Several quick reads of interest. I recommend you go read them all.
First up, Michelle Malkin has a piece over at Townhall.com entitled Screw Up, Move Up, Cover Up: The Fast and Furious Edition. If you have been following Sipsey Street Irregulars and the War on Guns, Notes from the resistance, you know all of this. Melson has been removed as the head of the ATF, and a number of Fast and Furious perpetrators have been given what appear to be promotions. The news here is that Michelle Malkin writes for a more general audience of conservatives and TEA partiers, who may not follow the gun blogs. The word is seeping out.
Also today, AWR Hawkins has a piece, again at Townhall.com entitled Barack Obama: Above the Law or just Lawless? Several people have warned that this President is blatantly, and deliberately lawless. I would note that there are several other things Hawkins has left out. None the less, for a general audience who may not always be aware, to have it appear in a forum like Townhall is very helpful in getting the word out.
Finally, Jeffrey Toobin of the NY Times has a piece in the New Yorker on Clarence Thomas entitled Partners. Ok, so this one is not a quick read, but go read it anyway. It gives voice to what I have always thought, that far from being stupid, as is often supposed by the Left, Thomas is an intellectual giant and leader of the conservatives on the Court. I have not always agreed with Thomas's rulings, but I find his rulings compelling. His writing shares with the best literature the ability at once to say a great deal in simple prose. So, why is Toobin letting everyone know now that Thomas has been quietly building a case against government over reach, and for an original understanding of the Constitution? I think because he is alerting his Leftist readers that somehow or another, Thomas will have to be forced to recuse himself when ObamaCare comes before the court.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Is Perry Establishment, or TEA Party Favorite
The American Thinker had an article yesterday, that hints at "the troubles" coming our way, but posits a fairly optimistic outcome for Elections 2012. The title of the article is What Liberals Fear More than Obama Losing, by Geoffrey P. Hunt, whose opening paragraph held much promise:
In any case, since he is in the race, let's have a look at Rick Perry. His official campaign website is here. The things Rick Perry is saying here mostly seem to be things that I can live with. Perry vows to repeal ObamaCare, cut spending, and cut taxes. What I don't see is that he would get rid of any departments, no matter how Unconstitutional those departments may be. For example, the Department of Education gives out billions for things that are not even on the Congress's to-do list. Then there are departments like DHS. DHS, in Obama's hands threatens to become a secret police force. We don't (or didn't) have those sorts of things in America. And what about repealing the unPatriot Act? What about eliminating thousands of regulations that stifle business and job creation every day? No mention of any of that.
On the other side, if Jeff Greenfield's scare mongering is any indication, I could live with Top 10 Things Governor Rick Perry Doesn't Want You to Know About Him. Of course, that is just some red meat thrown at the left, so I discount a lot of what I read there. But if what a lot of the MSM is saying and writing about him may not be true, they have definitely telegraphed that this guy is both electable, and has truly conservative ideas. They are afraid of Rick Perry, which elevates him in my eyes.
What about Rick Perry's record on guns? You can tell a lot about a politician's position on other issues by his position on guns. Perry apparently has a concealed carry license, but then reputedly so do Senators Boxer and Schumer. That doesn't mean they are all for you having a gun. Keep in mind the liberals ability to simultaneously hold two opposing points of view. Rick Perry opposed the recent efforts of the ATF to illegally grab more power by making the four Southwestern States report multiple sales of long guns to the Fed. Good. He has reportedly stated that if a person has a concealed carry license, he should be allowed to carry pretty much anywhere. Not bad. Licensing concealed carry is a good first step (as the Left always says.) In the generational culture war to keep our guns and bear them, we eventually want Constitutional carry everywhere.
In today's American Thinker, J. Robert Smith has an article which says that Romney plans to scare seniors about Social Security and Medicare. But Perry's plans, as I understand them now, seem quite modest. If we had done them back in 2004, we might not have had the current recession, or it might not have been as bad as it has been.
The primary election season is designed to put the candidates in the fire, and see if they survive. It needs to be as spread out as possible. As voters, we need the time to ask questions, and get answers, assuming the candidate doesn't simply lie to the nation. If Perry scares the Dems, that is just fine. If he scares the so called Repub establishment, that is good too. The debt ceiling fiasco shows that the establishment Republicans are not listening to the voters either. Perhaps a Perry candidacy is the two by four we need to smack them up beside the head.
Good so far, but then it devolves into puff piece for Rick Perry. I say puff piece because everyone knows campaign rhetoric is designed more to rally the base than to actually indicate what a candidate would really do if elected.
The left are now wringing their hands fearing their agenda is overripe, blaming everyone else for their own spoiled pickling. While Obama's sinking prospects for re-election are disquieting, the real source of liberals' despair is their sudden, unexpected realization that the progressive agenda is dead in its tracks and will likely be in full retreat after 2012.
The tipping point provoking the libs' worst nightmare was contained in Rick Perry's speech announcing his candidacy to be the Republican nominee for president. Perry proclaimed his mission was not to make government more accountable, effective, or efficient -- that's standard issue bromide from populist reformers. No, Perry was bold enough, and as his critics will assert reckless, to suggest government should be irrelevant -- his words "as inconsequential to your lives as possible."Frankly, I don't like being railroaded into selecting someone before I can take the measure of the man (or woman, because these days a lot of women are showing more gumption than the men), and this is feeling like 2000 all over again. That year, George Bush announced, and seeming took a victory lap before being nominated by acclimation. His talk of being a "compassionate conservative" had heads scratching all over. You see, those of us who call ourselves conservative think of ourselves as truly compassionate. We want to teach all men to fish, whereas the phony compassion of liberalism just wants to give people a fish and let it go. True compassion however, takes more time and effort, and requires a change in the other persons heart, so I can understand liberals disdain for it. In any case, we just thought it was a marketing ploy, and a clever one at that. Shrewd, Mr. Rove, very shrewd. But it turned out that "compassionate conservatism" was actually code for "more of the same liberalism." What kept us voting for Bush was the thought of AlGore, of John Kerry (he served in Vietnam) was so off putting, that we held our collective nose and voted for him anyway.
In any case, since he is in the race, let's have a look at Rick Perry. His official campaign website is here. The things Rick Perry is saying here mostly seem to be things that I can live with. Perry vows to repeal ObamaCare, cut spending, and cut taxes. What I don't see is that he would get rid of any departments, no matter how Unconstitutional those departments may be. For example, the Department of Education gives out billions for things that are not even on the Congress's to-do list. Then there are departments like DHS. DHS, in Obama's hands threatens to become a secret police force. We don't (or didn't) have those sorts of things in America. And what about repealing the unPatriot Act? What about eliminating thousands of regulations that stifle business and job creation every day? No mention of any of that.
On the other side, if Jeff Greenfield's scare mongering is any indication, I could live with Top 10 Things Governor Rick Perry Doesn't Want You to Know About Him. Of course, that is just some red meat thrown at the left, so I discount a lot of what I read there. But if what a lot of the MSM is saying and writing about him may not be true, they have definitely telegraphed that this guy is both electable, and has truly conservative ideas. They are afraid of Rick Perry, which elevates him in my eyes.
What about Rick Perry's record on guns? You can tell a lot about a politician's position on other issues by his position on guns. Perry apparently has a concealed carry license, but then reputedly so do Senators Boxer and Schumer. That doesn't mean they are all for you having a gun. Keep in mind the liberals ability to simultaneously hold two opposing points of view. Rick Perry opposed the recent efforts of the ATF to illegally grab more power by making the four Southwestern States report multiple sales of long guns to the Fed. Good. He has reportedly stated that if a person has a concealed carry license, he should be allowed to carry pretty much anywhere. Not bad. Licensing concealed carry is a good first step (as the Left always says.) In the generational culture war to keep our guns and bear them, we eventually want Constitutional carry everywhere.
In today's American Thinker, J. Robert Smith has an article which says that Romney plans to scare seniors about Social Security and Medicare. But Perry's plans, as I understand them now, seem quite modest. If we had done them back in 2004, we might not have had the current recession, or it might not have been as bad as it has been.
The primary election season is designed to put the candidates in the fire, and see if they survive. It needs to be as spread out as possible. As voters, we need the time to ask questions, and get answers, assuming the candidate doesn't simply lie to the nation. If Perry scares the Dems, that is just fine. If he scares the so called Repub establishment, that is good too. The debt ceiling fiasco shows that the establishment Republicans are not listening to the voters either. Perhaps a Perry candidacy is the two by four we need to smack them up beside the head.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Going Nowhere Fast
For some strange reason that defies pinning down, the Left in this country seems to be in love with the idea of high speed rail. They don't love it enough to ride it themselves, mind you, but it seems to feed their sense of noblesse oblige. They often cavil on about the poor and minorities, two groups of human shields behind which the Left often retreats. But in this year of our Lord 2011, it is the rare individual who has need of a car, but can not get at least temporary use of one. Most times either a neighbor, friend, or family member has a car and will take them wherever they need to go. Then there are the Watermelons (green on the outside, red in the middle) who don't own a car in order to save Gaia from the ravages of people driving gas guzzling cars. But these types are often rather affluent and can afford to rent for the occasional trips. Enterprise Rental even advertises that they will come and pick you up! Perhaps it is simply the love affair limosine liberals have with everything European, and high speed trains are memories they all have of their youths spent traveling the continent. Whatever it is, they are willing to spend huge amounts of other people's money on rail systems that don't make sense to anyone not caught up in the religion that has become of "environmentalism."
So, it was with some amusement that I read in the American Thinker today an article by Kirk W. Kelson on California's attempt to prop up the high speed rail movement in an article entitled I Already Own a Bullet Train. Kelson writes that California wants to build a bullet train to run between Frseno and Buttonwillow, two destinations one can imagine having a huge demand that is unmet by traditional transportation alternatives. To give you a taste for Mr. Kelson's writing style, a quote or two:
Consider a Reason Magazine article from 2009 entitled Oberstar Misleads on Light Rail by Robert Poole. Poole finds that for construction costs alone a typical freeway costs $40-60 million per mile. A huge amount, to be certain. But rail costs an average of $124 million per mile. When you consider that the highway will carry 150,000 people per day versus the rail, which carries only 25,000, you realize that it is not even close. Based on the above, any transportation engineer would opt for highways. But there is more. The costs to operate the rail system is a constant drain, and if passengers do not show up as expected, the fixed costs will eat the system up. Highways, on the other hand, represent sunk costs to be sure, but there is no need to continue accruing costs to use it. There is also the fact that the highway, once built, can carry not only passenger, but trucks and commercial vehicles as well. In other words, a highway is a more versatile tool for transportation than is high speed rail.
Perhaps these are some of the reasons the State of Florida opted out of the Administration's offer of $2 billion of federal grant money to build a high speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando. In a NY Times article on February 16th, Governor Rick Scott rejected federal funds because:
Of course, it wouldn't be this way if a company could make money by providing luxury services to passengers willing to pay the costs. But nobody is. The last privately owned passenger trains died out in the 1950s. I remember riding on one of the last runs of the Akron, Canton, and Youngstown line as a small child, with my mother. Now passenger trains are all subsidized. The employees see patrons of these lines not as the source of their jobs, but as bothersome customers that they are required to serve. The actual source of their jobs is from government handouts, and they would have those jobs whether anyone rode the train or not. But therein lies the nut in the shell-if a company could make money providing passenger trains, it would be providing them. The fact that they can not should be a cautionary signal to lovers of high speed rail, who have a fiduciary responsibility to spend the taxpayers money wisely.
So, it was with some amusement that I read in the American Thinker today an article by Kirk W. Kelson on California's attempt to prop up the high speed rail movement in an article entitled I Already Own a Bullet Train. Kelson writes that California wants to build a bullet train to run between Frseno and Buttonwillow, two destinations one can imagine having a huge demand that is unmet by traditional transportation alternatives. To give you a taste for Mr. Kelson's writing style, a quote or two:
If you're of a mind someday to whisk conveniently between Fresno and Buttonwillow -- and, hey, who doesn't daydream about that? -- California will have you covered. Traveling 220 miles per hour (mph), you'll get from "nowhere" to "nowhere" in a brisk 30 minutes.Of course, Mr. Kelson owns a Jaguire, which is capable of speeds far in excess of the limits usually placed on highway driving. All that is needed is a willingness to face the consequences. But in his snarky way, Kelson has a point: namely that for the amount of funds expended on high speed rail lines that go from nowhere to nowhere, and which often require a car to drive you to your actual destination, building another lane of highway may be the answer.
You're right: "nowhere" is a harsh way to describe two hardworking towns in a valley better known as the "Food Basket of the World." But I'm just quoting one-time representative, former California State Assemblyman Rusty Areais, who snivels that "'[n]owhere' will never share the relative prosperity of this state until we do something about its relative isolation" (audio). According to Rusty, racing through "nowhere" at 220 mph will finally put "nowhere" on the map. Don't blink denizens of Merced. "Your" "share" of California's "prosperity" just whizzed by.
Consider a Reason Magazine article from 2009 entitled Oberstar Misleads on Light Rail by Robert Poole. Poole finds that for construction costs alone a typical freeway costs $40-60 million per mile. A huge amount, to be certain. But rail costs an average of $124 million per mile. When you consider that the highway will carry 150,000 people per day versus the rail, which carries only 25,000, you realize that it is not even close. Based on the above, any transportation engineer would opt for highways. But there is more. The costs to operate the rail system is a constant drain, and if passengers do not show up as expected, the fixed costs will eat the system up. Highways, on the other hand, represent sunk costs to be sure, but there is no need to continue accruing costs to use it. There is also the fact that the highway, once built, can carry not only passenger, but trucks and commercial vehicles as well. In other words, a highway is a more versatile tool for transportation than is high speed rail.
Perhaps these are some of the reasons the State of Florida opted out of the Administration's offer of $2 billion of federal grant money to build a high speed rail line between Tampa and Orlando. In a NY Times article on February 16th, Governor Rick Scott rejected federal funds because:
Mr. Scott said at a news conference in Tallahassee on Wednesday that cost overruns related to the Tampa-to-Orlando line could leave Florida taxpayers stuck with a $3 billion tab. Further, he said that if the state deemed the project too costly after having started construction, it would be required to return the $2.4 billion to the federal government. He also said he believed that estimates of riders and revenue for the rail line were too optimistic, and that state taxpayers would have been left to pay for subsidies to keep the line running because it would be unable to pay for itself.Look, I like trains. Trains have a certain romance about them that evokes an era of luxury with sleeping cars, and restaurant cars that served exotic gourmet dishes to pampered patrons. The names of famous trains live on in songs and fiction. But, as Mrs. PolyKahr found out recently, that era is gone. Now, a grumpy conductor takes your ticket, and you are lucky to get a rather poor meal cafeteria style served by people who definitely thinks they are doing you a favor. You get better fair from a microwave meal at home. Or, for that matter, from any of the road side restaurants that dot our freeways.
Of course, it wouldn't be this way if a company could make money by providing luxury services to passengers willing to pay the costs. But nobody is. The last privately owned passenger trains died out in the 1950s. I remember riding on one of the last runs of the Akron, Canton, and Youngstown line as a small child, with my mother. Now passenger trains are all subsidized. The employees see patrons of these lines not as the source of their jobs, but as bothersome customers that they are required to serve. The actual source of their jobs is from government handouts, and they would have those jobs whether anyone rode the train or not. But therein lies the nut in the shell-if a company could make money providing passenger trains, it would be providing them. The fact that they can not should be a cautionary signal to lovers of high speed rail, who have a fiduciary responsibility to spend the taxpayers money wisely.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
This and That
I am still here, despite Hurricane Irene. As it turned out, the Category 4 storm that blew out of the Bahamas hit the coast of North Carolina at 7:30 am today as a Category 1. We here in Raleigh have had rain and wind most of the day, but it is less than I have often experienced from mere thunderstorms. Mrs. PolyKahr and I took the grandkids to a birthday party today, tempting fate it would seem. But they had a wonderful time, and we met a few new people that we liked. So, all worked out well.
The grandmother of the little girl having the party is from Brazil. We talked for a while, and she mentioned that a lot of Brazilians who came for the economic opportunity are going back because there are jobs to be had in Brazil. I am of two minds on this: First, if the only reason they came is for a job, and the incomparable worth of American Citizenship (Brazilians come here legally by and large) is so worthless, then it is just as well they go. Secondly, I am literally embarrased that Brazil would be seen as a better place to be than the United States. The United States is the only land that could have produced the countless Thomas Edisons and Henry Fords who did not start off rich, but grew rich because they produced a product that others wanted to buy. How sad. Instead of celebrating these people, and holding them out as great examples, our current crop of politicians makes veritable criminals of those who produce, while writing the rules to favor Wall Street banksters and hedge fund managers.
Changing topics, I noticed in my blog stats, that I had a number of readers from Isreal. Welcome. I normally have readers from all over the United States, brought here by the Liberty Sphere and Eternity Road. To both Anthony Martin and Francis Porretto, thankyou. Both blogs are great reads. As for those Isreal readers, I would hope you would comment from time to time to let me know what you find of interest. I stand with Isreal in this very dangerous time we all face together.
Changing again, the Goofball Wormening hoax continues to go off the rails, with CERN announcing that cosmic rays are at least responsible for half of the warming experieced during the twentieth century. You can read about it at the American Thinker here. I have always thought that there was something wrong with the theory, even before I knew much about it. If CO2 is the cause of Goofball Wormening, then how to explain the huge variation seen in the earths climate over geological time? For most of that time, man wasn't even around, let alone driving around in SUVs. How can that be explained? Of course, the warmistas never even tried. Perhaps it is a moronic question, but it still deserves to be answered. But to answer it would lead the "scientists" necessarily to posit that goofball wormening might, just might, be caused by something else. That something else turns out to be solar activity.
Thats all for now.
The grandmother of the little girl having the party is from Brazil. We talked for a while, and she mentioned that a lot of Brazilians who came for the economic opportunity are going back because there are jobs to be had in Brazil. I am of two minds on this: First, if the only reason they came is for a job, and the incomparable worth of American Citizenship (Brazilians come here legally by and large) is so worthless, then it is just as well they go. Secondly, I am literally embarrased that Brazil would be seen as a better place to be than the United States. The United States is the only land that could have produced the countless Thomas Edisons and Henry Fords who did not start off rich, but grew rich because they produced a product that others wanted to buy. How sad. Instead of celebrating these people, and holding them out as great examples, our current crop of politicians makes veritable criminals of those who produce, while writing the rules to favor Wall Street banksters and hedge fund managers.
Changing topics, I noticed in my blog stats, that I had a number of readers from Isreal. Welcome. I normally have readers from all over the United States, brought here by the Liberty Sphere and Eternity Road. To both Anthony Martin and Francis Porretto, thankyou. Both blogs are great reads. As for those Isreal readers, I would hope you would comment from time to time to let me know what you find of interest. I stand with Isreal in this very dangerous time we all face together.
Changing again, the Goofball Wormening hoax continues to go off the rails, with CERN announcing that cosmic rays are at least responsible for half of the warming experieced during the twentieth century. You can read about it at the American Thinker here. I have always thought that there was something wrong with the theory, even before I knew much about it. If CO2 is the cause of Goofball Wormening, then how to explain the huge variation seen in the earths climate over geological time? For most of that time, man wasn't even around, let alone driving around in SUVs. How can that be explained? Of course, the warmistas never even tried. Perhaps it is a moronic question, but it still deserves to be answered. But to answer it would lead the "scientists" necessarily to posit that goofball wormening might, just might, be caused by something else. That something else turns out to be solar activity.
Thats all for now.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
An Open Letter to a Friend
Dear Mickey,
I much appreciated the opportunity to work with you Monday. You are a good colleague and friend and I enjoy chatting with you whenever possible. Mickey, you have a good heart, with good conservative instincts, and you are generally aware, something I can not say about a lot of people. You listen to Glenn Beck and to Rush Limbaugh. Here are some other sources you may not have been aware of, that tell you some of the unlawful and Unconstitutional things Obama is doing under the radar. The MSM certainly won't point these things out, and even Fox News doesn't get into this stuff in great detail. So, as a start, check out Gulag Bound. Also check out the Sipsey Street Irregulars where Mike Vanderboegh presents the Hannity expose on the Fast and Furious affair. The Obama administration has also issued regulations that would force the purchasers of multiple long guns in the 4 Southwestern States to register those purchases, something that the law strictly forbids. He has gone to war without Congressional approval (and Congress sits there like a potted plant.) There is more, much more. A dictator behaves in this fashion, not the president of a republic.
You asked why I thought he was doing all this, and destroying the economy. I told you I thought it was deliberate. Obama is doing his best to destroy the United States of America, and he is getting a lot of help from Congress and the MSM. "Why?" is a harder question. I believe that it is deliberate, because if it were mere bungling, surely he would sometimes muddle in our favor. What I believe, is that Obama is a Marxist. What flavor of Marxist isn't really important. Whether he is Communist, Socialist, or Fascist doesn't really matter, because they all lead back to the same thing, a Marxist dictatorship. For more information on that read this National Review Online article by Stanley Kurtz. Also check out his book Radical In Chief.
For a Fascist Obama, look at the GM and Chrysler fiasco. He totally subverted normal bankruptcy laws, kicked the bond holders of those companies under the bus, and turned General Motors into Government Motors. The Fascist part was where, instead of outright nationalizing the company, he made himself a major partner in the firm. I remember seeing Obama saying that the Federal government would now honor GM warranties. Riiiight. Obama should have let GM go bankrupt, and Chrysler too. That would have been the lawful thing to do, but I think he was looking for a test case. If he could get away without anyone raising a fuss, he would move on to more and more egregious examples. As for his purely Socialist side, look no further than ObamaCare. A lot of people warned us about what it would mean if we passed ObamaCare. We came close to defeating it. But Harry Reid pulled that stunt to make it a budget bill where he only needed 51 votes instead of 60. And right on time, they are trying to control our food.
But all that still doesn't really answer the question of "why?" I have a working theory about that, though I can not prove it. Before Marx, there was no name for the capitalist system. It was just the way business that were successful operated. Marx came along and presented as new some very old ideas, a bit of class warfare and hatred for the other, and created a very powerful economic and political philosophy-if your idea is to gain power. It appeals to the non achievers, to the ne're do wells, to the lazy and the incompetent, the criminal. Unfortunately, that segment of society makes up a lot of people. Because unexamined, the Marxist appeal is so great, it will always be with us. Standing against the Marxist economy, which always fails, was the United States with its more or less free market economy. The United States, by its very existence, put the lie to the Socialist economies every day. No wonder they hate us.
Interestingly, I believe Obama may be a true believer, one who has drunk the koolaid and truly believes his own hype. But what about the others? How do they benefit from the wheels coming off the wagon? First, lets clarify terms. True believers as I said, are those who have bought the theory hook, line, and sinker. They are the holders of a secret knowledge not available to the average schmuck. They honestly believe that in working daily to bring about their Utopian dreams, that they are bringing about a better world, carrying fire from the gods, where the lion will lie down with the lamb, and man will not fight anymore. Everyone will have all he needs, and we will all live in peace. I can almost hear the choir tuning up with Kumbayah Of course, since such beliefs can not stand up to penetrating scrutiny, they quickly resort to calling us racists, or haters, or terrorists, or whatever the latest group of people are for whom they regularly hold their little two minute hates. Some in this group also constitute what Lenin called the useful idiots. Useful idiots are those that parrot the latest talking points (yes, the left really does have talking points! It's not just a term or art.) People like Paul Krugman I would place in this category. Stalin had Walter Duranty at the NY Times to cover up his atrocities, while Obama it seems has the entire press. But people like Reid and Pelosi are in it for the power. Lenin and Stalin were in it for the power. Lenin didn't believe all that stuff, he just used it to gain a power base that allowed him to take power from the Czar, and keep it by murdering and brutalizing huge numbers of his own people. So, we have the true believers, the useful idiots, and the power trippers.
So, who is who and how do they benefit? I believe that Obama is a true believer, but will not discount that he is a power tripper with unusually good acting skills. He seems to be trying to settle scores with the American people as a whole for imagined sins against "his people." Of course, if "his people" are black Americans, they are taking the brunt of his economic warfare. Reid, Pelosi, and others in Congress I am convinced hope to share in some of Obama's power, but they also hope to generate enough wealth to insulate themselves and their families from the storm that will inevitably rock the U. S. when the sh*t hits the fan. How did Barney Frank, for example, become so rich on a Congressman's salary? Answer that, and you will know why many go along with the administration. That pretty much covers the Democratic leadership. Most of the back benchers in that party go along because they want to keep riding the gravy train. As for the Republicans, the leadership of the Republican party today would have been Democrats several generations ago. They are moderates, who believe that less of what ails us may be all it takes to avoid melt down. But they have nothing against the disease, except that it is killing us. They will serve as unwitting useful idiots until such time as they are no longer needed. I fear the Democrats have utter contempt for John Boehner and company, or they would be trying to remove him.
Now for the other side. Obama, and various party leaders like Kerry, Pelosi, Schumer, and others, have been out talking on topics to the press. In every case, the out and out, bald faced, wouldn't fool a five year old lies is maddening, and breath taking. What do they hope to accomplish? One can easily see through such fabrications. My conclusion is that they think it no longer matters. Whatever "it" is, it's in the bag. Let me close with this. Senator Lautenberg had a proposal to deny people on the "no fly" list guns. Nobody knows how you get on the no fly list, who is on it now, or how you get off. You or I are not allowed to see the "no fly" list. Apparently the criteria are pretty loose, and any Federal agent can put anybody's name on the list at any time with no due process. Meanwhile Janet Napolitano's DHS is busy putting out official notices to police departments and such that TEA party folks, people who believe in the Constitution, conservatives like you and I, are terrorists. We are to be watched, spied upon, our every move suspicious. We might find ourselves unwittingly on the "no fly" list, and would know it because we don't fly. Had Lautenberg's bill passed (and I think it might someday) we could suddenly find that our Constitutionally guaranteed rights are abridge without due process for the crime of disagreeing with the Obama administration. It's one thing to disagree with an administration, and quite another when such disagreement makes you a criminal. Get ready.
Yours truly,
PolyKahr
Update: For a slightly different take on Obama, see News Flavor where a supposed White House insider slings dirt on Obama. In this take, Obama is an empty suit, controlled by others behind the scenes. Who these "others" are is not said, though one can think of several names. Also note that we don't know who the "Insider" is, and ultimately have no way of knowing if what he says is true, or if he even said it. But it is an interesting data point. In any case, the message is largely the same-get ready.
For a different take altogether, see Sultan Knish. This is a good read anytime.
I much appreciated the opportunity to work with you Monday. You are a good colleague and friend and I enjoy chatting with you whenever possible. Mickey, you have a good heart, with good conservative instincts, and you are generally aware, something I can not say about a lot of people. You listen to Glenn Beck and to Rush Limbaugh. Here are some other sources you may not have been aware of, that tell you some of the unlawful and Unconstitutional things Obama is doing under the radar. The MSM certainly won't point these things out, and even Fox News doesn't get into this stuff in great detail. So, as a start, check out Gulag Bound. Also check out the Sipsey Street Irregulars where Mike Vanderboegh presents the Hannity expose on the Fast and Furious affair. The Obama administration has also issued regulations that would force the purchasers of multiple long guns in the 4 Southwestern States to register those purchases, something that the law strictly forbids. He has gone to war without Congressional approval (and Congress sits there like a potted plant.) There is more, much more. A dictator behaves in this fashion, not the president of a republic.
You asked why I thought he was doing all this, and destroying the economy. I told you I thought it was deliberate. Obama is doing his best to destroy the United States of America, and he is getting a lot of help from Congress and the MSM. "Why?" is a harder question. I believe that it is deliberate, because if it were mere bungling, surely he would sometimes muddle in our favor. What I believe, is that Obama is a Marxist. What flavor of Marxist isn't really important. Whether he is Communist, Socialist, or Fascist doesn't really matter, because they all lead back to the same thing, a Marxist dictatorship. For more information on that read this National Review Online article by Stanley Kurtz. Also check out his book Radical In Chief.
For a Fascist Obama, look at the GM and Chrysler fiasco. He totally subverted normal bankruptcy laws, kicked the bond holders of those companies under the bus, and turned General Motors into Government Motors. The Fascist part was where, instead of outright nationalizing the company, he made himself a major partner in the firm. I remember seeing Obama saying that the Federal government would now honor GM warranties. Riiiight. Obama should have let GM go bankrupt, and Chrysler too. That would have been the lawful thing to do, but I think he was looking for a test case. If he could get away without anyone raising a fuss, he would move on to more and more egregious examples. As for his purely Socialist side, look no further than ObamaCare. A lot of people warned us about what it would mean if we passed ObamaCare. We came close to defeating it. But Harry Reid pulled that stunt to make it a budget bill where he only needed 51 votes instead of 60. And right on time, they are trying to control our food.
But all that still doesn't really answer the question of "why?" I have a working theory about that, though I can not prove it. Before Marx, there was no name for the capitalist system. It was just the way business that were successful operated. Marx came along and presented as new some very old ideas, a bit of class warfare and hatred for the other, and created a very powerful economic and political philosophy-if your idea is to gain power. It appeals to the non achievers, to the ne're do wells, to the lazy and the incompetent, the criminal. Unfortunately, that segment of society makes up a lot of people. Because unexamined, the Marxist appeal is so great, it will always be with us. Standing against the Marxist economy, which always fails, was the United States with its more or less free market economy. The United States, by its very existence, put the lie to the Socialist economies every day. No wonder they hate us.
Interestingly, I believe Obama may be a true believer, one who has drunk the koolaid and truly believes his own hype. But what about the others? How do they benefit from the wheels coming off the wagon? First, lets clarify terms. True believers as I said, are those who have bought the theory hook, line, and sinker. They are the holders of a secret knowledge not available to the average schmuck. They honestly believe that in working daily to bring about their Utopian dreams, that they are bringing about a better world, carrying fire from the gods, where the lion will lie down with the lamb, and man will not fight anymore. Everyone will have all he needs, and we will all live in peace. I can almost hear the choir tuning up with Kumbayah Of course, since such beliefs can not stand up to penetrating scrutiny, they quickly resort to calling us racists, or haters, or terrorists, or whatever the latest group of people are for whom they regularly hold their little two minute hates. Some in this group also constitute what Lenin called the useful idiots. Useful idiots are those that parrot the latest talking points (yes, the left really does have talking points! It's not just a term or art.) People like Paul Krugman I would place in this category. Stalin had Walter Duranty at the NY Times to cover up his atrocities, while Obama it seems has the entire press. But people like Reid and Pelosi are in it for the power. Lenin and Stalin were in it for the power. Lenin didn't believe all that stuff, he just used it to gain a power base that allowed him to take power from the Czar, and keep it by murdering and brutalizing huge numbers of his own people. So, we have the true believers, the useful idiots, and the power trippers.
So, who is who and how do they benefit? I believe that Obama is a true believer, but will not discount that he is a power tripper with unusually good acting skills. He seems to be trying to settle scores with the American people as a whole for imagined sins against "his people." Of course, if "his people" are black Americans, they are taking the brunt of his economic warfare. Reid, Pelosi, and others in Congress I am convinced hope to share in some of Obama's power, but they also hope to generate enough wealth to insulate themselves and their families from the storm that will inevitably rock the U. S. when the sh*t hits the fan. How did Barney Frank, for example, become so rich on a Congressman's salary? Answer that, and you will know why many go along with the administration. That pretty much covers the Democratic leadership. Most of the back benchers in that party go along because they want to keep riding the gravy train. As for the Republicans, the leadership of the Republican party today would have been Democrats several generations ago. They are moderates, who believe that less of what ails us may be all it takes to avoid melt down. But they have nothing against the disease, except that it is killing us. They will serve as unwitting useful idiots until such time as they are no longer needed. I fear the Democrats have utter contempt for John Boehner and company, or they would be trying to remove him.
Now for the other side. Obama, and various party leaders like Kerry, Pelosi, Schumer, and others, have been out talking on topics to the press. In every case, the out and out, bald faced, wouldn't fool a five year old lies is maddening, and breath taking. What do they hope to accomplish? One can easily see through such fabrications. My conclusion is that they think it no longer matters. Whatever "it" is, it's in the bag. Let me close with this. Senator Lautenberg had a proposal to deny people on the "no fly" list guns. Nobody knows how you get on the no fly list, who is on it now, or how you get off. You or I are not allowed to see the "no fly" list. Apparently the criteria are pretty loose, and any Federal agent can put anybody's name on the list at any time with no due process. Meanwhile Janet Napolitano's DHS is busy putting out official notices to police departments and such that TEA party folks, people who believe in the Constitution, conservatives like you and I, are terrorists. We are to be watched, spied upon, our every move suspicious. We might find ourselves unwittingly on the "no fly" list, and would know it because we don't fly. Had Lautenberg's bill passed (and I think it might someday) we could suddenly find that our Constitutionally guaranteed rights are abridge without due process for the crime of disagreeing with the Obama administration. It's one thing to disagree with an administration, and quite another when such disagreement makes you a criminal. Get ready.
Yours truly,
PolyKahr
Update: For a slightly different take on Obama, see News Flavor where a supposed White House insider slings dirt on Obama. In this take, Obama is an empty suit, controlled by others behind the scenes. Who these "others" are is not said, though one can think of several names. Also note that we don't know who the "Insider" is, and ultimately have no way of knowing if what he says is true, or if he even said it. But it is an interesting data point. In any case, the message is largely the same-get ready.
For a different take altogether, see Sultan Knish. This is a good read anytime.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
"If it Bleeds, it Leads" Unless there is a good Sex Scandal
The writer of this piece of reporting at the American Thinker today gives a very generous, extremely magnanimous take on why the MSM has failed to cover the Fast and Furious scandal, otherwise known as Gunwalker. In this piece, M. Catherine Evans claims Politicians Sex Drives Trump High Level Government Crime. Really? Take a look. Ms. Evans actually does take the media to task, but then gives them an out by claiming that a sex scandal will always trump murder and mayhem with the public. It is true that sex sells, but so does violence.
Does the fact that hundreds of people in Mexico, and an as yet untold number of Americans were killed, on our own soil, by guns which were deliberately allowed to walk into the hands of drug cartels by an agency of our own Federal government, with the knowledge of at least Eric Holder and some of his assistants, not really count as news? What happened to the adage "if it bleeds it leads?" I am not talking here about theoretically having blood on their hands. I am talking here about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) actually breaking both U.S. and Mexican laws (presumably to enforce the law) to create a bloodbath with guns that could be shown to come from U. S. gun dealers to prop up a political agenda to again ban so called "assault weapons." These are indictable crimes! Yet no one has been indicted, or tried. No one has had to fall on their sword. The MSM has barely mentioned it, and the public barely knows it happened.
While the law breakers are trying to claim that they just made a mistake, the truth is that many are experienced law enforcement and prosecutors. They knew exactly what they were doing, they knew the likely outcome, but deemed lives to be a cost they were willing to pay for a political agenda. The least we can do is require them to pay something more.
Does the fact that hundreds of people in Mexico, and an as yet untold number of Americans were killed, on our own soil, by guns which were deliberately allowed to walk into the hands of drug cartels by an agency of our own Federal government, with the knowledge of at least Eric Holder and some of his assistants, not really count as news? What happened to the adage "if it bleeds it leads?" I am not talking here about theoretically having blood on their hands. I am talking here about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) actually breaking both U.S. and Mexican laws (presumably to enforce the law) to create a bloodbath with guns that could be shown to come from U. S. gun dealers to prop up a political agenda to again ban so called "assault weapons." These are indictable crimes! Yet no one has been indicted, or tried. No one has had to fall on their sword. The MSM has barely mentioned it, and the public barely knows it happened.
While the law breakers are trying to claim that they just made a mistake, the truth is that many are experienced law enforcement and prosecutors. They knew exactly what they were doing, they knew the likely outcome, but deemed lives to be a cost they were willing to pay for a political agenda. The least we can do is require them to pay something more.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The Morality of Gun Control
Caught an interesting piece over at the Buckeye Firearms site entitled It's the Criminals, Stupid-Man is dead after City of Cleveland fails to get violent felon off the streets by Ken Hanson, Esq. Hat tip to Keep and Bear Arms for pointing me to this site. I recommend every read the whole article, though the title says everything you need to know.
Now, putting aside that the City of Cleveland is run by a gang of leftwing ideologues who have more sympathy with people like Mr. Lesure than the do with the average, hardworking and taxpaying American, this article points up the entire problem with telling people where, and when, and how they may carry defensive weapons, or if they may carry them at all. It is not the average person on the street you need to worry about. It's the criminal, stupid.
Many people do not know this, and are shocked to discover, but the police do not in fact have any duty to protect individual citizens. You can read about it here. Indeed, how the citizen who was, at the time, the main means of defense of both himself and his family became a "vigilante" who should not take the law into his own hands is just one more way in which our natural rights have been perverted over the years. But it points up the moral problem various governments have when they try to restrict any citizen from carrying a weapon, either concealed or openly. How can a government morally say that a citizen may not carry, or can only carry with permission, and then disavow the responsibility for that citizen's death if it is not natural? Indeed, how can a restaurant that serves alcohol put up a sign that says "no guns" and then not be responsible for the safety of everyone in that restaurant? How can an employer say to someone they may not carry, and then not provide security for their safety.
Now, before I get a bunch of hate mail from hoplaphobes saying I want to give guns to every newborn as soon as he leaves the hospital, and train them to shoot before they can walk (there is a prone position, isn't there?) I do realize that going into some of these places is entirely voluntary. You don't need to visit a restaurant, and if you do, you take the risks the owner imposes. But working has been determined, (by the Left interestingly enough,) to not really be a choice. That was the basis for no smoking bans in bars and restaurants. Bartenders and waitresses were subjected to second hand smoke their entire shifts, day after day. These people couldn't decide that they would rather work elsewhere. Or was it that you felt they were to stupid to make the right decisions for them? But I digress from the topic at hand. Governments, on the other hand, are not voluntary, and the sovereign nature of governments makes suing them for negligence or dereliction of duty problematic. It is even difficult to sue based on a government acting illegally.
Of course, what I am saying here ultimately has nothing to do with law, or "justice" as we know it in this lifetime. I am speaking of morality. When I read about instances of citizens living in places like Cleveland, where everything is done to discourage citizens from exercising their rights, and then find they are killed by a criminal who should be behind bars, but isn't, I ask myself by what moral right do they act? Our Constitution recognized the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. What gives these people the right to overturn the Constitution and say otherwise? And while the law may have nothing to do with such morality, surely the closer it cleaves to that standard, the better it would be for everyone.
Now, putting aside that the City of Cleveland is run by a gang of leftwing ideologues who have more sympathy with people like Mr. Lesure than the do with the average, hardworking and taxpaying American, this article points up the entire problem with telling people where, and when, and how they may carry defensive weapons, or if they may carry them at all. It is not the average person on the street you need to worry about. It's the criminal, stupid.
Many people do not know this, and are shocked to discover, but the police do not in fact have any duty to protect individual citizens. You can read about it here. Indeed, how the citizen who was, at the time, the main means of defense of both himself and his family became a "vigilante" who should not take the law into his own hands is just one more way in which our natural rights have been perverted over the years. But it points up the moral problem various governments have when they try to restrict any citizen from carrying a weapon, either concealed or openly. How can a government morally say that a citizen may not carry, or can only carry with permission, and then disavow the responsibility for that citizen's death if it is not natural? Indeed, how can a restaurant that serves alcohol put up a sign that says "no guns" and then not be responsible for the safety of everyone in that restaurant? How can an employer say to someone they may not carry, and then not provide security for their safety.
Now, before I get a bunch of hate mail from hoplaphobes saying I want to give guns to every newborn as soon as he leaves the hospital, and train them to shoot before they can walk (there is a prone position, isn't there?) I do realize that going into some of these places is entirely voluntary. You don't need to visit a restaurant, and if you do, you take the risks the owner imposes. But working has been determined, (by the Left interestingly enough,) to not really be a choice. That was the basis for no smoking bans in bars and restaurants. Bartenders and waitresses were subjected to second hand smoke their entire shifts, day after day. These people couldn't decide that they would rather work elsewhere. Or was it that you felt they were to stupid to make the right decisions for them? But I digress from the topic at hand. Governments, on the other hand, are not voluntary, and the sovereign nature of governments makes suing them for negligence or dereliction of duty problematic. It is even difficult to sue based on a government acting illegally.
Of course, what I am saying here ultimately has nothing to do with law, or "justice" as we know it in this lifetime. I am speaking of morality. When I read about instances of citizens living in places like Cleveland, where everything is done to discourage citizens from exercising their rights, and then find they are killed by a criminal who should be behind bars, but isn't, I ask myself by what moral right do they act? Our Constitution recognized the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. What gives these people the right to overturn the Constitution and say otherwise? And while the law may have nothing to do with such morality, surely the closer it cleaves to that standard, the better it would be for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)