Gingrich has bowed out of the presidential race. All that is left in the Republican field are Romney and Paul.
Our choice is now down to the RINO or the gyno.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Classy
Let's say there are two grocery stores in your neighborhood. To be honest, there isn't much difference between them, except for the signs over the door and one has a few more organic vegetables than the other. One of them is the dominant store in your town, and you've been buying your groceries from them for a few years. To be honest, you aren't happy with the quality of their wares or the service you get.
So when the other store gives itself a makeover and has a bit of publicity, you decide to go over there one morning. You buy a few things, and while things are pretty much the same as at the other store, your experience is marginally better, so you start doing regular business with them. You notice that there are a lot of people who start shopping at the second shop at about the same time you do.
A few weeks later, you get an email from a friend. It's basically asking "Have you seen this?". The first store, the one you left because of service, price, and quality, has put up a big billboard in front of their store. On the billboard is your name, your picture, the times you went to the other store, and the amount you spent. It also details the things you bought, and even goes so far as to make aspersions about your character based on any run-ins you'd had with store management over the years. They have a little section for each person who has stopped doing business with them in favor of the new store.
For a grocery store, this is pretty crass and classless. For a President of the United States, it's shameful.
President Obama and his re-election campaign are doing something very similar when it comes to people who are donating money to the Romney campaign. The campaign's website is singling out individual donors to Mr. Romney and impugning their motivations and character for committing the sin of supporting Obama's opponent.
These are not the actions of a man and an administration that recognize the rights of citizens to support whatever political candidate or cause they want. This is voter intimidation just as certainly as if he had posted thugs at the polls with cudgels.
I don't think it's a surprise to anyone reading this that I don't care for Mr. Obama, his politics, his values, or his work ethic. I don't have a much better opinion of Mr. Romney. I've been very torn as to whether to vote for Romney this year. I don't like his record as governor of Massachusetts. Nothing he has said during the primaries has convinced me that he has changed enough since then to make me want to support him.
But I will be damned if I will be intimidated by some Chicago machine thug from questioning and opposing President Obama, no matter who I vote for in November. Things like this make me want to vote for Romney if for no other reason than to spit in the eye of the President's campaign.
Want to see me cut my nose to spite my face, President Obama? Keep pulling stuff like this.
So when the other store gives itself a makeover and has a bit of publicity, you decide to go over there one morning. You buy a few things, and while things are pretty much the same as at the other store, your experience is marginally better, so you start doing regular business with them. You notice that there are a lot of people who start shopping at the second shop at about the same time you do.
A few weeks later, you get an email from a friend. It's basically asking "Have you seen this?". The first store, the one you left because of service, price, and quality, has put up a big billboard in front of their store. On the billboard is your name, your picture, the times you went to the other store, and the amount you spent. It also details the things you bought, and even goes so far as to make aspersions about your character based on any run-ins you'd had with store management over the years. They have a little section for each person who has stopped doing business with them in favor of the new store.
For a grocery store, this is pretty crass and classless. For a President of the United States, it's shameful.
President Obama and his re-election campaign are doing something very similar when it comes to people who are donating money to the Romney campaign. The campaign's website is singling out individual donors to Mr. Romney and impugning their motivations and character for committing the sin of supporting Obama's opponent.
These are not the actions of a man and an administration that recognize the rights of citizens to support whatever political candidate or cause they want. This is voter intimidation just as certainly as if he had posted thugs at the polls with cudgels.
I don't think it's a surprise to anyone reading this that I don't care for Mr. Obama, his politics, his values, or his work ethic. I don't have a much better opinion of Mr. Romney. I've been very torn as to whether to vote for Romney this year. I don't like his record as governor of Massachusetts. Nothing he has said during the primaries has convinced me that he has changed enough since then to make me want to support him.
But I will be damned if I will be intimidated by some Chicago machine thug from questioning and opposing President Obama, no matter who I vote for in November. Things like this make me want to vote for Romney if for no other reason than to spit in the eye of the President's campaign.
Want to see me cut my nose to spite my face, President Obama? Keep pulling stuff like this.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Conflicted
Californians will be voting this fall on whether or not to continue the death penalty in their state. Proponents of the change in the law cite the cost in time and money to carry out an execution and possible racial issues with who gets the death penalty.
I'm conflicted. At a gut level, I believe that if you intentionally take the life of another human being without mitigating circumstances such as self-defense, then you should pay with your life. The death penalty in the United States has become rare and used for only a very narrow range of crimes, and the restrictive manner in which a person can be condemned helps to ensure that it will only be used in the most egregious circumstances.
But if the point of the death penalty is to punish the offender and deter crime, it's a failure. If someone commits murder today, and is then arrested, tried, convicted, and condemned to death, they're almost as likely to die of old age as they are to get a needle in their arm. How do decades of time spent in a special wing of a prison, with food, shelter, health care, and entertainment taken care of, punish someone?* How does the occasional news report or celebrity protest against an execution deter someone who has absolutely no connection to either a crime that happened years ago or an execution that is done behind concrete walls and out of the public square. If the purpose is to punish and deter, then executions should be done in public in the community where the crime happened and done as soon after the crime as possible.
Another issue is the small, but not insignificant, number of people who are exonerated** years after their conviction, sometimes after spending years on death row. I know that they are a small percentage of those who are convicted of crimes, but I still believe in "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Add to that the fact that once a person is executed, no amount of new DNA evidence or confessions by the actual killer can bring bring them back. Giving the state the power to take a citizen's life puts the most critical responsibility in the world, the responsibility to only take the life of those who truly deserve it, in the hands of a group of people who couldn't make a profit with a whorehouse.
So to make a long blog post short, I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. My emotions and values tell me that there are indeed those who deserve to have their lives ended because of their crimes. I don't believe that the way we do it currently is the correct way to do it if we are going to do it at all. I don't think it's effective as a deterrent for others, and I don't believe that the state does a good enough job in making sure that those who get the death penalty truly deserve it.
If I still lived in California, I'd probably vote for this measure. If the way we administer the death penalty in this country was more effective and better at sorting the sheep from the goats, I would probably feel different.
*Of course, the same could be said about life in prison with no parole as it is practiced today.
**Yes, I know that that website is horribly biased in this debate, but that particular page seems to have empirical data as opposed to emotion and opinion.
I'm conflicted. At a gut level, I believe that if you intentionally take the life of another human being without mitigating circumstances such as self-defense, then you should pay with your life. The death penalty in the United States has become rare and used for only a very narrow range of crimes, and the restrictive manner in which a person can be condemned helps to ensure that it will only be used in the most egregious circumstances.
But if the point of the death penalty is to punish the offender and deter crime, it's a failure. If someone commits murder today, and is then arrested, tried, convicted, and condemned to death, they're almost as likely to die of old age as they are to get a needle in their arm. How do decades of time spent in a special wing of a prison, with food, shelter, health care, and entertainment taken care of, punish someone?* How does the occasional news report or celebrity protest against an execution deter someone who has absolutely no connection to either a crime that happened years ago or an execution that is done behind concrete walls and out of the public square. If the purpose is to punish and deter, then executions should be done in public in the community where the crime happened and done as soon after the crime as possible.
Another issue is the small, but not insignificant, number of people who are exonerated** years after their conviction, sometimes after spending years on death row. I know that they are a small percentage of those who are convicted of crimes, but I still believe in "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Add to that the fact that once a person is executed, no amount of new DNA evidence or confessions by the actual killer can bring bring them back. Giving the state the power to take a citizen's life puts the most critical responsibility in the world, the responsibility to only take the life of those who truly deserve it, in the hands of a group of people who couldn't make a profit with a whorehouse.
So to make a long blog post short, I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. My emotions and values tell me that there are indeed those who deserve to have their lives ended because of their crimes. I don't believe that the way we do it currently is the correct way to do it if we are going to do it at all. I don't think it's effective as a deterrent for others, and I don't believe that the state does a good enough job in making sure that those who get the death penalty truly deserve it.
If I still lived in California, I'd probably vote for this measure. If the way we administer the death penalty in this country was more effective and better at sorting the sheep from the goats, I would probably feel different.
*Of course, the same could be said about life in prison with no parole as it is practiced today.
**Yes, I know that that website is horribly biased in this debate, but that particular page seems to have empirical data as opposed to emotion and opinion.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Thoughts on Mitt Romney's Speech - NRA Annual Meeting, 2012
Mitt Romney gave a speech to the NRA Annual Meeting yesterday. I watched it on the live feed, and then re-watched it on-line today to try to get a good idea of where he stands on the Second Amendment and other rights.
Sitting and talking with JayG and others who have lived under a Romney administration tells me that he has a lot of work to come back from where he stood as governor of Massachusetts and as a candidate in years past. Here are my impressions of what he had to say yesterday:
Quotes:
- "Congress does not need more money to spend, it needs to spend only what it has."
- "We once built the Interstate Highway System and the Hoover Dam. Today we can't even build a pipeline."
- "The truth is, we're struggling because our government is too big!"
- "The answer to a weak economy is not more government, it is more freedom"
- "I will protect the second amendment rights of the American people"
- "He (President Obama) thinks our nation's highest court is to be revered and respected, as long as it remains faithful to the original intent of Barack Obama."
- "We'll stop the days of apologizing for success at home and never again will we apologize for America abroad."
As you can see, not a lot of what he said that was memorable had a lot to do with the Second Amendment. Not that it wasn't a good speech, but it didn't lean hard on gun rights as a theme. It was a good stump speech about freedom in general, especially economic freedom, with a few pokes at President Obama thrown in for good measure.
Other thoughts:
- You have to give Mr. Romney credit for making a speech in front of a large crowd, that he has no control over, and that is, at best, lukewarm to him and his politics.
- Ann Romney, his wife, took a few minutes early in the speech to say a few words. I have to say, she's at least as good a speaker as he is. She at least connected the theme of her involvement in the campaign with the Battles of Lexington and Concord and did a decent job doing it.
- Romney made a good point that we are a nation of laws, not men. He invoked Truman when saying that the Constitution is more than a piece of paper, which is a nice rhetorical touch.
- He contrasted himself with Obama by asserting that he wants to limit government, while Obama has sought to expand its role.
- Romney says he plans to use the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as guiding documents if he is elected. It's nice to hear a candidate at least use those words so we can call him on it when he fails to do it after the election.
- Mr. Romney spoke a lot about economic freedom. He asserted that while some regulation of economic activity is necessary, the Obama administration and his allies in Congress have taken it too far. He brought up several examples of government interference in people's lives that have come up in the past few years, including the couple that had to take the EPA to the Supreme Court because the EPA told them they were building on wetlands.
- He spoke a bit about how the administration has interfered with the ability of Americans to do business in accordance with their own conscience. He specifically brought up how religious communities, such as the Catholic Church, are being forced to do things that are against the tenets of their faith.
- Mr. Romney didn't start speaking about the Second Amendment until about minute 18 of a 27 minute speech. That indicates to me that gun rights aren't in his list of priorities. The speech was a good general overview of Mr. Romney's views on freedom, but didn't specialize on the subject of gun rights.
- Mr. Romney got his first standing ovation when he called for Attorney General Holder to either resign or be fired.
- He pledged to enforce current gun laws, and to oppose any new ones. I would have been interested to know where he stood on reducing the number and complexity of existing laws.
- Mr. Romney took the opportunity to take shots at President Obama and his recent remarks about the Supreme Court. He stressed several times that judicial review was an essential part of our nation's make-up, which I will be curious to hear about if he is elected and runs afoul of the Supreme Court.
- He also brought up the probability that President Obama will probably be making a couple more nominations to the Supreme Court if he is re-elected. His assertions were that given that chance, we will be living with the consequences of the Obama administration for decades to come. I tend to agree with him. The only real legacy I see for modern presidents is how they approach choices for the courts, and I have found President Obama lacking in his choices so far.
- Mr. Romney ended his speech by relating how, as governor of Massachusetts, he went to Logan Airport in Boston to meet the remains of a service member who had died overseas, and how when he looked back at the terminal, he saw people from all backgrounds also giving respect. He used that to illustrate how he wished to be a uniter of the nation rather than a divider.
Like I said, it was a good speech, but didn't speak about the Second Amendment except as an example of a freedom among other freedoms. I think that speech might have been good at another pro-gun venue, but a speech more focused on gun rights might have played better here. The crowd wasn't exactly hostile, but they certainly weren't exuberant in their applause, and I didn't hear Mr. Romney have to stop to let the applause die down very often.
If Mr. Romney was looking to use this speech to bring pro-gun and pro-rights people firmly into his camp, I think he missed. However, if the speech was a way for him to re-introduce himself to that crowd so they could see where he is today, I think he succeeded. He didn't make the mistake of trying to be a staunch supporter of gun rights, because I think he knows he won't be able to pull that one off. He also didn't fall into the "I have a really nice shotgun, and I love going out and shooting pheasants with it" trap that got John Kerry lampooned in 2004. However, if he can keep beating on the pro-freedom drum, he might be able to allay the fear that he will be hostile or limp on gun rights.
But heaven help him if he is able to get pro-gun citizens to accept him enough to elect him, and he shoves us under the bus of political expediency.
Monday, March 26, 2012
An Open Letter
To the Honorable President Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Charles Schumer of New York
Gentlemen,
I, along with you and the rest of the country, have been shocked by the incident in Florida in which a young man died after being shot by another man. Depending on which side of the argument you listen to, the young man was either murdered in the streets or was shot because he caused another man to fear for his life. The facts of what happened are still being investigated by the police and a grand jury in Florida is going to decide if charges should be filed against the shooter in this case.
Both of you have made public statements calling for federal investigations of the incident and to use it as a bludgeon against your political and ideological foes.
Neither of you is from Florida. Florida has two senators who are quite capable of looking into the incident on their own, as is the representative of the district in which the incident occurred, if, in fact, a federal investigation is warranted. The local authorities, including police and prosecutors, are investigating what happened and are presenting their findings to a grand jury, who will hopefully look at the facts of the case dispassionately and either order that charges be filed or decide that the shooter was right with the law.
That is how the system is supposed to work. Justice is supposed to be deliberate, thoughtful, thorough, and dispassionate. Fast justice is bad justice. Both of you are lawyers, so you should know better than to try to influence the process by making public statements such as the ones I have seen in the past few days from both of you.
No-one is saying that it's not a tragedy that a young man is dead. Either because he didn't act right or because someone else made a mistake, his life is over and the life of his family has been shattered. Our society has lost another son, regardless of the person that son was at the time of his death. No matter if he was a good young man who was staying out of trouble or if he was a young man who had lost his way and was heading for trouble, we have lost the potential good he could have brought to us all.
At the same time, we must remember that the man who shot him is a citizen who has rights. He has the right to defend his life if he fears for it. If a grand jury decides that he should be charged with a crime, he has the right to be tried by an impartial jury of his peers in a fair trial with good representation. He has the right to not fear that the mob in the street will hunt him or his family down and extract vigilante justice. If he broke the law, the process will discover that and deal with him according to the laws of the state of Florida and the Constitution. If he did not, then all of this discussion is moot.
Please, for the sake of the Constitution you both swore to uphold and the system of justice that Constitution and the Constitution of the state of Florida provide, stop making inflammatory remarks in the public square in order to score political points. Please use whatever influence you have with those who are whipping up hatred in our streets to get them to tone it down and let the system do its job. If you have issues with laws such as the "Stand Your Ground" law that is being lambasted by politicians, demagogues, and the press right now, do it after the family of Mr. Martin has had time to grieve and for justice to be served either by trying Mr. Zimmermann or by clearing him of wrongdoing. Making law in the heat of the moment will guarantee that bad law will be produced.
You are both consummate politicians. I ask you now to start being statesmen.
Respectfully yours,
Daddy J. Bear
Louisville, Kentucky
Citizen
Gentlemen,
I, along with you and the rest of the country, have been shocked by the incident in Florida in which a young man died after being shot by another man. Depending on which side of the argument you listen to, the young man was either murdered in the streets or was shot because he caused another man to fear for his life. The facts of what happened are still being investigated by the police and a grand jury in Florida is going to decide if charges should be filed against the shooter in this case.
Both of you have made public statements calling for federal investigations of the incident and to use it as a bludgeon against your political and ideological foes.
Neither of you is from Florida. Florida has two senators who are quite capable of looking into the incident on their own, as is the representative of the district in which the incident occurred, if, in fact, a federal investigation is warranted. The local authorities, including police and prosecutors, are investigating what happened and are presenting their findings to a grand jury, who will hopefully look at the facts of the case dispassionately and either order that charges be filed or decide that the shooter was right with the law.
That is how the system is supposed to work. Justice is supposed to be deliberate, thoughtful, thorough, and dispassionate. Fast justice is bad justice. Both of you are lawyers, so you should know better than to try to influence the process by making public statements such as the ones I have seen in the past few days from both of you.
No-one is saying that it's not a tragedy that a young man is dead. Either because he didn't act right or because someone else made a mistake, his life is over and the life of his family has been shattered. Our society has lost another son, regardless of the person that son was at the time of his death. No matter if he was a good young man who was staying out of trouble or if he was a young man who had lost his way and was heading for trouble, we have lost the potential good he could have brought to us all.
At the same time, we must remember that the man who shot him is a citizen who has rights. He has the right to defend his life if he fears for it. If a grand jury decides that he should be charged with a crime, he has the right to be tried by an impartial jury of his peers in a fair trial with good representation. He has the right to not fear that the mob in the street will hunt him or his family down and extract vigilante justice. If he broke the law, the process will discover that and deal with him according to the laws of the state of Florida and the Constitution. If he did not, then all of this discussion is moot.
Please, for the sake of the Constitution you both swore to uphold and the system of justice that Constitution and the Constitution of the state of Florida provide, stop making inflammatory remarks in the public square in order to score political points. Please use whatever influence you have with those who are whipping up hatred in our streets to get them to tone it down and let the system do its job. If you have issues with laws such as the "Stand Your Ground" law that is being lambasted by politicians, demagogues, and the press right now, do it after the family of Mr. Martin has had time to grieve and for justice to be served either by trying Mr. Zimmermann or by clearing him of wrongdoing. Making law in the heat of the moment will guarantee that bad law will be produced.
You are both consummate politicians. I ask you now to start being statesmen.
Respectfully yours,
Daddy J. Bear
Louisville, Kentucky
Citizen
Friday, March 9, 2012
Figured It Out
Recently, President Obama moved the upcoming G8 meeting from its original location of Chicago to Camp David, the presidential retreat in rural Maryland. No reason for the move has been given by the White House.
But I think I know why:
President Obama wants to get the conference away from the inevitable protests and security nightmare so that he and the rest of the G8 leaders can have peace and quiet to rehearse "Nearer My God To Thee", which will be recorded at the end of the conference. Copies of the performance and the corresponding music video will be sold on the White House website to raise money for G8 countries in bad economic situations, meaning all of them.
But I think I know why:
President Obama wants to get the conference away from the inevitable protests and security nightmare so that he and the rest of the G8 leaders can have peace and quiet to rehearse "Nearer My God To Thee", which will be recorded at the end of the conference. Copies of the performance and the corresponding music video will be sold on the White House website to raise money for G8 countries in bad economic situations, meaning all of them.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Quote of the Day
At GM’s Hamtramck plant in Detroit . . . I got to get inside a brand new Chevy Volt fresh off the line, even though Secret Service wouldn’t let me drive it. But I liked sitting in it. It was nice. I bet it drives real good. And five years from now when I’m not president anymore, I’ll buy one and drive it myself. - President Barack Obama, 2011
GeneralMotors will suspend Chevrolet Volt production from March 19th to April 23rd in order to bring supply of the plug-in hybrid car in line with demand, according to the Detroit Free Press. Chevrolet sold 1,023 Volts in February, which up from 603 in January, but far from the 60,000-unit annual output originally planned for when the car was launched in December, 2010. Less than 8,000 Volts were sold in all of 2011. Fox News, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Watch the Hands
When I've talked to people who know more than I do about self-defense, the thing that I've heard more than one person say is "Watch the hands". Hands hold weapons, hands point guns, and hands are used to strike the first blow. Mouths can say things that distract or incite you, eyes can fake you out about intentions. If you pay attention to what the hands are doing, you have a better chance of knowing what someone is going to do in a confrontation.
President Obama and his supporters are cranking up the rhetoric machine to get their political base whipped up for the 2012 elections. Their heads are making noises, and the mob is responding. Maybe it's promises to finish the work he wanted to do this term but couldn't because of the evil opposition. Maybe it's igniting jealousy about those perceived to have more.
But that's not what the hands are doing.
The hands are creating "Truth Squads" to disrupt and refute those who oppose the President.
The hands are describing people who prefer to pay cash or keep the government out of their lives as terrorists.
The hands are pushing the limits on constitutionality and decency to see just how far they can go to make us comply.
The hands are circumventing the Congress through executive fiat to do things that the representatives of the people won't vote for.
The hands are negotiating with the U.N. on treaties that could potentially impinge on our civil rights if the President and Secretary of State can get them through the Senate.
The hands are organizing unions and a rabble to create the perception of mass demonstrations against the President's opponents.
The hands are implementing economic and fiscal policies that will drive us to poverty and financial slavery for generations.
If we want to unseat President Obama in November, we need to stop listening to his rhetoric and start watching his actions. We need to recognize and counteract them when they threaten the opposition and the integrity of the process. We need to make sure that no matter who sits in the White House next January, there are enough Representatives and Senators who don't belong to the Cult of Obama that they can slowdown or stop harmful things that Obama tries to do in the event that he has a second term.
Because it's not his silver tongue that's going to do damage to the Republic, it's his hands.
President Obama and his supporters are cranking up the rhetoric machine to get their political base whipped up for the 2012 elections. Their heads are making noises, and the mob is responding. Maybe it's promises to finish the work he wanted to do this term but couldn't because of the evil opposition. Maybe it's igniting jealousy about those perceived to have more.
But that's not what the hands are doing.
The hands are creating "Truth Squads" to disrupt and refute those who oppose the President.
The hands are describing people who prefer to pay cash or keep the government out of their lives as terrorists.
The hands are pushing the limits on constitutionality and decency to see just how far they can go to make us comply.
The hands are circumventing the Congress through executive fiat to do things that the representatives of the people won't vote for.
The hands are negotiating with the U.N. on treaties that could potentially impinge on our civil rights if the President and Secretary of State can get them through the Senate.
The hands are organizing unions and a rabble to create the perception of mass demonstrations against the President's opponents.
The hands are implementing economic and fiscal policies that will drive us to poverty and financial slavery for generations.
If we want to unseat President Obama in November, we need to stop listening to his rhetoric and start watching his actions. We need to recognize and counteract them when they threaten the opposition and the integrity of the process. We need to make sure that no matter who sits in the White House next January, there are enough Representatives and Senators who don't belong to the Cult of Obama that they can slowdown or stop harmful things that Obama tries to do in the event that he has a second term.
Because it's not his silver tongue that's going to do damage to the Republic, it's his hands.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Shaking in their Boots
News reports in the past few months have shown forces loyal to the Assad
regime using tanks, APC's, and artillery as tools to suppress dissent.
Mixed up in the fighting between government troops and opposition
fighters are the normal group of non-combatants. No-one should be
surprised that a tyrant like Assad has no qualms about erasing entire
city blocks to destroy opposition, no matter the collateral damage to
civilians.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has suggested that leaders of the Syrian government and military should be referred to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
I'm sure the threat of being drug into a courtroom at the Hague is making Assad consider pulling back his T-72's and unloading his BM-21's. He must be up to all hours of the night staring off into the distance in fear over the possibility that he might have to get a lawyer.
The war crimes trials in Nuremberg and elsewhere after World War II set a precedent that those who do not follow the law of war when dealing with civilians and non-combatants can expect punishment after the war is over. The hope seemed to be that the example of watching war criminals go to prison or the gallows would encourage future combatants to make sure they don't slaughter civilians or be overly harsh to POW's.
So, how's that worked for us?
In my lifetime alone, we've seen mass extermination of civilians in Cambodia, man-made mass starvation in Africa and North Korea, the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Iraq, the massacre of combatants and non-combatants during uprisings in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Mid-East countries, use of rape and concentration camps to ethnically cleanse civilian populations in the Balkans, and the slaughter of thousands of peaceful protesters in China.
Does anyone actually think that the possibility of being drug into court even occurred to the politicians and soldiers who carried out these attrocities? I doubt it.
What went through their minds was probably something along the lines of "These people are an obstacle to me. I need them to stop being an obstacle. What is the easiest way for me to remove that obstacle?". They didn't consider the humanity or value of the people they were hurting. They sometimes tried to cover up their crimes, but that was done more to avoid publicity, not prosecution.
So what deters criminals? In my humble opinion, the only thing that successfully convinces people who want to rape and pillage their way to power or to keep power is force. Naked, brutal, swift, and accurate application of massive force administered in the most public and sticky way available.
We kept Saddam Hussein from bombing Kurds and Shiite Arab civilians by flying CAP over his country for a decade. We stopped the war in the Balkans by putting tanks and soldiers between the combatants and promising to kick the first bastard who raised a hand directly in the teeth. When we sat on the sidelines and moaned about the injustice of it all, millions of people in North Korea starved to death because their political masters refuse to change their methods and Tiananmin Square got depopulated with tanks and machine guns.
Yes, dictators who kill their own people can end up in court, either at the hands of their own people like Hussein or at the Hague like Milosevic, but that happened years after the crimes. People like that really don't care about what happens in a decade. They concentrate on keeping power until next year, and they're willing to do what's necessary, no matter the cost, to keep it.
If you want to either prevent or stop the unjust killing of civilians and other non-combatants, you have to apply force, and be willing to keep applying it until the offender stops and gives up the means to start back up.
The same is true for any criminal. When was the last time you heard about someone saying "I stopped robbing liquor stores because I was worried about going back to prison?" or "I was going to break into that house and rape the woman who lives there, but that's a long stretch in the big house, and I don't want to do that."?
No, you don't. What you hear is "I don't go to Virginia to rob people, they have guns.", or "I saw the group of guys coming at me, so I put my hand on my gun and made eye contact with them and they changed direction and left.".
Thugs, either those in charge of armies or those walking our streets, don't respect or fear being brought into court. Thugs respect and fear force, and if you want to make them stop, you have to be willing to apply it.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has suggested that leaders of the Syrian government and military should be referred to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
I'm sure the threat of being drug into a courtroom at the Hague is making Assad consider pulling back his T-72's and unloading his BM-21's. He must be up to all hours of the night staring off into the distance in fear over the possibility that he might have to get a lawyer.
The war crimes trials in Nuremberg and elsewhere after World War II set a precedent that those who do not follow the law of war when dealing with civilians and non-combatants can expect punishment after the war is over. The hope seemed to be that the example of watching war criminals go to prison or the gallows would encourage future combatants to make sure they don't slaughter civilians or be overly harsh to POW's.
So, how's that worked for us?
In my lifetime alone, we've seen mass extermination of civilians in Cambodia, man-made mass starvation in Africa and North Korea, the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Iraq, the massacre of combatants and non-combatants during uprisings in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Mid-East countries, use of rape and concentration camps to ethnically cleanse civilian populations in the Balkans, and the slaughter of thousands of peaceful protesters in China.
Does anyone actually think that the possibility of being drug into court even occurred to the politicians and soldiers who carried out these attrocities? I doubt it.
What went through their minds was probably something along the lines of "These people are an obstacle to me. I need them to stop being an obstacle. What is the easiest way for me to remove that obstacle?". They didn't consider the humanity or value of the people they were hurting. They sometimes tried to cover up their crimes, but that was done more to avoid publicity, not prosecution.
So what deters criminals? In my humble opinion, the only thing that successfully convinces people who want to rape and pillage their way to power or to keep power is force. Naked, brutal, swift, and accurate application of massive force administered in the most public and sticky way available.
We kept Saddam Hussein from bombing Kurds and Shiite Arab civilians by flying CAP over his country for a decade. We stopped the war in the Balkans by putting tanks and soldiers between the combatants and promising to kick the first bastard who raised a hand directly in the teeth. When we sat on the sidelines and moaned about the injustice of it all, millions of people in North Korea starved to death because their political masters refuse to change their methods and Tiananmin Square got depopulated with tanks and machine guns.
Yes, dictators who kill their own people can end up in court, either at the hands of their own people like Hussein or at the Hague like Milosevic, but that happened years after the crimes. People like that really don't care about what happens in a decade. They concentrate on keeping power until next year, and they're willing to do what's necessary, no matter the cost, to keep it.
If you want to either prevent or stop the unjust killing of civilians and other non-combatants, you have to apply force, and be willing to keep applying it until the offender stops and gives up the means to start back up.
The same is true for any criminal. When was the last time you heard about someone saying "I stopped robbing liquor stores because I was worried about going back to prison?" or "I was going to break into that house and rape the woman who lives there, but that's a long stretch in the big house, and I don't want to do that."?
No, you don't. What you hear is "I don't go to Virginia to rob people, they have guns.", or "I saw the group of guys coming at me, so I put my hand on my gun and made eye contact with them and they changed direction and left.".
Thugs, either those in charge of armies or those walking our streets, don't respect or fear being brought into court. Thugs respect and fear force, and if you want to make them stop, you have to be willing to apply it.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Franklin Delano Obama
In his continuing efforts to bring back the salad days of the Great Depression, which some would call the high water mark of his party, President Obama has announced a new proposal to provide employment to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He plans to recreate the Civilian Conservation Corps, rebrand it as the Veteran's Conservation Corps, and use the projected 20,000 veterans to rebuild trails, levees, and other infrastructure in national parks at an initial cost of $1 billion.
If you do the math, that comes to $50,000 per person employed in such a program. I'm assuming that includes salary, pay, food, shelter, medical, and whatever. Since they will be employed by the federal government, time spent in this new VCC will probably count towards a federal retirement. $50,000 sounds like quite a bit, but don't worry. Once the unions for federal employees get involved, that number will climb. Also, since Obama plans to be the one cutting the pork, expect it to be liberally spread across blue states and constituencies. Rent seekers and party machines across the nation will take to the streets in celebration!
And of course, we can expect civilian construction companies, who should be the ones doing this work, assuming of course that it needs to be done in the first place, to object to the low-cost competition. Their unions might have a bone to pick when the administration they've been carrying water for hits them in the face with the bucket. Veterans who aren't trained in construction will require formal training in order to use the machinery of construction. OSHA will be making sure of that. The EPA will probably get a cut of the action here too, as will the Sierra Club, the Earth Liberation Front, the Society to Protect the Spotted Colorado Bat Snake, and every other environmental group that wants a check. They'll come out of the woodwork to stop construction in 'pristine' wilderness, at least until someone pays them a little lip service and cuts them a check.
And what will we get for all this work? Nice roads in the parks, a few restored dirt levees, maybe a new stadium or two where the president expects to give speeches to adoring crowds. Oh yeah, we'll be able to enjoy these amenities for years to come, or at least until they're ripped out so that someone can be paid to rebuild them, but it will all be done in the name of make-work.
Veterans need jobs, no-one disputes that, just as all people need a way to support themselves. But adding another wasteful government program to pay them a salary while they do make-work is counterproductive. If the president wants to spend borrowed money to improve the chances of veterans getting a job, he should invest more in training programs, or let the GI Bill do its work. Once they have a college education or solid technical training, their ability to find a job will be much better than if they spend a few months in the back country working a shovel.
If you do the math, that comes to $50,000 per person employed in such a program. I'm assuming that includes salary, pay, food, shelter, medical, and whatever. Since they will be employed by the federal government, time spent in this new VCC will probably count towards a federal retirement. $50,000 sounds like quite a bit, but don't worry. Once the unions for federal employees get involved, that number will climb. Also, since Obama plans to be the one cutting the pork, expect it to be liberally spread across blue states and constituencies. Rent seekers and party machines across the nation will take to the streets in celebration!
And of course, we can expect civilian construction companies, who should be the ones doing this work, assuming of course that it needs to be done in the first place, to object to the low-cost competition. Their unions might have a bone to pick when the administration they've been carrying water for hits them in the face with the bucket. Veterans who aren't trained in construction will require formal training in order to use the machinery of construction. OSHA will be making sure of that. The EPA will probably get a cut of the action here too, as will the Sierra Club, the Earth Liberation Front, the Society to Protect the Spotted Colorado Bat Snake, and every other environmental group that wants a check. They'll come out of the woodwork to stop construction in 'pristine' wilderness, at least until someone pays them a little lip service and cuts them a check.
And what will we get for all this work? Nice roads in the parks, a few restored dirt levees, maybe a new stadium or two where the president expects to give speeches to adoring crowds. Oh yeah, we'll be able to enjoy these amenities for years to come, or at least until they're ripped out so that someone can be paid to rebuild them, but it will all be done in the name of make-work.
Veterans need jobs, no-one disputes that, just as all people need a way to support themselves. But adding another wasteful government program to pay them a salary while they do make-work is counterproductive. If the president wants to spend borrowed money to improve the chances of veterans getting a job, he should invest more in training programs, or let the GI Bill do its work. Once they have a college education or solid technical training, their ability to find a job will be much better than if they spend a few months in the back country working a shovel.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Firearms Owners Freedom Act - A Modest Proposal
A Bill
To restore constitutionally protected firearms rights to lawful firearms owners and other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
- This Act may be cited as `Firearms Owners Freedom Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
- (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees and protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for all citizens of the United States.
- (2). The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1, guarantees and protects equal treatment under the law for all citizens of the United States.
- (3). Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution grants the power to regulate interstate commerce and collect taxes to the Federal government.
- (4). The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the codes and regulations enacted to fulfill it currently contain an unreasonable restriction on firearms accessories that suppress the noise of the firearm discharging.
- (5). The Gun Control Act of 1968 and the codes and regulations enacted to fulfill it contain unreasonable restrictions on the lawful and constitutional interstate commerce of firearms.
- (6). Several states, territories, and the District of Columbia impose onerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms by requiring a license to own a firearm but still receive funds paid as excise taxes by citizens when purchasing firearms and ammunition.
SEC. 3. SAFETY EQUIPMENT TO REDUCE NOISE OF FIREARMS
United States Code Title 25, Chapter 53 shall be amended to remove any reference to silencers or suppressors. Existing licensed suppressors shall no longer require licensing to own. All future sales of suppressors shall be done in the same manner as other firearms, with no need for additional licensing nor taxation.
SEC. 4. INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN FIREARMS
United States Code, Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 922 shall be amended to remove language that restricts the interstate commerce of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories by anyone other than restricted persons. The requirement that interstate commerce in firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories require a Federal Firearms License shall be dropped.
SEC 5. USE OF MONEY FROM FIREARMS EXCISE TAXES IN RESTRICTIVE JURISDICTIONS
United States Code, Title 16, Chapter 5b, Section 669 shall be amended to include the following paragraph:
No funds collected as excise taxes on the manufacture or sales of firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories shall be dispersed to states, territories, or districts that require a license in any form to keep and bear arms. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Treasury shall jointly determine on a quarterly basis which, if any, of the states, territories, or districts of the United States shall have their share of excise taxes withheld. Any withheld funds shall be held by the government of the United States until such time as the effected state, territory, or district shall drop such firearms licensing requirements.
Y'all, that's just 477 words that would restore a lot of our gun rights. There would be some proforma stuff added to the top and bottom, and I'm sure it would be cut up, thoroughly blended, and have amendments added to it before it got out of Congress, but if the core survived, I'd be a much happier gun owner.
First, Congress declares publicly and no uncertain terms that the legislative branch agrees with the judicial branch that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Next, it removes the part of NFA '34 that makes putting a muffler on the end of your gun barrel something that requires paperwork, months of waiting, and a yearly tax.
Then it makes it possible again to buy and sell firearms across state lines. That does two things: First, you can buy a handgun while you're in another state and not have to go through the hassle of finding an FFL on both end of the transaction to ship it home. Next, if city or state makes it difficult to have a gun by making it exceedingly difficult to be an FFL, you can cross state lines to buy a gun.
Finally, while not telling states that they have to drop licensing requirements to own a gun, which would violate the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, the act tells those states that as long as they require a license to exercise a right, they won't be getting the money from the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. Want the money from firearms owners to pay for your parks and such? Then treat firearms owners as first class citizens and adults.
What do y'all think?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Thought for the Day
DaddyBear's rules for watching political speeches, regardless of the political affiliation of the speaker:
Actually, that's about it. If you can keep that in mind, then you'll do better than 99% of the people in your demographic.
- Assume you're being lied to.
Actually, that's about it. If you can keep that in mind, then you'll do better than 99% of the people in your demographic.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The American Peasant Class
I've heard and read a lot of references lately to the "Democrat plantation". The term refers to the belief that Americans of African descent will tend to support Democrat politicians and causes so long as Democrats continue to provide them with bread and circuses.
I'm not just calling out Democrats on this. The Republicans have their taken-for-granted class too: conservative voters. For an example, consider the push to make Romney the nominee even though his appeal to the conservative base of the party is shaky at best.
You can call them plebs, serfs, peasants, peons, or whatever; it's all the same: people who are brought up in a system that assumes that they are at the bottom of the ladder, don't see that there are better options, and have little to no motivation to find something better or different are used to ensure that some political movement or another gets and stays in power.
Every person or group that wants to exert control over everyone else requires a lower class because it provides the muscle, either at the ballot box or in the street. The Chekists in the USSR didn't draw from the cream of Bolshevik society. They recruited their foot soldiers from the lower classes of Russian/Soviet culture and used them to instill fear in anyone who might oppose the regime.
The Democrats have their reliable voting block of urban African-Americans. The Republicans have their reliable voting block of conservative middle-class voters. Either way, they're all just peasants working the fields of those who tell them just enough scary stories about the bogeymen on the other plantation to keep them in line and voting a straight party ticket.
Thoughts like this are one of the reasons that I'm considering myself an independent voter more and more. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I honestly don't believe that either party cares at all about what happens to the people on the streets of America so long as their personal gravy trains and power trips keep rolling. In this way, they're no better in my eyes than the most staunch Stalinist or banana republic dictator. So long as we all know our place and do as directed, they're just fine. If one of us pokes our head up and dares to bleat out of time with the rest of the herd, then they drop the hammer down on us or cut us off from the herd lest our disease of independent thinking infect the rest of the flock. Only if enough of us make our voices heard do we have hope that those who think they rule our country will listen.
So I'm going to stop being a good peasant. I will vote for a good Democrat instead of a bad Republican if I think that the Dem would do a better job. I refuse to vote for or against something on the ballot just because the local Republican committee thinks I ought to, and I won't be quiet about it. Hopefully others will get the same idea.
What do you call it when the peasants quit working the fields or toiling in the factories? You call it revolution.
I'm not just calling out Democrats on this. The Republicans have their taken-for-granted class too: conservative voters. For an example, consider the push to make Romney the nominee even though his appeal to the conservative base of the party is shaky at best.
You can call them plebs, serfs, peasants, peons, or whatever; it's all the same: people who are brought up in a system that assumes that they are at the bottom of the ladder, don't see that there are better options, and have little to no motivation to find something better or different are used to ensure that some political movement or another gets and stays in power.
Every person or group that wants to exert control over everyone else requires a lower class because it provides the muscle, either at the ballot box or in the street. The Chekists in the USSR didn't draw from the cream of Bolshevik society. They recruited their foot soldiers from the lower classes of Russian/Soviet culture and used them to instill fear in anyone who might oppose the regime.
The Democrats have their reliable voting block of urban African-Americans. The Republicans have their reliable voting block of conservative middle-class voters. Either way, they're all just peasants working the fields of those who tell them just enough scary stories about the bogeymen on the other plantation to keep them in line and voting a straight party ticket.
Thoughts like this are one of the reasons that I'm considering myself an independent voter more and more. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I honestly don't believe that either party cares at all about what happens to the people on the streets of America so long as their personal gravy trains and power trips keep rolling. In this way, they're no better in my eyes than the most staunch Stalinist or banana republic dictator. So long as we all know our place and do as directed, they're just fine. If one of us pokes our head up and dares to bleat out of time with the rest of the herd, then they drop the hammer down on us or cut us off from the herd lest our disease of independent thinking infect the rest of the flock. Only if enough of us make our voices heard do we have hope that those who think they rule our country will listen.
So I'm going to stop being a good peasant. I will vote for a good Democrat instead of a bad Republican if I think that the Dem would do a better job. I refuse to vote for or against something on the ballot just because the local Republican committee thinks I ought to, and I won't be quiet about it. Hopefully others will get the same idea.
What do you call it when the peasants quit working the fields or toiling in the factories? You call it revolution.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Sigh
I have to make an announcement: I am going to vote for Ron Paul in the Kentucky Republican primary. I'm not going to be voting for Paul because I like him. I came to this decision in a process of elimination, and Paul was the only one I can't discard:
Do I think he has much of a chance of getting elected? I have no idea. Obama would be able to paint him as an extremist kook, but he would be able to re-energize the Tea Party movement. If he chose a conservative running mate, he might have a shot.
However, none of the Republicans are the kind of candidate and leader who you can look at and say "He will beat Obama". Gingrich and Santorum will bring the nutroots out of the woodwork, and Romney is the opponent that Obama wants and he won't get the Republicans to the polls.
So I'll cast my vote in the primary, try to get excited over the summer, and consider third party voting in November. I'm seriously beginning to think that it would be better for Obama to have the White House with a Republican Congress than for any of these four to have a compliant Republican Congress.
- Newt Gingrich: I'm as flawed a human being as you can get, but I can't vote for a serial adulterer who didn't flee Washington like his hair was on fire after he wasn't re-elected. Yes, I'm making a subjective and probably unfair judgement call about someones character based on what I know about his personal life. But to be fair, I did the same thing to Bill Clinton, Gingrich's nemesis. He's a great debater, or at least a combative one who would make Obama work for it, but I've never seen anything from him that tells me he'd be able to lead the country.
- Rick Santorum: Seems like a good guy, but after the things I've heard him say about gay people and their ability to marry, I can't support him. A president can't be choosy about whose rights he holds dear. I always say that if the rights of one of us are violated, then the rights of all of us are violated, and I believe that if I as a twice-divorced heterosexual man can choose whatever other human being I want to be with (hopefully) the rest of my life, then every other citizen, gay or straight, should be able to do that too. Look at it this way, if he was saying "I love guns, just not those guns" instead of "I love marriage, just not those marriages" would you vote for him?
- Mitt Romney - Do I believe that Romney will be Obama light? Actually, I've come away from that. Romney isn't a wannabe socialist. I see Romney as a political chameleon who will try to govern through consensus rather than fight for what he believes is right. He will compromise base principles in order to say he's accomplished something, even if it's counter to the philosophy of the people who elected him, and therefore I won't vote for him.
Do I think he has much of a chance of getting elected? I have no idea. Obama would be able to paint him as an extremist kook, but he would be able to re-energize the Tea Party movement. If he chose a conservative running mate, he might have a shot.
However, none of the Republicans are the kind of candidate and leader who you can look at and say "He will beat Obama". Gingrich and Santorum will bring the nutroots out of the woodwork, and Romney is the opponent that Obama wants and he won't get the Republicans to the polls.
So I'll cast my vote in the primary, try to get excited over the summer, and consider third party voting in November. I'm seriously beginning to think that it would be better for Obama to have the White House with a Republican Congress than for any of these four to have a compliant Republican Congress.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Ratchet
I don't think it surprises anyone when I say that I'm pro-gun rights. But you can't be for the 2nd Amendment if you're not just as strongly for the other amendments. I don't agree with the anti-gun bloggers and activists, but I will do nothing to stop them from making their arguments and I will resist those who try to shut them up. I have a visceral dislike for those who prey on our society, but I am even more opposed to those who would deny them proper legal representation, a fair trial, or have them convicted on evidence gained through illegal means. I have a lot of respect for law enforcement, but I have nothing but contempt for those who use their power as a policeman to abuse other citizens. I have my own religion, and I don't agree with the tenets and practices of some other religions, but I'm not going to try to impose my faith on someone else or prevent them from exercising their own faith so long as they don't hurt someone else.
Our country was created when a group of people took the stand that their rights as Englishmen were being violated by a distant monarch. They believed that each of us is endowed at birth with several rights. A condition of ratifying the Constitution was that amendments to it that restrict the ability of the government to infringe on those rights be ratified along with it. The Constitution doesn't grant us any rights; it just lists out those things with which the government may never interfere.
Over the past 100 years or so, those rights have been chipped at by those who believe they are doing good. Honestly, they usually do it because we clamor for them to do something for us. Each time we go to the government for a solution, we ratchet down our freedoms a little more.
1917:
"We're at war! Bolsheviks are taking over Russia! We have to keep foreigners and malcontents from endangering our American way of life! Do something!"
Click - Espionage Act of 1917
Click - Putting Bolsheviks and anti-war activists in jail
1920:
"People are getting drunk and causing misery in our nation! Do something!"
Click - 18th Amendment
1932:
"25 percent of us are unemployed! People are hungry! The nation is tottering on the edge of revolution! Do something!"
Click - Commerce Clause abuse
1934:
"Gangsters are using guns to commit crimes! Do something!"
Click - NFA 34
1941:
"We're at war! There are a lot of immigrants in the country that come from our enemies! Do something!"
Click - Internment of citizens of Japanese, Italian and German descent
1968:
"People are assassinating political leaders! Anyone can get a gun wherever they want! We don't feel safe! Do something!"
Click - GCA 68
1972:
"Hippies are getting high! The fabric of society is tearing! Do something!"
Click - Drug laws and the War on Drugs
1986: -
"People are still buying machine guns in this day and age! Do something!"
Click - Hughes Amerndment
1986
"Gangs are selling a new form of cocaine to poor people! I don't like that! It should be illegaler than selling me that powder form that I like to use on weekends! Do something!"
Click - Crack Cocaine Laws
1994:
"Criminals are using scary looking guns to kill people! Innocent children are dieing in the street! Do something!"
Click - Brady Bill
1990's
"People are saying or writing things that offend me or piss me off! Do something!"
Click - Hate speech codes
1996
"People are exercising the fair use part of copyright! I'm not making money off of it! Do something!"
Click - DMCA
2001:
"We're at war! We need new security organizations to make us safe! We have to give our police new powers so that they can fight terrorism! Do something!"
Click - PATRIOT Act
2005:
"Those people are living on land that I want so that I can make money! They're standing in the way of progress! Do something!"
Click - Kelo v. City of New London
2010:
"People don't have health insurance and the cost of getting health care is rising! I don't want to take the steps to make it more affordable because those would be hard! I don't want to pay for it myself! Do something!"
Click - Obamacare
2012:
"People are still using the Internet to exercise the fair use part of copyright! I'm still not making as much money as I want to! Do something!"
Click - PIPA and SOPA
Every one of those clicks is a part of our birthright being locked down so that we can't exercise it, and I'm only hitting the ones that are at the top of my mind at the moment. There are many more, and we are locking ourselves down so well that demanding that we be left alone to exercise our rights gets us labelled as dangerous. Each and every one of them happened because a significant portion of our population demanded that the government do something to make their lives better. They do it out of want or fear, but rarely think about the consequences of their demands. Now their unintended consequences are killing our republic. Each time the government provides or restricts something, it becomes easier for something new to be done that restricts our rights.
In a way, we're a bunch of frogs that have been demanding that someone turn up the heat under our pot of water every so often, and now we're almost boiled.
What we need to do is get back to basics in our nation. We need to all sit down, look at the Constitution, including those parts we don't care for, and start yanking the leash of government to get it out of those parts of our lives in which it has no business. We need to stop looking at the government as the provider of solutions, and start accepting that life is hard and that we have to take care of ourselves.
Our country was created when a group of people took the stand that their rights as Englishmen were being violated by a distant monarch. They believed that each of us is endowed at birth with several rights. A condition of ratifying the Constitution was that amendments to it that restrict the ability of the government to infringe on those rights be ratified along with it. The Constitution doesn't grant us any rights; it just lists out those things with which the government may never interfere.
Over the past 100 years or so, those rights have been chipped at by those who believe they are doing good. Honestly, they usually do it because we clamor for them to do something for us. Each time we go to the government for a solution, we ratchet down our freedoms a little more.
1917:
"We're at war! Bolsheviks are taking over Russia! We have to keep foreigners and malcontents from endangering our American way of life! Do something!"
Click - Espionage Act of 1917
Click - Putting Bolsheviks and anti-war activists in jail
1920:
"People are getting drunk and causing misery in our nation! Do something!"
Click - 18th Amendment
1932:
"25 percent of us are unemployed! People are hungry! The nation is tottering on the edge of revolution! Do something!"
Click - Commerce Clause abuse
1934:
"Gangsters are using guns to commit crimes! Do something!"
Click - NFA 34
1941:
"We're at war! There are a lot of immigrants in the country that come from our enemies! Do something!"
Click - Internment of citizens of Japanese, Italian and German descent
1968:
"People are assassinating political leaders! Anyone can get a gun wherever they want! We don't feel safe! Do something!"
Click - GCA 68
1972:
"Hippies are getting high! The fabric of society is tearing! Do something!"
Click - Drug laws and the War on Drugs
1986: -
"People are still buying machine guns in this day and age! Do something!"
Click - Hughes Amerndment
1986
"Gangs are selling a new form of cocaine to poor people! I don't like that! It should be illegaler than selling me that powder form that I like to use on weekends! Do something!"
Click - Crack Cocaine Laws
1994:
"Criminals are using scary looking guns to kill people! Innocent children are dieing in the street! Do something!"
Click - Brady Bill
1990's
"People are saying or writing things that offend me or piss me off! Do something!"
Click - Hate speech codes
1996
"People are exercising the fair use part of copyright! I'm not making money off of it! Do something!"
Click - DMCA
2001:
"We're at war! We need new security organizations to make us safe! We have to give our police new powers so that they can fight terrorism! Do something!"
Click - PATRIOT Act
2005:
"Those people are living on land that I want so that I can make money! They're standing in the way of progress! Do something!"
Click - Kelo v. City of New London
2010:
"People don't have health insurance and the cost of getting health care is rising! I don't want to take the steps to make it more affordable because those would be hard! I don't want to pay for it myself! Do something!"
Click - Obamacare
2012:
"People are still using the Internet to exercise the fair use part of copyright! I'm still not making as much money as I want to! Do something!"
Click - PIPA and SOPA
Every one of those clicks is a part of our birthright being locked down so that we can't exercise it, and I'm only hitting the ones that are at the top of my mind at the moment. There are many more, and we are locking ourselves down so well that demanding that we be left alone to exercise our rights gets us labelled as dangerous. Each and every one of them happened because a significant portion of our population demanded that the government do something to make their lives better. They do it out of want or fear, but rarely think about the consequences of their demands. Now their unintended consequences are killing our republic. Each time the government provides or restricts something, it becomes easier for something new to be done that restricts our rights.
In a way, we're a bunch of frogs that have been demanding that someone turn up the heat under our pot of water every so often, and now we're almost boiled.
What we need to do is get back to basics in our nation. We need to all sit down, look at the Constitution, including those parts we don't care for, and start yanking the leash of government to get it out of those parts of our lives in which it has no business. We need to stop looking at the government as the provider of solutions, and start accepting that life is hard and that we have to take care of ourselves.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
No Free Ice Cream Today
Today, I'm joining other bloggers and some major Internet sites in not posting anything in order to protest SOPA. Basically, if this becomes law, most of the content in the Internet will go away. If I piss someone off, they will find a way to make what I link to or embed a copyright issue, and my blog goes bye-bye with little to no recourse.
Congress has tabled the bill for now, but nothing stops them from bringing it up later in one form or another.
Please reach out to your Congresscritters and let them know how you feel about this legislation. SOPAStrike has good tools and information if you're so inclined.
I'll be back tomorrow.
Congress has tabled the bill for now, but nothing stops them from bringing it up later in one form or another.
Please reach out to your Congresscritters and let them know how you feel about this legislation. SOPAStrike has good tools and information if you're so inclined.
I'll be back tomorrow.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
2012 Slogans
Ron Paul - Better the crazy you know
Barack Obama - Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Mitt Romney - I was for socialism before I was against it
Newt Gingrich - Who are you going to believe, me or your lying memory?
Rick Santorum - I have closely held moral values, and soon, so will you
Rick Perry - Johnson, Bush, Perry - There are three good reasons you should vote for me: I have good hair, I used to fly airplanes, and .... um......
Barack Obama - Are you better off than you were four years ago?
Mitt Romney - I was for socialism before I was against it
Newt Gingrich - Who are you going to believe, me or your lying memory?
Rick Santorum - I have closely held moral values, and soon, so will you
Rick Perry - Johnson, Bush, Perry - There are three good reasons you should vote for me: I have good hair, I used to fly airplanes, and .... um......
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
I give up
The news coverage of the Iowa caucus is really starting to sound like this:
I'm going to bed.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Huh?
The White House today re-affirmed its support for Vice-President Agnew's assertion that the "Viet Cong are not our enemies per se". Even though most attacks against American forces in the Republic of Vietnam are carried out by the VC, administration spokesmen assert that the United States got involved in South Vietnam because of an attack against American vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin, not to fight the Viet Cong or to protect the Saigon government against them.
Agnew further asserted that the United States is working towards two goals in South Vietnam: First, to root out international communists who can damage American interests in the region, and to help the government in Saigon become strong enough to either negotiate with or defeat the Viet Cong on their own terms.
Newspapers are reporting that the United States is trying to conclude a set of secret negotiations with Viet Cong leadership, with the aim of being able to leave South Vietnam by the target date of 1973. American negotiators are reportedly offering to release VC prisoners for a promise to renounce violence and refrain from Communist agitation, both in Vietnam and in other countries in Southeast Asia.
Agnew further asserted that the United States is working towards two goals in South Vietnam: First, to root out international communists who can damage American interests in the region, and to help the government in Saigon become strong enough to either negotiate with or defeat the Viet Cong on their own terms.
Newspapers are reporting that the United States is trying to conclude a set of secret negotiations with Viet Cong leadership, with the aim of being able to leave South Vietnam by the target date of 1973. American negotiators are reportedly offering to release VC prisoners for a promise to renounce violence and refrain from Communist agitation, both in Vietnam and in other countries in Southeast Asia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
