Sunday, August 17, 2014

The Ferguson Riots, Firearms and Progressives.

I've long maintained that progressivism (or modern liberalism) is really a loosely knit collection of incompatible ideas based on emotion and naivete.  Progressivism dictates that people be treated differently based on demographic information.  Periodically, I like to shine a light on this.

Recently there have been a series of protests against the actions of law enforcement.  The protests were met with a heavily armed and militarized police force to contain and shut down the protest.  Progressives in this country called for the protesters to be arrested and locked.  They called for law enforcement to arm up, go in, and if they needed to shoot the protesters.

I am of course talking about the stand off at the Bundy Ranch.

Months ago when a militarized BLM showed up at the Bundy Ranch, they were met with an armed populace.  Progressives were beside themselves.  Aside from calling for drone strikes against the Bundy Protesters, they reverted to a common refrain:  "Only the police and military should have guns."

Fast forward to today.  Progressives are lamenting a militarized police force in Ferguson, MO (as are libertarians, with conservatives split).  We could also talk about progressives being for animal rights and the wholesale slaughter of Bundy's cattle at the same time too.  If only there were a way for citizens to counteract the siege of their city...

Meanwhile, those of us who support the Second Amendment understand that's what it's there for.

Not just to protect against a tyrannical state, but the hordes of rioters and looters destroying Ferguson.

Unsurprisingly, rioters were not interested in this strip mall.  No one was hurt, not a shot was fired.  The don't call guns "peacemakers" for nothing.

What lessons will be learned from this?  None.  The Right already knew, and the Left will be back to disarming civilians and militarizing the police in no time.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Soooo, it looks like the USSR is on its way back.

Putin is apparently starting his rebuilding of the USSR with Crimea.  And NOW, his propagandists are crowing about Russia's nuclear weapons arsenal and turning the USA in to radioactive dust.  Of course it is going this route.

There are two things to consider:

1.  The Russian military is not spectacular by any stretch.  But they have nukes.

2.  Russia's economy is dependent on natural gas and oil exports.

As the Russians stated, they can turn the US in to ash.  As for Europe, well they are loving that cheap Russian gas and oil.  Any action by Europe against Russia will trigger an embargo.  Europe and Russia will play chicken to see who blinks first.

So how would one deal with this?  Wouldn't it be nice if there were some kind of counter measure against Russian ICBMs?  It would have to be some place strategically located in Europe.  Maybe, Finland, or I know!  Poland.  It would be a shield against missiles.  We could call it a "missile shield."  I seem to remember we were working on a program like that.  I wonder what happened to it?  Something about flexibility...

Then there's Russia's monopoly on oil and natural gas.  I'm pretty sure Russia would think twice if Europe to rally another source of natural resources.  If only they weren't the only game in town.  I hear that Canada and northern US states are pulling a lot of oil and natural gas these days.  If only there were some kind of pipeline to get it to a major US port...  I thought there was some kind of project called the Keystone pipeline that was going to do that.  I wonder what happened to that?

Friday, October 18, 2013

Post Mortem on the Government Shutdown/Debt Ceiling/Obamacare/Screwing Over of the American Taxpayer.

I don't know where to start.  There's just so much going through my mind on this.  I've been reading about and thinking about the fiscal deal for almost 24 hours.  I'm amazed, sad, offended and in a state of disbelief.  I'll start here, I am continually amazed at how the Republican party establishment can screw things up so badly.  Under normal circumstances I would call it incompetence, but it is some much more than that.

Take a look at where we were, where we were going and where we ended up on this whole deal.  We went in to this fight with REAL spending cuts via the Sequester.  You know, the one that was going to end life as we knew it several months ago.  Obamacare on the verge of being implemented, and Obama asking the US taxpayer to go another $1 trillion or so in debt.  Led by the TEA Party, the House of Representatives fought to defund Obamacare.  President Barack Obama refused to negotiate, while accusing the Republicans of not negotiating and "hostage taking."  This led to the government shutdown.  If anyone was expecting the mainstream media to be objective in this, you should know better by now.  While Republicans in the House offered resolution after resolution to fund parts of government Barack Obama and Harry Reid refused to negotiate.  All the while the fifth column media did their part to put this on the TEA Party.  After all the talk of compromise, the House offered it.  It was the Democrats that would not compromise.

If it was not bad enough that the conservatives had to contend with the onslaught from the White House, Reid and the media, the Republican establishment piled on.

What was the grand plan of the Republican Establishment?  Allow Obamacare to be implemented, it's going to fail, we can win elections off of that; and we'll get rid of it later.  That brings me to a pop quiz.  What was the last failed entitlement program to get shut down?  What was the last program to get reformed?  There isn't one.  At all.  Mitch McConnell can't be this stupid, but he's banking on us to be.  The implementation of Obamacare means more people working for the government, more people in unions, more instances of five people doing a job that could be done by one.  All at the expense of the US taxpayer with no value add.  It is also going to mean even more people dependent on government.

Killing Obamacare in 2017 after the great Republican victory for President and by houses of Congress will mean one thing.  Taking entitlements away and cutting federal jobs.  How's that going to work?  What happened when George Bush tried to reform Social Security?  Hell, what happened last weekend when the EBT system was down for a few hours.  No one is going to touch that.  I can see the commercials now about how Rand Paul, or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz want to take away your healthcare.  Hell they're doing it now.  If the Republican establishment doesn't have the stones for the fight they just had, they aren't going to have the stones to remove Obamacare once (if!) they get a majority and the White House.

As the deadline neared for the supposed default (not really) the Republican establishment wrested the fight from the TEA Party Republicans to show them how it is done.  And boy did they!  The government is back open, and at what cost?  Obamacare lives, debt ceiling is effectively ∞, AND they agreed to do away with the Sequester cuts.  Congratulations!  You just gave Obama EVERYTHING he wanted, and then some.

How could this happen?  Simple.  The Republican establishment views the TEA Party as the enemy.  The TEA Party upsets the status quo.  They loved the TEA Party conservatives in 2010.  In 2011, the TEA Party conservatives took office.  They were not ones to go back on their promises.  They did not want to play the game.  Since that time the Republican Party establishment has thrown its weight behind anyone who will oppose the TEA Party.  

I don't know about you, but come primary season I am voting against the Republican establishment.  In the general, the establishment Republican is running, I'm going Libertarian.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Thoughts on Boston, the media and slandering the Right.

As I was sitting in front of the television last night around seven o'clock I could feel that the nightmare in Boston was drawing to a close.  When they announced that they had him, and had him alive I was shocked.  I was also proud of the law enforcement officers and how professionally they handled this.  Monday, Boston showed the world that when tragedy strikes, you don't hide.  You don't run, cower or beg.  When the bombs go off, you run toward them.  Law enforcement showed us, this is how you apprehend a ghost.

The media?  Once again a failure.  Falsely reporting rumors as facts is just part of it.

Today I am writing about politicizing the story, assigning an agenda to it.

What I saw after the story broke about the April 15th bombing wasn't just speculation that the bomber was a "right wing extremist."  I saw hope that it was.  Watching the coverage, over and over the media figures posited about, "anti-government," "extreme right wing," "tax day" and the like.

Even more blatant were many of the well known scumbags on Twitter.  Michael Moore, not quite coming right out and saying it, but giving the old wink wink, nudge nudge, tweets of "Tax Day.  Patriot's Day."  David Sirota, who apparently doesn't understand the difference between political disagreements and hate/lack of sympathy, wrote an article in Salon titled, "Let's Hop the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American."  Geraldo Rivera weighed with similar opinions.

Once the facts came out, the media went silent.  No correction, no apologies, just silent.

And this is not the first time.

When DA's in Texas were being assassinated, immediately it was the "extreme right wing."  Turned out to be a disgruntled wife.

When James Holmes shot up the Aurora Theater, the media reported that the 20 something perp was a middle aged TEA Party member.

When Faisal Shahzad planted a bomb in Time Square on New Years Eve there were similar reactions and speculation.  Michael Bloomberg stated blamed the TEA Party.

When Gabbie Giffords was shot, they blamed the TEA Party and talk radio.  That was until classmates described Jared Lee Loughner as "left wing."

When the anarchists plotted to blow up a bridge outside of Cleaveland, they rushed to blame right wing extremists.  It turned out they were connected to the Occupy Movement.  To Occupy's credit, no one at Occupy would go along.

When Joseph Stack crashed his plane into the IRS offices in Austin, TX, the media and left claimed it was because he was a right winger.  Then his suicide note quoted the Communist Manifesto.

The Beltway Snipers were said to extreme right wing or Christian militants.  John Allen Muhammad was a member of the Nation of Islam.

The list goes on.  Every time their lies are proven wrong, they never apologize, they never retract, they just leave it out there.  Like Dan Rather on the forged Bush AWOL documents, they are false, but accurate.

Are there dangerous extreme right wing groups out there?  Sure.  But there is a second tier to this.

Look at the way the media throws around the word "extreme."  It is used to describe the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the TEA Party and the Republican Party.  It is used to describe anyone who is devout Christian, anyone who is pro second amendment and who wants smaller government.

Formula is simple, label people you disagree with, TEA Party, Republicans, et al. with the same thing you label bad guys with, KKK, Separatist Militias, and so on.  Make them indistinguishable in mind of the public.  Stretch it as much as you need to.  Then when an act of terror can be pinned on the "extreme right wing" it was be as if it WERE the Republicans or TEA Party or your grandpa.

That's what this is about.  Slandering and marginalizing non liberal, progressive, leftists.  To make them appear a certain way so their ideas can be silenced.

Who knows, maybe they'll get a violent right winger on the next one.  Afterall, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Friday, April 12, 2013

Preventing The Next Child Killing Tragedy With "Common Sense" Reforms.

One woman, seven children, eight counts of murder.  That's the charge.  The details are grisly with tales of scissors jammed into necks, screams silenced and body parts in a freezer.  It is a scene out of a horror movie.

You may be thinking that I am writing about some other shooting that is tearing across the headlines.  Instead I am talking about the murders that are currently subject to a media blackout.  That is the murder trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell.  Gosnell is an abortion doctor who was sued after the death of a patient. The resulting investigation yielded that Gosnell's facility was a house of horrors.

During their testimonies, former employees of Gosnell told stories of babies being born, only to be killed directly afterward.  One woman testified that she was handed a prematurely born infant with no eyes or mouth and told to "deal with it."  Other stories included jamming scissors into the neck of infants and snipping the spinal cord.  The idea of "aborting" babies that survive abortion is not new, and is actually supported by President Obama.

But I think we can all agree that this is a horrible atrocity.  The question is how we go about preventing the next one.  Predictably, Huffington Post weighed on the issue that this was caused by there not being enough access to abortions.  You can't make this stuff up.

I would like to propose some "common sense" reforms that would prevent similar tragedies.

To begin, we need to set up an abortion waiting period.  When, a person shows up at the abortion clinic they need to fill out the proper background checks and federal paperwork.  Then they can wait three days to determine if they really mean to have an abortion.  We can call this a "cooling off period."

Second, there should be mental health checks.  Is a person with a history of mental illness really capable of handling something as important as having an abortion?

Third, we should probably look at frequent abortion recipients.  I mean why do they need to have so many abortions.  I think that one or two should be enough.

Finally, we should crack down on abortion providers.  There is an entire industry that makes money off of providing abortions.  These "high capacity" facilities should be made illegal.  No more than ten per day.

In all seriousness, the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell is currently in the middle of a media blackout.  Now granted, the news media can't wait to editorialize about Sandy Hook four months after the fact, or devote segments to what the latest vapid celebrity is wearing.  Make no mistake, the blackout on Kermit Gosnell is to protect abortion and keep the horrid truth about the practice from seeing the light of day.

Monday, December 10, 2012

When Politicians Talk Numbers: A Counter-Stupid Primer

This has most certainly been a year of numbers.  When not side-tracked by discussing the epidemic of rape-pregnancy (you would think that 9 out of 10 pregnancies were the result of rape as much as it was discussed) this year's campaign was about the economy and the numbers.  A trillion dollars here a few billion dollars there and so on.

The key to this is that it is largely all a bunch of B.S.

Oh make no mistake The United States of America has been running a One Trillion Dollar deficit. But when you hear a politician talk about their plans to fix it?  Get on your hip waders.  This goes for pro-tax Democrats and pro-cut Republicans.  Let's not forget the media either, they are complicit in this as well.

Let's look at what Republicans are proposing.  According to Reuters in "Fiscal Cliff" negotiations the Republicans proposed "steep" cuts of $600 billion dollars.  Democrats are mad as hell about this, because it "guts" (one of the many favorite terms of politicians) so many programs.  I mean out of our $3.7 TRILLION "budget" (one hasn't been passed since Obama took office) $600 billion makes quite the dent in our $1 trillion deficit, right?

Oh wait.  That $600 billion we were just talking about?  It's $600 billion over ten years.  So in actuality, it is $60 billion per year against $1 trillion per year in deficits.  That's 6% of the deficit.  That's like leaving a $1.20 tip on a $20 meal.  What's more ridiculous than that?  The Obama and Democrats response to it.  The $60 billion is against $3.7 trillion in yearly spending.  That's 1.6%. That's leaving a $0.32 tip on a $20 meal.  It's $0.016 on the dollar.  And Obama and Democrats are going on about they're "gutting" this or that and the elderly dying and eating dog food.  The media goes right along with it (the Democrats and media do a great job of forming an echo chamber of BS).

The Republicans aren't out of the woods here though.  They have the same reaction anytime cuts are proposed regarding defense spending.  The so-called fiscal cliff is going to "gut" $500 billion from defense spending!!!  Oh wait, it's over ten years, so it's actually $50 billion.  Out of $700 billion per year.  Or 7%, still not an acceptable tip.

But what about Barack Obama?  What's he proposing?  Obama has some very definite ideas.  Obama wants to get those pesky "millionaires and billionaires" and make them pay their fair share!  Yeah, Warren Buffet even came out and said that Obama needs to raise those tax rates.  And it's going to raise $800 billion!!!  Oops.  Again, that's over ten years.  $80 billion per year, on a $1 trillion deficit.  But wait!  There's more!  That's going to give Obama wiggle room for Obama to "invest" (can't say stimulus) another $200 billion in spending.  Or as we've established here $20 billion per year, right?  Wrong.

That's right, Obama wants to "fix the deficit" by raising $80 billion per year in taxes (read not even a dent) then spend another $200 billion per year!  Let that sink in.  Got it?  Good.

From this we establish a couple of rules whenever politicians and their lap dogs in the media talk numbers.

Rule 1#: Spending figures are quoted per year.

Rule 2#: Spending/budget cuts, revenue and tax increases (and tax cuts for that matter) are always quoted over ten years.

Keep this in mind when listening to these jokers.

Sunday, November 25, 2012

The Liberal War on the Middle Class.

As the fiscal cliff looms, both parties are arguing about how to go about raising revenue and addressing taxes.  Republicans are echoing the Romney plan of keeping rates the same while cutting out loopholes.  President Barack Obama is deadset on seeing rates go up on the "millionaires and billionaires" that don't "need" tax breaks.  No doubt such a tax increase will be met with only the most superficial in spending cuts.

Saul Alinsky, whom Obama has studied and followed, taught that the best way to bring about communism is to destroy the middle class.  That's exactly what is at stake.  Following Alinsky's "freeze it, personalize it, polarize it" method, Obama has picked the "1%" as the target.  We are meant to view this group as the really, really wealthy.  Currently the number is $250,000 per year in income and up.  These are the people to be subjected to the top marginal rate that is going up.  The sole purpose of this is to crush small businesses and hard working people who have made good, NOT to address the uber rich.

The entire thing is a shell game.  Obama consistently uses himself and Warren Buffet as examples and justification for raising the top marginal rate.  The rub is, neither are subject to the top marginal income tax rate.  That rate is for "earned" income.  Income generated through your toil, or business, etc.  Not investment income.  Investment income is taxed at the capital gains rate.  Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates, et al. may see rates go from 15% to 20%.

Further, think about the idea that a lawyer pulling in $250,000 from his practice is the same as Bill Gates.  Let that sink in.  The increased top marginal rate will not have an effect on the likes of Bill Gates, but that guy with the small business?  He's getting hosed.

But hey, we're getting all of this benefit out of the extra income, right?  Actually no.  The middle and upper middle class get no "assistance" from the government.  What about education?  Or infrastructure?  Look at the stimulus package for our infrastructure.  The extra money was spent on signs advertising the Obama stimulus.  What about education?  Ever notice how we continually spend more and more on education with fewer and fewer results?  But we're getting rid of the deficit, right?  The deficit is currently $1 Trillion.  The Obama tax raises project revenue of $1 Trillion... over ten years.  One tenth of the deficit.

So what is the net effect of this?

-The wealthy will stay wealthy.
-The small business owner and working professional will take the hit.
-Any chance of wealth accumulation for the middle class will be removed.
-The middle class will be knocked down a peg.
-The poor will become more dependent.

You were warned...