Archive for politics

Tactics and the consequences of escalation

When you escalate your tactics, you best be prepared for the consequences. In a civilized country, uncivilized tactics may take a while to generate a response but when they do, it is likely to be significant. One of the reasons for Trump’s popularity may be that extreme tactics of the left are being handled well and amusing his fans. Those who attempt to disrupt and distract are being called out and the state propaganda machine (i.e. mainstream media) attempting to canonize the disrupters are both being shamed. Terresa Monroe-Hamilton provides an example in GET OUT! Muslim Woman Wearing Hijab and Yellow Star of David Removed from Trump Rally.

Yesterday, it was Bernie Sanders’ plants who were forcibly evicted from a Trump rally. Today, two Muslims strategically sat behind Donald Trump in order to disrupt his rally when he started speaking out against the refugee resettlement program.

Hamid claims that Trump’s supporters had probably never met a Muslim and that she came in peace. Except of course, she didn’t. ‘There is hatred against us that is unbelievable,” Trump told the audience as Hamid was being removed. “It’s their hatred, it’s not our hatred.”

“The ugliness really came out fast and that’s really scary,” Hamid told CNN. It came out because she poked the badger and wore that hateful symbol on her person. We only have her word that someone said that to her by the way. She was there to push a political agenda, not listen to Trump. It was staged and shows how manipulative the media and organized Islam can be. This woman is a liar and a provocateur.

Just who is it that is preaching hate? Who is it that is creating scenarios to express hate? Who is assaulting whom? Who is calling others names and engaging in deceit and dishonesty?

Leave a Comment

Let them eat cake

Steve McCann: The American Left and the Death of Political Discourse

Much has been made of the precipitous decline and near death of political discourse in the United States. Many attribute this to the coarsening of the language. However, this factor is a symptom of a current underlying and foundational dilemma: the inability of not only the general public but nearly all of the so-called societal leaders and opinion makers to generate an original thought, as well as a stubborn refusal, because of a rapidly evolving totalitarian mindset on the Left and their total domination of the Democratic Party, to use reason and logic when confronted with irrefutable facts and arguments.

Whenever these same proponents appear with the conservative opposition, a pre-programmed recording is switched on. It consists of: 1) Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing a great job considering how much the Republicans and Conservatives have done in the past to foster inequality, destroy the environment and oppose any and all lifestyle choices; 2) the nation needs to spend more money to solve all problems while raising taxes on the evil rich as punishment for exploiting the masses; 3) conservatives are callous, avaricious and care little for minorities, women and children; and 4) any overt criticism of President Obama and the good intentions of the Democratic Party is a not so subtle expression of racism. When called out on these points and confronted with irrefutable facts, the recording is switched on again and repeated as often as necessary.

Lauri B. Regan: Obama and the Insanity of the Liberal Mind

Whether blinded by ideology, motivated by egocentrism and nihilism, or solely focused on their goals of destroying America’s exceptionalism (while ensuring that Democrats rule forever), liberals are incapable of scientific inquiry, common sense analyses, and reason. Their irrationality is best illustrated by examining some of the faux wars they have chosen to fight and the real ones in which they have surrendered.

Unlike Paine, liberals are intolerant and unwilling to reason let alone debate their positions, shutting down all civil discourse and opposing views. Years of Democratic rule have resulted in division, chaos, violence, and a decline in civilized and societal norms. Would that a modern-day Paine write Common Sense, Part II to inspire a new revolution in the country; one in which Americans once again rise up to gain their independence against an oppressive government.

These “faux wars” cited include global warming, Islamic terrorism, gun control, Iran, poverty and unemployment, racism, enemies, and the Constitution. All suffer from the same opportunities for distracted argument, A case study by Brian Doherty illustrates the problem. He says You Know Less Than You Think About Guns — “The misleading uses, flagrant abuses, and shoddy statistics of social science about gun violence.”

Obama tidily listed the major questions bedeviling social science research about guns—while also embodying the biggest problem with the way we process and apply that research. The president’s ironclad confidence in the conclusiveness of the science, and therefore the desirability of “common-sense gun safety laws,” is echoed widely with every new mass shooting, from academia to the popular press to that guy you knew from high school on Facebook.

What we really know about the costs and benefits of private gun ownership and the efficacy of gun laws is far more fragile than what Hemenway and the president would have us believe.

Finding good science is hard enough; finding good social science on a topic so fraught with politics is nigh impossible. The facts then become even more muddled as the conclusions of those less-than-ironclad academic studies cycle through the press and social media in a massive game of telephone.

This case study of one “faux war” illustrates just how a debate slips into the weeds and loses sight of the real issue at hand. People get so involved in ambiguities of social studies that they forget that the real issue involves such things as property rights and matters of self defense. The reference point for evaluating costs and benefits gets buried.

So many examples, no wonder both authors think that the sleeping giant will awaken and take notice and then take action. It is so easy at this time to wonder if that may ever happen.

Leave a Comment

Sowell on 2015

This is the time for a lot of thinking about the past and the future. Thomas Sowell has his thoughts on 2015 that don’t instill a lot of confidence about what might be coming next.

More than anything else, 2015 has been the year of the big lie. There have been lies in other years, and some of them pretty big, but even so 2015 has set new highs — or new lows.

Lying, by itself, is obviously not new. What is new is the growing acceptance of lying as “no big deal” by smug sophisticates, so long as these are lies that advance their political causes. Many in the media greeted the exposure of Hillary Clinton’s lies by admiring how well she handled herself.

Lies are a wall between us and reality — and being walled off from reality is the biggest deal of all. Reality does not disappear because we don’t see it. It just hits us like a ton of bricks when we least expect it.

As for 2015, good riddance. We can only hope that people who vote in 2016 will have learned something from 2015’s disasters.

He has a bit of confusion between lies and broken promises but, either way, harm results and relationships suffer. Trust is easy to break and difficult to repair.

Leave a Comment

Playing with numbers: incarceration

Paul Mirengoff reports on the myths of over-incarceration. It’s another of those issues where American Guilt (™) is being pushed by distorting reality.

Behind the push for leniency is the notion that America — aka “incarceration nation” — has sinned. We are told, based findings by the International Centre for Prison Studies (“the Centre”), that the U. S. has only 5 percent of the world’s population but nearly 25 percent of its prisoners.

But are these claims rooted in fact? Not according to a paper by Michael Rushford, President & CEO of the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (via Crime and Consequences).

Most conservatives and centrists understand intuitively that clemency, early release, and shorter sentences for drug dealers are bad ideas. To sell these ideas to sensible Americans, proponents of sentencing reform resort to mythology — most notably the myth of over-incarceration. In doing so, they slander our country.

This is much like going to Las Vegas and thinking it will be nice because everyone will win at the gambling table. The reality is something different. Emptying prisons is betting that crime has little to do with those convicted of committing them. The evidence, and sound reasoning, indicates otherwise but it does not seem that we are in an era of evidence and sound reasoning when it comes to governance. That should be a worry.

Leave a Comment

Rants & Raves: fascism, false choices

Stephen Moore takes off on name calling. This time the label is “fascism” and, as usual, the definitions have been skewed to fit. The ‘Fascist’ left in America — “After Trump’s call for a Muslim moratorium the name-calling began

The left simplistically has redefined the term to mean it is when massive numbers of voters support a conservative cause supported by the right and opposed by the left.

but what is the traditional meaning of the word?

Liberal fascism, as my friend Jonah Goldberg has aptly pointed out in his book of the same title, is the “collaboration of government, church, unions and interest groups to expand government. It is simply the liberal impulse for controlling the lives of others.” It is the religion of the left.

But the real definition of a fascist is a leader who wants to use governmental power to suppress rights of individuals. It is the partnership of government and private industry for the collective good. Corporate cronyism is a classic form of fascism, which would include programs like Export Import Bank.

The distortion of language is for a purpose. Robert Knight explains Liberalism’s false choices — “Progressives shame people into adopting their agenda“.

Over and over, we’re given simplistic formulae, plus name calling if we’re on the “wrong” side of an issue.

This is not happenstance; it’s the way progressives shame people into adopting their agenda or at the very least silencing opponents.

This leaves no room for common sense and caution tempered by compassion.

There is no room for discussion, no room for learning, no room for solving problems. At least the behavior is being noted and described. Recognition and acceptance are first steps.

Leave a Comment

Intellectual integrity and the role of weapons

Jeffrey T. Brown has a thesis that intellectual integrity and ‘criminal violence’ don’t fit together. See Stop Gun Violence? Stop Liberalism First.

Physical violence is ultimately the fruit of psychological disturbance. Those who are rational, thoughtful, self-analytical, and objective rarely commit crimes of any kind, let alone those of violence. They do not hate, they do not feel entitled, they are not bitter, and they respect the lives and property of others. They recognize the necessity of laws based on wisdom and experience. They understand the need to live cooperatively in a social construct that benefits all when practiced in good faith by all. Such people, a subset of Americans identified as “conservatives”, know and appreciate the genius of our Constitution, both in what it says and in its implicit purpose to squelch the ever-present vice of those who are not content to live peacefully and on their own merit.

Where does language of minority oppression occur? Who pushes it and why? As Brown illustrates, that political ideology comes from the same place as the urge to control others on many fronts, including controls on weapons of self defense.

Leave a Comment

Their enemy is reality

John C. Wright puts in his diatribe titled from a Chinese political saying: Point Deer, Make Horse. That is a literal translation of four Chinese characters. The fable on which it is based shows that it means ‘calling a deer a horse.’ It goes to the same roots as the fable about the Emperor’s new clothes.

You see how the Unreality Principle works. Bringing in a pony and calling it a horse won’t do. Someone might honestly mistake a horse for a pony. Only lies that are breathtakingly stupid, things no sane person could say or believe, are sufficient to show where one’s loyalty rests.

It is for this reason that Hillary Clinton announced that acts of terrorism carried out by Islamicists in the name of Islam as defined, promoted and commanded by Islam now and for all centuries past not only had nothing to do with Islam, but, in her words, ‘nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.’

Islam is not the enemy. The deer is a horse.

The problem with loyalty to the Unreality Principle is that in order to be truly loyal, you have to believe, actually to believe, nonsense you should know is nonsense.

I have wasted endless hours debating to what degree the various followers of the Unreality Principle are complicit in their own self-deception, and have finally resigned from the debate in disgust. The question is a paradox. When a man is trying to deceive himself, he is his own victim, deceiver and deceived at once. And successful self deception results in his not knowing himself to have successfully deceived himself: so arguing that he really does not know better is merely to say he is skilled at something akin to auto-hypnosis.

The surface appearance, by design, is all that there is. Intellectual honesty and introspection are what their mental system is designed to avoid.

The question is what you can or should do when you find yourself in a nest of such people. 

Leave a Comment

Being ignorant won’t slow them down

Tom Gresham takes up the case: When the gun-ignorant make gun laws — “Rather than improve safety, they simply waste money.”

When technically ignorant politicians and ideologues ignore those with expertise in a subject, one begins to wonder if there’s not an agenda other than safety and crime reduction at work. Proposing gun restrictions, which they don’t understand, or which are technically impossible, also position politicians for well-deserved ridicule.

Those who seek to ban some, if not all, guns, have always resorted to demonizing or misrepresenting either the guns, themselves or the parts or functionality they don’t understand. Ignorance is the foundation of the gun-ban movement.

Throughout the past half-century, bans have been proposed, and even enacted, on the basis of guns being too small (“Saturday night specials”), being too cheap (“junk guns”), being too accurate (“sniper rifles”), and looking too mean (“assault weapons”). Each has failed when the reality of what a firearm is, how it’s made and how it functions collides with the fantasy world of the technically ignorant gun control lobby.

Enough to make one wonder if there is another agenda … Want something. Do anything to get it. Take from others for reasons that are really unknown hence manufactured.

Guns are not the only issue where this happens.

Leave a Comment

Understanding the opposition: The Mizzou example

The Neo-Neocon has More on Missouri—and more and more and more. He has been studying the events and happenings and thinks it has legs.

a lot of people are puzzled about what Wolfe and Loftin did or did not do that deserve canning as punishment. I can answer that question quite simply: they didn’t deserve it, the social justice warrior mob demanded it, and what the social justice warrior mob wants on college campuses the social justice warrior mob gets. Enlisting the football team in the fight was the icing on the cake, because football is very powerful on the college campus as well.

The deeper one goes into the facts at Missouri, the more it seems clear (or at least highly likely) that the actual complaints were minor at best, and that it is not at all certain that the alleged offenders were students there. What on earth was the administration supposed to do about it? There was nothing they could have done that they didn’t do. These incidents were pretexts for flexing the muscles of the movement.

The left is very sophisticated. The left is very tireless. The left is very organized. The left is very savvy about politics and power. The left is a giant octopus whose reach is vast, and it is in nearly total control of the American university.

Sophisticated. Tireless. Organized. Savvy. And, no, it’s not a conspiracy or the plot of a gifted few: that is another aspect that makes it difficult to pin down and defend against. A first step is taking the covers off the behaviors and that is why Trump and Carson are gaining so much support.

Leave a Comment

Denial of reality: Rather, Mapes, et al (Galaxy Quest edition)

Scott Johnson was one of the first to point out the blatant fraud involved in the Rather reporting of Texas National Guard documents intended to impugn a candidate for president. The attempt to deny that reality continues with ‘seriousness of the charge’ and ‘fake but accurate’ and other known rationales being drug up to prove what cannot be. A recent movie release attempts to re-write history and Johnson is on that as well. Lies of Truth provides a summary.

The film is all about rewriting history. Thus the celebration of the film by the New York Times at the TimesTalks event hosted gingerly by Susan Dominus last month. The left is unrelenting in supporting the myths that sustain its political religion. Truth runs 121 minutes, but it’s an Orwellian Two Minutes Hate for the ignorant, the gullible, and the true believers.

It is like the mantra in Galaxy Quest: “never give up, never surrender.” Such an approach is fine if you are trying to save the galaxy and have a solid basis in reality but the left is trying to make a fantasy and farce a reality, just as in the movie — With another movie that has about the same credibility as Galaxy Quest.

Leave a Comment

Expressing an opinion if you publish?

The question is a troublesome one. One the one hand, companies like Facebook are getting sued because some page on their service offended someone. On the other hand, Facebook censors pages that offend it politically. Tom Gresham explains How Web giants wage war against guns  — “Ignoring Second Amendment rights assaults the free market.”

Blocking the flow of information on the Web is the newest form of book burning.

A question to be asked: When do the restrictive actions of a small handful of companies controlling much of the information on the Web become a legitimate area for review by government?

It’s the ultimate irony that these attacks on legal and highly regulated commerce in firearms come just as we see government reports that over the last 20 years, murders are down by huge numbers, so-called “gun crime” is down by more than 40 percent, and accidental firearms deaths of adults and children are at an all-time low. During this same time tens of millions of Americans have become new gun owners, tens of millions of guns have been purchased, and more than 10 million people have been licensed to carry loaded guns for their own protection. More guns, less crime, to coin a phrase.

Another story is about how Police Chiefs are pushing for universal background checks. This means they want any transfer of a gun, whether a private individual sale, a gift, or an estate, will require FBI permission to proceed. Yet another story was about a study that showed that states with gun control laws had reductions in violent crimes which ignored the fact that violent crimes are decreasing in most states no matter their obsession about gun control.

It is the ongoing battle where reality doesn’t matter much that is depressing. Honesty doesn’t matter much in pushing these efforts, either. Gun control is one of the oldest of these issues. Human Caused Catastrophic Climate Change has been around a while. Only Black Lives Matter is another post-Kennedy issue that comes up now and again. Then there is the effort to reduce the prison population and you can see what that does in noting California’s double digit increase in crime post proposition 47.

Then there’s the Ole’ Miss effort to re-write history by banning any flag with anything that might look like a Confederate symbol. 

The price has been paid before. Why yet again? And again? Is reality, reason, and intellectual integrity that difficult to incorporate into one’s base?

Leave a Comment

Banana Republic: respect for law perhaps biggest casualty

As IDB reports it:

Lerner was caught red-handed targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups, wrote partisan emails to prove it, then engaged in a massive cover-up effort — with a suspiciously crashed server, an oddly missing BlackBerry and plenty of excuses.

She evaded even more accountability by shielding herself with the Fifth Amendment in Congress. The consequences to her have been . .. retirement on a full pension with all her bonuses to a multimillion-dollar mansion in the deep D.C. suburbs.
As for her victims — and they were many — there is no justice. Now everyone, no matter what their political leanings, will wonder if they too are a political target by an out-of-control agency protected by the Justice Department.
Because that’s the real consequence of this failure to hold Lerner accountable: A precedent has been set.

Remember the case against the Black Panthers regarding voter intimidation? But, of course, the Lerner episode is put down as just ‘managerial incompetence’ with Democrats railing about how much money was spent investigating IRS corruption – conducting hearings where Lerner plead the fifth.

Jazz Shaw describes the result as The Banana Republic of America.

But what if the case never even makes it into the system? If a crime is perceived by the public to have been committed but the government fails to even attempt the prosecution a new problem emerges. Kevin D. Williamson at National Review has looked over the Justice Department’s decision not to pursue a case against Lois Lerner (or anyone at the IRS) and determined that we may be approaching Banana Republic status.

Then look at the Bengahzi hearings. People cheered when Clinton laughed at the efforts of an Ambassador to prevent himself from being dragged through the streets, abused, and killed. Banana Republic, indeed.

Leave a Comment

Yet another target: farmers

Baylen Linnekin reports on a progressive attack front you might not have hear about. Right-to-Farm Debate Heats Up — Controversies over laws in all 50 states that protect the rights of farmers to actually farm. Keep in mind that farming is one of the most direct and concrete examples of the production of value. Farming and ranching take a renewable resource, manages it, and produces food and other goods for the public.

Right-to-Farm laws are on the books in all fifty states. They are enshrined into some state constitutions, including in Missouri, where the state constitution now guarantees, in perpetuity, “the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices” in the state.

Right-to-Farm laws like Missouri’s generally serve two key purposes. First, they protect farm owners from state and local regulations that might restrict farming. …

Second, Right-to-Farm laws also protect farmers against the real specter of nuisance lawsuits. In particular, they help protect farmers against lawsuits by neighbors who—in legal parlance—come to the nuisance.

But don’t Right-to-Farm laws preclude lawsuits like Himsel’s? Not exactly. The fact they serve as an affirmative defense doesn’t prevent (and hasn’t prevented) people like Himsel from filing lawsuits against farming operations. It just makes such lawsuits far less likely to succeed than non-agricultural nuisance lawsuits.

From animal rights activists to the EPA’s water grab, there is an assault on the food needed to feed the poor. Current activity may be a bit below the radar – the notice of the left’s propaganda machine – right now but that may change.

The issue goes back to land use and property rights issues. Consider, for example, a subdivision built near an airport where people move in and then start complaining about the noise. Or consider Dr. Sowell’s recent column about housing prices in the Bay Area and the implication of all of the vacant land near I280 between San Francisco and Palo Alto.

It’s nice if you can afford it. It’s suffering and death if you can’t. The example of communism in Eastern Europe illustrates that. See Bruce Walker on The Ultra-Reactionary Left. Why is that history denied by the Left?

Leave a Comment

Protect, Defend, Toe the line, no matter the cost

You’d think it can’t happen here. The authors of the fourth amendment to the Constitution said it shouldn’t. Wisconsin Democrats disagree.

Even Steineke was left stunned after the votes were tallied: “As much as I hate to admit it, every member of the Democrat party in the WI Assembly voted against these reforms that would protect their constituencies from unwarranted searches and abuse from their government.”

The vote to reform the John Doe laws, to protect our citizens and ensure people are safe in their own homes is not part of the Democrats agenda here in Wisconsin. Their agenda is partisan politics at their worst.

Jennifer Jacques tells the story: Wisconsin Democrats not particularly interested in protecting citizens’ rights. The same story is evident in the Benghazi hearings.

Every citizen in Wisconsin, and even across the United States, needs to know that Assembly Bill 68 was crafted to ensure that no one, regardless of color, creed, or political party, would be awoken to early morning raids by paramilitary teams, held at gunpoint while their homes are ransacked and property seized, simply for engaging in a constitutional right of free speech. And every single citizen needs to be acutely aware that every Representative from the Democrat party refused to vote in favor of protecting the constitutional rights of Wisconsinites.

The agenda of the new Democratic party is not to protect citizens’ rights, but instead to preserve and push their own progressive wishes. And may God have mercy on anyone who gets in their way.

The John Doe raids provide an example of just how far one party is willing to go and how solid a block they are in pursuing the assault on those that oppose them. The RICO allegations against those who question catastrophic human caused climate change provide another example. The recent 2nd Circuit attempt to under-read the Supreme Court on gun control is another.

Worried, yet?

Leave a Comment

Perfect storm for solar

David Bergeron explaines: Why I’m Still Not a Member of the Solar Energy Industries Association even though he runs a solar oriented business in Arizona.

The more I learned about this new artificial solar industry, the more disturbing I found it to be. On-grid solar is nowhere near a break-even economic proposition. It is a very expensive and futile means of reducing CO2. Its job-creation argument is hollow in terms of opportunity cost given that there is no free lunch in the real world of economic scarcity.

Solar is a great field. Many hardworking entrepreneurs have and will continue to strive in free markets to make products that meet real needs. My own company is on a high-growth mode from niche off-grid applications; we have no rooftop business that will inevitably go through a boom/bust cycle according to political favors or a retrenchment thereof.

On-grid solar is a perfect storm for taxpayers: concentrated benefits for the industry, diffuse cost for ratepayers and taxpayers, and, yet, a strong positive public sentiment for solar created by energy Malthusians.

The fact is, when you figure out the total cost of a typical residential on-grid solar plant before subsidies, rebates, incentives and other ‘crony capitalist’ artifacts, the rate of return on the money spent usually exceeds the normal power bills. And that doesn’t include maintenance and repair costs over the lifetime of the solar plant.

Leave a Comment

Income Inequality Insight

A request from a student doing research for an assignment got Patricia L. Dickson thinking: Liberals’ income inequality concerns built on false premise. The conclusion should not be surprising considering where all the noise about the issue is sourced.

I now realize that the issue of income inequality is based on a false premise. A premise is a proposition upon which an argument is based or from which a conclusion is drawn. A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument – since the premise (proposition or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error.

The false premise behind income inequality complaints is that income is distributed instead of earned.

In other words, employment and income is something like an entitlement such as a poverty program provides to the left. Income inequality allegations are really just about the idea that some people are cheating the system. Instead of looking to the government for their ‘income’ they use their own skills, education, and capabilities to get their own income and that is what is considered cheating by the left because the government has no control over what they get.

Another perspective on this is that the state of Nevada has now decided that fantasy football is gambling despite a federal court ruling. That means the state wants to control the income anyone might get by being sharp in building a fantasy football team. The battle that Uber and Lyft are fighting is also about government control over income. 

A false premise is a straw man and, it seems, easy to dress up so as to disappear in the background. Building an argument based on such a foundation lacks intellectual integrity and will result in collapse when the weight of the issue gets to be too much for the straw man to bear.

Leave a Comment

Is government on your side? For how long?

Jeffrey T. Brown says ‘Gun Control’ Is Actually Conservative Control and, in the process, explains a bit about the differing points of view of the role of government in society.

The casual taking of lives is a uniquely liberal phenomena. When people are trained to be victims, and that their “right” to take from others is both fair and commendable, it is only a matter of time before they take everything that belongs to another, including his life.

The fact is that liberals have already not only surrendered to servitude, they have embraced it. They have bought the lie that government is the solution, rather than the cause of nearly every problem which besets this country. They are fine with fewer rights, because they seem to think that the government they worship and depend upon would never turn on them when the money dries up or the issue becomes which priority a totalitarian regime will indulge: freebies to its supporters or its own self-preservation at the barrel of a gun. They see that same paternal government targeting their philosophical enemies, conservatives, and think that because they are politically aligned, it is perfectly fine that government targets some of its citizens. They don’t understand that a time will come when such a government doesn’t need liberals, either.

Gun control is purely and simply a political tool to achieve the disarmament of that portion of the populace that will not surrender to Marxists and fascists. The president wishes to politicize the deaths brought about by his culture, and that of his followers, to achieve total political domination through manipulation of the weak-minded. The left has no intention of being forever checked by those who preserve the America he has sought to overwhelm. The last breath of that America will occur when citizens can no longer forcefully resist the malfeasance of their own government. No one knows that better than a fundamentally transformative tyrant.

Of course, this view sees government as its own separate entity and that may be a question. The history and current experience with despotic regimes does tend to support the view, though.

Leave a Comment

Implications: the war on weapons

It was just a matter of hours before prominent Democrats politicized a tragic on air shooting and that a “fired former journalist known on camera as “Bryce Williams” who murdered two of his former collegues on air with a Glock 19 9mm pistol this morning was a black, gay, racist fan of serial killers” (Bob Owens). The White House spokesman denied reality by claiming that gun violence was an emerging problem. Another story was about the fact that many gun related crimes were committed with stolen weapons. There are a few things about that as well. Gun Free Zone” Laws Are Arming Criminals explains the problem.

We’ve noticed a trend in recent months of law enforcement officers having their personal vehicles and professional vehicles alike targeted by gun and tactical gear thieves … Law enforcement agencies need to radically revisit the concept of leaving guns in their unattended vehicles. They are not alone, as their civilian counterparts are discovering that they have much the same issue

The vehicle thefts are not inevitable, but are the direct result of concealed carriers being forced to leave their personal protection firearms in their vehicles in order to attend events in certain public or private spaces where guns have been banned.

Criminals then wander through the parking lots outside these locations—at malls, outside stadiums, in parking garages, at businesses, and on city streets—and look for vehicles that match a likely target profile.

That means, despite a denial of the reality of the correlation between allowing citizens to arm themselves and crime, there is also the reduce to the absurd in the belief that more guns mean more gun related crimes and that many efforts to eliminate guns have implications and side effects. Gun free zones have been known a ‘free target zones’ and now it is becoming evident that they can be resources for the acquisition of firearms by theft.

As the panelists on Fox Five said of Juan Williams on one of these arguments: “He’s carrying more water than an Alhambra truck” in trying to defend against reality. Juan is not alone.

Leave a Comment

Marx and the evolution into the modern political conundrum

Scott S. Powell on The Quiet Revolution: How the New Left Took Over the Democratic Party:

In a free society, extreme and derivative ideologies from the destructive legacy of Marx, Lenin, and the Frankfurt School can find some appeal to the alienated and disaffected. A constitutional republic like the United States should have sufficient strength to withstand most contradictions and absurdities held by a relatively small minority.

The problem today is threefold: the Left’s wholesale domination of much of the knowledge industry, a growing uninformed and disengaged electorate, and a failing two-party system. The normal process of checks and balances, which is made possible when compromise can be accomplished between the parties, simply no longer works. With the long march through the institutions having resulted in one of those parties no longer sharing much in the way of common ground — in terms of a philosophical heritage and values of liberty, private property, and limited government — compromise has become nearly impossible. The radicalization of the Democratic Party has so affected Congress and the current president as to render bipartisan solutions and reconciliation all but impossible.

In the end, what is important for Americans to realize is that the experiment with a left-wing president, like Barack Obama, is less an aberration than the logical outcome of the transformation of both the Democratic Party and the American culture.

The big question is whether the nation can survive and prosper if the culture remains fractured with a majority adrift from the heritage, morality and values of liberty and personal responsibility that are at the heart of the Declaration and the Constitution.

There is worry … and reason for that worry. Lloyd Marcus describes on the efforts to leverage the plaints of the “alienated and disaffected” as Generations of Stolen Black Dreams.

In response to my article, “Please Tell Black Lives Matter to Shut Up and Go Away,” a sincere black activist emailed asking me with what would I replace it? I asked him to explain. The bottom line of his lengthy passionate reply is “Negroes” are still not free in America. He says America has reneged on its promise of liberty and justice for all.

So what is Obama’s solution to fixing these problems plaguing blacks? He lets drug dealers who prey on urban youths out of jail, claiming their crime is non-violent. He has his DOJ bully police across America to back off urban thugs. Obama minion Baltimore mayor said, “Let them loot. It’s only property.” Violent crime is up big-time in Chicago, New York and Baltimore.

Despite claims otherwise, America has not failed its poor. We have welfare and entitlement programs out the ying-yang; a huge chunk of America’s national debt.

Then there is the claim that America “systematically” and “institutionally” hinders opportunities for blacks. Hogwash! A black college professor friend heads a program offering blacks free college tuition. He has trouble finding applicants. This is a guy who worked his way through college and grad school. He was stunned when students thought having to pay their cell phone bill was a legitimate excuse for not purchasing the book and materials for his course.

Like formerly fat people who continue to see an obese person in the mirror, Democrats have ingrained in blacks that they are victims of an “eternally” racist America; despite glaring evidence proving otherwise.

Sadly, there are a large number of black Americans whose brains are entombed in a victim mindset; impenetrable by the truth. A prime example is the disgusting comments made by a black woman during a TV interview, expressing her support of a black youth. “He didn’t do no wrong. He just shot a cop.” This hateful woman is the equivalent of the KKK justifying killing blacks.

To my sincere black activist friend, I say we replace “Black Lives Matter” with “Tough Love.” Tell blacks to stop blaming whitey, seeking more doomed-to-fail government programs and voting for Democrats. Generations of black dreams have been stolen due to Democrats addicting blacks to government dependency

Today, liberals excuse irresponsible behavior, defending it with fancy intellectual sounding language. My late mom would simply say, “Stop acting stupid.”

Stop acting stupid black America. Stop acting stupid.

Yes, some are worried. But what to do when faced with such intransigence in denying reality? 

Leave a Comment

Is the smoke clearing?

Perhaps the behavior is being noticed in the arguments about important political issues. For example. Kurt Schlichter says Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.

The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. They slander gun owners as murderers. They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach.

In light of this sort of opposition, there is very little one can do as far as any debate goes. That means the argument proceeds to the next level and that is where the situation gets worrisome.-

Leave a Comment