is the only law.  Man-made laws have no place in the world.  Rule by the People is rule by Satan.  Stuff like that.  Very common theme. And from the same report;

Shehato said that if the mujahideen came to power in Egypt, they would launch a campaign of Islamic conquests aimed at subjecting the entire world to Islamic rule. Muslim ambassadors would be appointed to each country, charged with calling upon them to join Islam willingly, but if the countries refused, war would be waged against them.

The Islamic state he’d like to see Egypt become is an equally concerning picture — a nation that would have no trade or cultural ties with non-Muslims. And because tourists “drink alcohol and fornicate,” all of the sites that have made Egypt a popular destination for foreign vacationers. will be shut down. Art, dancing, singing and other exercises of talent and self-expression will also be prohibited.

We “Drink alcohol and fornicate”.  I believe Bin Laden said the same thing, along with demanding an end to trading money with interest.  Exercises of art and other forms of self-expression have also been mentioned before, by other radical Islamists.  That’s what I’m seeing, supposedly in their own words.  Now you could argue that all the translators and/or reporters, from any and all walks of life, are mistranslating and/or misreporting the messages, but I’ll have a very hard time believing that.  If that were the case, there’d be people here, who speak the language, raising a fit– “That’s not what he said…!“

So far as I can tell, Ron Paul says “no sanctions” while at the same time saying that we should “put (undefined) pressure” on certain, undefined, entities but absolutely avoid them by staying out of their business while the jihadists ally with Russia, China and Venezuela, etc. and we should totally mind our own business because anything else whatsoever is “Imperialist”.  That is, so far as I can tell.  I’ve given up on my attempt to get clarification from Ron Paul.  I now know I’ll never get it.  There’s something seriously f’d up with him, that people close to him want very much to hide.  I don’t know what it is, but I can smell its horrible stench wafting out through my monitor.

So.  Again.  Please.  Focus like a laser beam this time.  Forget our litany of past and present sins for the moment.  Forget Ron Paul.  That’s a different subject from “what should we do now that the house seems to be smoking?”  I don’t want a sermon on why I shouldn’t play with matches while the house seems to be on fire.  OK?  There are possibly some rather more important matters that need our immediate attention.  Or do you believe we should just forget the smoke and argue amongst ourselves until we see naked flames?  How high do the flames have to be then?  Should we be at all concerned about these jihad jackwagons, who seem to be making progress while we’re losing liberty in our own house, and if so, what should we do about it?  Or do they even exist?  I’ve heard that argument– “There is no terrorist threat”.  Exactly what would your dream candidate say?  Please be clear and to the point. (assuming your dream candidate would be clear and to the point).  If you’re for Ron Paul I don’t waht to hear from you.  I already read his own words and they make no sense, and since he can’t speak for himself I don’t care what you have to say about him because you clearly don’t know any better than I.

Consequences for their actions

I’ve been listening to The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell and something he said resonated with a theme Robb has been blogging about and the latest news in Fast and Furious (H//T to Rob for this last link). Governments (actually people in general but the present context is government) will not abide by the law (or contracts) unless there is some punishment they fear if they fail to comply with the terms. When people in government spent other peoples money (OPM: pronounced “opium”) they have virtually no incentive to spend it wisely.

Had the people responsible for Fast and Furious been handed over to the Mexican Government within a week of the request being made most of the gun community would have considered justice had been mostly served. But more importantly future excursions outside the law, such as the long gun reporting rule, would have been given much greater scrutiny before being implemented. As it is the message sent is that the worst that will happen is those responsible will be given boring jobs and the whistle blowers will be punished to the fullest extent possible without bending the law too far.

As Sowell expresses it the self-anointed implement government policies with OPM, other peoples lives, and no consequences for failed outcomes except those that are truly and obviously disastrous. The outcome is as you might expect. It’s no different than letting your children run wild and giving them whatever they ask for. They end up as spoiled brats who cause problems for everyone and are incapable of functioning in society. Only as government officials they are in a position to destroy society.

Most of our government officials have “qualified immunity” which protects them from breaking the law unless they clearly should have known better. IIRC the argument is that we need to give them this sort of immunity so that “good people” won’t be afraid to enter public service. This argument never held any water for me because there is no similar immunity granted to corporate officials or individuals who unknowingly break (there are some exceptions to this) laws. And you don’t hear people arguing that “good people” are scared to become corporate executives or individuals living their lives as if they in constant fear of arrest and punishment.

Government officials, more so than individuals, need to have consequences for breaking the law. It’s working in Florida and it would work everywhere.

Quote of the day—(REDACTED)

Please join us on Wednesday, August 31, at 9:30 a.m., in Conference Room B to celebrate the successful completion of the rifle multiple sale reporting program. Collaboration among many directorates made this program possible, and REDACTED and I want to recognize and thank all the employees who contributed to our success.

(REDACTED)
August 25, 2011
ATF invitation to celebrate successfully (so far) breaking the law.
[I would love to attend but it’s a little far away for me with my busy work schedule. Could I send the U.S. Marshalls with arrests warrants for everyone in my place?—Joe]

Ron Paul Web Site Melt-Down

I’ve been met with pure emotion every time I question a Ron Paul supporter on RP’s foreign policy positions.  The aggregate response is; “What are you, stupid??!!!  Ron Paul is great!!!!” but in comments on his web site it is mostly smoke screen– pure distraction– Ignore and Redirect.

I went to the obvious source of Ron Paul positions– Ron Paul’s own web site, for clarification, and found none.  The best I could ascertain was that RP’s position on hostile enemies is; “Stop, or I’ll say Stop again!” or “Stop, or you’ll get a letter of condemnation on official letterhead!”

There are two ten minute videos there.  I got through one, with only more questions.  At one stage, where he’s making the point, “America negotiated with the Soviet Union and so therefore we can negotiate with Iran” he wraps it up saying that, after all, Iran is no bigger a threat than was the Soviet Union.  (oh boy)  No, see; the Soviet Union was a massively greater threat than Iran is today.  See.  Mutually Assured Destruction was well in place.  His reasoning is backwards.

In another segment of the same vid, he says he’s totally opposed to sanctions, on the notion that they’re an act of war.  OK.  I could agree with that, but then he slips in the idea of “putting pressure” on hostiles without giving any clue as what that could mean. Let’s see, maybe 12 years, seventeen UN resolutions against the Saddam regime in Iraq, followed by Saddam kicking out the UN inspectors?  “Pressure”, with nothing to back it up, will be met with laughter by our enemies.

As it went, we had not one, but two U.S. Congressional authorizations of force (official declarations of war) with Congresscritters falling all over each other to get in front of the cameras and make sure we all knew they favored military action.  A few weeks later and it was “Bush Lied, People Died!” and “9/11 Was An Inside Job!” and “No War For Oil!” and as far as I can tell Ron Paul agrees with the later attitudes, saying we’re illegally doing this and illegally doing that, and no wonder people hate us because we suck (no explanation of why the Russians and Chinese, among others, aren’t as hated as the U.S., after they’ve been ten times as “Imperialist” as anything the U.S. ever did).

My best assessment of Ron Paul’s foreign/military position is that it’s a conflation of Jane Fonda’s, John Kerry’s and Cindy Sheehan’s, i.e. pure emotion mixed with the belief that the U.S. is on balance a force of evil in the world, with some shameless pandering to the “Make Love, Not War!” constituency (which he must see as an important voting block) mixed in.  That and he apparently can’t afford a moderator for his web site.  Other than that, I like Ron Paul a lot.

Hunger is coming

I’ve been saying for years that hunger is coming and that lots of people are going to die. I can’t find it on my blog but I know I have said it many times in private, “People have to get hunger before they revolt.”

Instapundit linked to the overview (via Kenneth Anderson) and David linked to the paper supporting my claims.

One of the biggest questions that comes to mind is what about the government forced famines in the Ukraine in the 1930s? Were there riots then? If so we know they weren’t sufficient to overthrow the communists but they didn’t have personal firearms either.

I agree with some of the others, the August 2013 date is a little too precise. The world could have bumper crops for a while and push the date out or there could be a bunch of crop failures and the date gets closer. But the bottom line is the conditions for revolt are approaching. As a general rule revolutions are bad for liberty. Will the U.S be different? What needs to be done to hold on to a free market and freedoms in general if there is a revolution? Would the preservation of private property via the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms be sufficient? Or will the forces demanding the abolition of private property be overwhelming? If the latter then it is my opinion that many more millions will die.

A Little History

I’ve long suspected (“suspected” as in I hadn’t set out to prove it, though I knew for sure anyway) that many of our gun restriction laws were vigorously supported by the gun industry.  It’s the only explanation for some of the import restrictions, and it makes sense to explain licensing requirements for manufacturers– protection for the established companies against cheap imports and upstart competitors, respectively.  This motivated American companies, and even the NRA, to get into bed with the anti-rights movement.  Add to that the government’s multi million dollar contracts potentially held over company’s heads, and you have an extremely powerful influence against liberty.  I bring this up because this sort of thing has been going on all throughout our society for, well, essentially forever.

Researching an answer for a customer, which is something I spend a lot of my time doing, I came across this (emphasis mine);

“The patent on the M1 carbine was owned by Western Cartridge Co. and David “Carbine” Williams, and still in effect when Penney and Arnold wanted to begin manufacturing M1 carbines in 1958. Penney and Arnold contacted Winchester-Western and offered them a percentage per carbine manufactured, in return for permission to manufacture the M1 carbine. John Olin, owner of Winchester-Western, refused. Olin, Winchester-Western, and more than a few other American manufacturers were opposed to all of the surplus weapons being returned to the United States, where they were being sold at prices the manufacturers couldn’t compete with. This opposition eventually led the manufacturers and the National Rifle Association to support the Gun Control Act of 1968, which, amongst many other things, prohibited the importation of U.S. military surplus.“

The capitalist in me, which comprises my entire being, says; “Why didn’t Winchester and other manufacturers buy up all the cheap imports, then, or at least strike a deal with the new company?”  But some obvious questions often go unanswered, or un-asked.

Point being; a huge number of the vast mountain of restrictions and barriers to entry into the marketplace we have now, started with a politician getting into bed with someone in business, and working out a deal.

What to do about it?  First be aware of it.  Then understand that our government was set up, partly, to avoid this sort of thing.  Hence I lay the majority of the blame on the corrupt operators in our government.  There will always be one person willing to sell out his country for money, but government is specifically charged with protecting liberty.  Tar and feathers, anyone?  And be aware of what your favorite advocacy group is really doing before you give them money.

Quote of the day—Janet Napolitano

Let me be very clear: we monitor the risks of violent extremism taking root here in the United States. We don’t have the luxury of focusing our efforts on one group; we must protect the country from terrorism whether foreign or homegrown, and regardless of the ideology that motivates its violence.

We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people, including subjecting our activities to rigorous oversight from numerous internal and external sources.

Janet Napolitano
Head of Department of Homeland Security
April 16, 2009
Homeland Security chief responds to right-wing extremism report
[Really? I wonder what sort of action Ms. Napolitano and her organization have taken in response to those responsible for operation Fast and Furious. It involved criminal activities and arguably terrorist activities as well as strong hints that it was aimed at infringing upon the civil rights of American people.—Joe]

Traditional hunting ammo banned in Washington state

Joe Waldron sent out an email with an alert from the NRA. Here are some important points (emphasis in original):

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has imposed a ban on the use of traditional ammunition for all upland bird hunting on all WDFW pheasant release sites across the state.  This restriction was adopted by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission two years ago but its implementation was delayed until this hunting season.  The Commission adopted the restriction during the course of its 2010-2012 hunting season-setting process.

With this in mind, it is critical that hunters and sportsmen participate in the 2012-2014 season-setting process, which is just getting underway.  The WDFW will be hosting a series of public meetings next week to take comments from the public as the first step in the process.  You can bet that the anti-hunting extremists will be represented at these meetings so the importance of hunters and sportsmen participating cannot be overstated!

…

…

No scientific studies have been cited showing population-level impacts on any species.  The WDFW seems to be acting on emotion and politics, citing the “potential” for problems associated with traditional ammunition as the basis for these far-reaching restrictions.

The NRA believes that the current push to ban the use of traditional ammunition in Washington is part of a new strategy being used by anti-hunting and anti-gun activists all over the country to attack our hunting traditions and firearm freedoms.  Traditional ammunition bans have a significant chilling effect on hunting by pricing hunters out of the market while hunters’ ranks are already in decline.  The opposition’s “next logical step” will be to propose a complete traditional ammunition ban throughout Washington.  This is the pattern in other states so don’t think “it won’t happen here!”

…

With that in mind, it is important for you to attend the WDFW meeting in your part of the state.  The following meetings will run from 7:00-9:00 p.m.:

–         August 22 – Federal Way Community Center (Alder & Birch rooms), 876 South 333rd St, Federal Way
–         August 23 – Edison Place Event Center (Edison Room), 201 North Rock St, Centralia
–         August 24 – The Lincoln Center (Monroe Ballroom), 1316 North Lincoln St, Spokane
–         August 25 – Clarion Hotel & Conference Center (Selah Wapato rooms), 1507 North First St, Yakima

In addition to attending one of the above meetings, please comment on the issues at the WDFW’s hunting website.  Your voice matters!  Comments must be submitted by Tuesday, September 20.

It’s another case of policies being implemented by a theocratic government of the self-anointed.

Leftist governments are theocracies

I just started listening to Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy but already I have several ideas for blog posts from the material. Then this evening I read How the Academic Left Engages in Debate by John Lott. It could have been another case study done by Sowell. The academic left, aka “the self-anointed”, comes up with some idea for social policy and then when the results come in different than what was expected they make excuses, attack those that point out the policy is a failure, and in general show a complete disregard for factual data.

Here is a sample:

In a debate carried nationally on National Public Radio, Donohue claimed that Wilson not only was employed by the National Rifle Association, but had let his employment bias his academic findings:

The lone dissenter was someone who was not an econometrician, who admitted in his dissent that he wished he knew more econometrics, and who had previously testified as an expert witness on behalf of the execrable NRA.

When later called on to justify this claim after the debate, Mr. Donohue did not offer proof, but instead called on Wilson to prove that he had never gotten paid by the NRA. When asked for evidence, Donohue e-mailed me: “Do you have Wilson’s email address or not? I am going to assume you do and that you know he worked for the NRA since you could ask him via email to confirm or deny and cc me, and you are not doing so.” Even later in 2009, after Wilson had denied that he had ever worked for the NRA, Donohue refused to accept it: “On the issue of the NRA, somehow I suspect that the Ronald Reagan professor of public policy doesn’t think the NRA is a bad organization and therefore any affiliation would not be deemed problematic.” Even during the last couple of weeks, with repeated calls to publicly retract his claim, Donohue has yet to correct the record.

Their beliefs cannot be refuted because facts are irrelevant to them. The leftist ideology is faith based. They just worship government instead of god(s). I find this very depression. Theocracies of any flavor have a strong tendency toward bloody repression of dissent.

Current news from Israel

From our friend Howard Linett, Dateline Aug. 19/11, 4:12 AM PDT;

Friends:

I am speechless that the Washington Post On-Line Headlines do not include mention of the extensive attacks in southern Israel carried-out by as many as 20 terrorists between noon and 6 pm yesterday.  The terrorists infiltrated from the Sinai and used AKs, RPGs, IEDs and mortars to attack civilian vehicles and to ambush the military and police units responding to the attacks.  We have 8 dead – 6 civilians, 2 security personnel and more than 30 wounded.  In addition there have been over a dozen missiles and rockets fired at Israeli cities since last evening – 6 more wounded.   For more information check out YNET.com.

Anyway nothing like an attack to focus one’s concentration.  Up at 05:00 for Israeli Riflemen Association rifle (7.62×51 caliber ArmaLite with Black Hills Match) practice, I can report 100, 200 and 300 meters – damn I’m good!  I may be old, but I’m ready.  Quiet confidence now exudes from my pours.

Today is the 3rd Friday of Ramadan.  After yesterday’s attacks and Israel’s response and today’s incoming Kassam and Grad missiles and Israel’s continuing response, no surprise that there is rioting in East Jerusalem now that prayers have let-out.

Finally, I really do not know if it is for real or a joke, but on the way home from practice I pointed to the metal skeleton of the palace King Hussein was building in June of 1967.  You can see it from the road and I like saying that my home in 300 yards down from the hilltop on which the palace’s construction stopped when Israel recaptured Pisgot Ze’ev from the Jordanians.  One of the guys in the car, a senior contractor, exclaimed that the palace was undergoing “restoration” in anticipation of the present King of Jordan needing somewhere to go – soon.  The current King lacks his father’s resolve and will not institute another Black September.  The King now also knows US backing is an illusion.  Personally, I think he would be better-off in LA.

Howard

I don’t want King Whatshisname here.  We’re Americans.  We don’t recognise royalty.  I’d let him in only if he promises to be polite if we call him by his first name and don’t genuflect or any of that garbage, that he go through the regular immigration process, pay all his own expenses without expecting protection or special treatment of any kind, and not bring in any of the loot his government extorted from the Jordanian people.

Anyway; why report these attacks?  They aren’t news (“news” being any story, true or otherwise, that bolsters the leftist cause).

Twenty attackers and eight dead.  Good thing the attackers were run-of-the-mill jihadists then.  When the Americans go in somewhere, there are more like eight attackers and at least twenty dead.