Had Jaime Gonzalez not brought a gun to school, he would still be alive. Instead, he assaulted another student for no apparent reason, and somehow people then became aware of his pistol.
According to the released audio, a female assistant principle called 911 and told police about the armed student in the hallway. Officers arrive at around 3 minutes, and she keeps telling everybody about the gun. At 4 minutes into the audio, she tells the dispatcher “he’s drawing the gun” repeatedly. You can hear cops in the background repeatedly yelling at him to “drop the gun” and “put it on the floor.” In the background, somebody says that Gonzalez told cops he’s willing to die. It isn’t until 5:56–nearly two minutes after cops engaged Gonzalez–she reports “shooting going on.”
Gonzalez was shot at least twice and fell. After securing the area, police determined his gun was a “CO2 .177-caliber pellet pistol” that “has the exact appearance of Glock,” according to Detective José Trevino. Brownsville PH Chief Orlando Rodriguez said Gonzalez wasn’t shot until he “pointed the weapon at the officers.”
His godmother was quick to blame police: “He wouldn’t hurt somebody. It was not right. … They didn’t give him a chance.” (Apparently, assault isn’t “hurting somebody” and two minutes of commands isn’t “a chance.”)
This was a sad experience for all concerned, but responsibility remains on the boy’s shoulders. No gun in school, no shooting. So the question is: Why did he do this?
Sarah McKinley is an 18-year-old new mother and widow: Her husband died from cancer on Christmas. Sarah was home alone with her three-month-old baby on New Year’s Eve when an armed attacker crashed through her front door.
McKinley’s mother said the deceased had begun stalking her daughter two years ago, and evidence indicates he resumed stalking after her husband died. He showed up at her door earlier in the day, claiming he was a neighbor wanting to say hello, but something nudged her to turn him away. Later that day, he returned with an accomplice, and began pounding on her front door.
Sarah barricaded the door with a sofa, and dialed 911. Before he broke in, Sarah spent 21 minutes talking to two different dispatchers, asking permission to shoot the intruder.
“I’ve got two guns in my hand. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in this door?”
“Well, you have to do whatever you can do to protect yourself,” dispatcher Diane Graham responded. “I can’t tell you that you can do that, but you do what you have to do to protect your baby.”
The intruder finally broke through and attacked with a 12-inch hunting knife that was still “clutched in his gloved left hand” when police arrived.
(Research published at Police One reexamined the Tueller 21-Foot Rule (an knife-wielding attacker can cover 21 feet in the time it takes for an officer to draw and fire his first defensive round). One finding concluded: “a 21-foot reactionary gap is not sufficient.” Once the attacker was through the door and charging her, she had one chance to stop him.)
The shooting was ruled justified by the District Attorney’s office.
First Assistant District Attorney James Walters told CNN that McKinley will not be charged because she acted in self-defense.
“A person has the right to protect themselves, their family and their property,” Walters said.
Blanchard PD Detective Dan Huff noted: “The Oklahoma laws are clear on the home and the right to your home are absolute.”
The accomplice was charged with felony murder, because somebody died while during the commission of a felony–he’s also charged with first-degree burglary–which carries a maximum sentence of death.
In an interview, Sarah said: “You have to make a choice, you or him. I chose my son over him.”
(CNN video here)
Associated Press reported that on Sunday, a Mount Rainier National Park ranger was murdered by a man whom authorities suspect had earlier shot four people at a house party near Seattle.
The story’s fairly well written until the conclusion, which is where writers place the message they want readers to take with. After writing about how sad this situation is — and it is – AP wrote:
It has been legal for people to take loaded firearms into Mount Rainier since 2010, when a federal law went into effect that made possession of firearms in national parks subject to state gun laws.
Gun banners 101: Work up the emotions and insert the anti-gun message to get people motivated to do something.
As if somebody committing murder — a capital crime resulting in death or a life sentence — cares about a niggling misdemeanor or low-level felony like a gun ban?
Tacoma News Tribune mirrored the AP message in their lede, except when they interviewed George Coulbourn, a park volunteer who’s against guns in parks, who admitted:
If guns had been prohibited at the park, it doesn’t sound like that would have any effect on this. This is murder.
“I don’t think that has any bearing on this. When you have someone who would spontaneously kill someone, a prohibition of guns in the park wouldn’t stop someone like that.
Regarding park carry, Coulburn also said: “If you’re not comfortable visiting the park because of animals, you don’t belong there.”
Curiously, News Tribune ran a story a few weeks back where a woman died in an “animal attack, possibly a wolf attack.”
Grades: News Tribune, C; AP, F.
There’s a world of difference between gun nut paranoia and reality. Media fails in its duty by creating news instead of reporting it.
(Brady misreports, too.)
(Hat tip to Keep and Bear Arms.)
Guns in the home are dangerous; just call the police!!!
Police believe that James Green of Fort Worth planned to burglarize a house, but the woman homeowner, who had moved in recently with her husband, was home, too. When Green began knocking on the front door, she called her husband, who was out of town. He told her to get their gun. She did and called the police. Green entered through the back door before the cops arrived and entered her bedroom, whereupon she shot him. He died in the hospital.
Hey Brady! That’s one woman not raped and murdered.
Guns in the workplace are dangerous!!!
A Wendy’s employee was cleaning up after closing, when “two men with masks” entered and forced him into the back office at gunpoint. After stealing the money, they left. The employee armed himself and followed them outside. Police say one of the robbers turned and pointed his gun at the employee, whereupon he was shot and killed.
Hey Brady! Can you guarantee robbers will let a witness live?
It’s not safe for children to have access to guns!!!
Two teenagers in Henderson, North Carolina were home alone when two men attempted a home invasion. One of the teens shot one intruder in the chest with a shotgun; he died in the hospital. The accomplice is wanted for a November 14 break-in. Police say no charges will be filed against the teens or their parents.
Hey Brady! That’s two teenagers alive because they knew how to operate a shotgun.
A potential of four lives were saved by safe and effective firearms handling skills. No evidence has ever shown the Brady Campaign arriving in time to save anybody.
It’s been a tough year for the Brady Campaign.
When discussing Second Amendment rights and the civil right of self-defense, this is a vital point to hammer home over and over, because those who claim we should disarm and call the police will have no defense against reality. (Assuming they’re interested in reality, which isn’t always the case with ideologues.)
You may also find DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services very interesting. The Supreme Court extended longstanding precedent affirmed in Castle Rock v. Gonzales to include any government agency that exists on our tax dollars. In this case:
“Petitioner is a child who was subjected to a series of beatings by his father, with whom he lived. Respondents, a county department of social services and several of its social workers, received complaints that petitioner was being abused by his father, and took various steps to protect him; they did not, however, act to remove petitioner from his father’s custody. Petitioner’s father finally beat him so severely that he suffered permanent brain damage, and was rendered profoundly retarded.”
As with Castle Rock, the lower courts ruled for the victim/plaintiff, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling in favor of the government agency/defendant. Fancy that, a government agency (Supreme Court) ruling in favor of a government agency!
Here’s reality again, for those who can handle it: We are required by law to pay taxes to support all these bureaucracies, but they are not obligated to provided the services we pay for.
Who are the winners and losers in this game?
Rachel Yoder, age 15, was driving her buggy home from a Christmas party last Thursday night when she was killed. According to Holmes County Sheriff Timothy Zimmerly, an Amish hunter “was preparing to clean his muzzle-loaded rifle after deer hunting and fired it into the air.”
This provides a teachable moment, in hopes of saving one life tomorrow. Or two, considering the shooter’s life will never be the same.
Media does a public disservice when they procreate the myth that guns go off by “accident.” A number of simple and easy safe handling rules must be intentionally violated for the above story to happen.
First: Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. Pointing any gun in the air is always unsafe. Bullets can easily travel over one mile, maintaining enough energy to be fatal.
Second: Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. That includes anything that could depress the trigger: screw drivers, cleaning rods, etc.
Third: Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. A corollary is: Every gun is loaded until verified unloaded. When cleaning a gun, double-check before proceeding.
Know your firearm, how it operates, and how to field strip and clean it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the more experienced you are, the greater the temptation to consider yourself smart and experienced enough to create your own rules. Pride goeth before the fall. (Of course, there’s still the ignorant who think they know what they’re doing. Observing how they handle a gun gives them away.)
We still need to pull our pants down before going potty, no matter how many thousands of times we did this before. Simple attention to never-changing basics keeps one from making a mess of things.
(Hat tip to Dan Gifford)
“Executing a search warrant in 2010, police uncovered a semi-automatic handgun in Bravo Flores’ Minneapolis apartment. A grand jury indicted him for being an alien in possession of a firearm in violation of federal law. He was sentenced to three years in prison.”
(What is curiously omitted is that police also found “five pounds of marijuana, and small quantities of both cocaine and methamphetamine.” He wasn’t prosecuted as a drug dealer in possession of a firearm, which would have enhanced federal sentencing. See U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 924, Subsection (c), which requires a prison sentence “of not less than 5 years.”)
Flores appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld his conviction:
“Joaquin Bravo Flores was indicted on a charge of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and 924(a)(2). Flores moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 922(g)(5)(A) was facially unconstitutional in light of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The district court denied the motion, and Flores appeals. Agreeing with the Fifth Circuit that the protections of the Second Amendment do not extend to aliens illegally present in this country…we affirm.”
U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 922 says:
“(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—(5) who, being an alien—(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States…”
U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 924 says:
“(2) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
Heller struck down the draconian D.C. handgun possession ban, but also concluded: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” For example, the Supreme Court wrote: “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons…”
Which takes us back to Flores. Federal law requires immigrants to take such actions as registering and possessing entry documents, among other things. Flores chose to violate federal law, making himself a criminal. Banning firearms possession by a premeditated and long-time criminal is well within the Heller ruling, and the courts made the right call.
Now here’s the hook: Flores was represented by “Federal defender Andrea George.” So, Flores got his day in court, and American taxpayers footed all attorney and court costs.
Nikki Haley became South Carolina’s first woman governor partially due to “the strong backing of Tea Party champion Sarah Palin.”
But she was also backed by Mitt Romney. Despite the fact that Tea Party activists “remain wary” of Romney’s conservative credentials, Haley continued the time-honored political tradition of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” quid pro quo.
Haley believes Romney “is the right person to take [Obama] on and get America back on track.
I’ve already written that Romney is the right person to take Obama on and give America four more years of Obama.
What say you about all this?
Somebody points a gun at a cop and gets shot. This simple truth isn’t enough for the Austin American Statesman.
Deputies were told during a “check-welfare” call that a man was suicidal and armed. During the three-hour interaction, the armed subject barricaded himself in his trailer. Attempts to negotiate and coax the man outside failed. After three hours, he exited his trailer carrying a gun. Officers told him to drop it. Instead, he pointed it at a deputy, who responded in self-defense.
The Statesman cited the deceased’s friend, a mechanic by profession, as their expert criminologist.
He said he attempted to talk to his friend before he was called back by authorities.
He called the SWAT team “aggressive” and “overzealous.”
Here’s the Statesman’s missing lede: “Heartless cops stop friend from saving victim’s life, kill victim instead.”
In a follow-up report, the same “expert” claimed: “If they would have left me alone with him, … he could have gotten some help and none of this would have happened.” So now, he’s not only a criminologist, but a psychologist as well. Some sort of highly educated philosopher/mechanic?
This demands one question, which the Statesman never asks: You were “left alone with him for years” before this incident involving police. Why didn’t you help him then, with all your apparent expertise to defuse the problem?
Real experts provide better answers. Ron Borsch has over 30 years police experience, including 17 on SWAT, and presently serves as manager and lead trainer of a post-graduate police academy in Bedford, Ohio.
“These situations where officers are confronting suicidal subjects are always a nightmare.
Any hesitation on the officers’ part from hoping to have a lifesaving outcome can and has resulted in officer deaths and serious injury. If this occurs, other officers at the scene will likely shoot the crisis causer, so we end up with casualties on both sides. Such a “tie” is unacceptable. Law enforcement officers are no different than the rest of the community in that they try not to take unnecessary chances on the job, so they can go home to their families unharmed.
Appropriate training aims at prevailing and winning these encounters, which often boil down to: you are either quick or you are dead.
Arm chair quarterbacks, or folks that do not understand action vs. reaction with their life and livelihood on the line, have occasionally been invited to LE training such as realistic simulations with Simunition Marking Cartridges or Airsoft 11 mm BB’s.
Rarely do they return to their prior faulty beliefs after experiencing such realistic scenarios. They most often come to the realization that deadly force decision principles MUST be made ahead of time, not when a fast breaking situation is unfolding around them.”
As for the well-meaning friend, here’s a few points from another long-time officer.
“Most police policies/procedures involving contact with a barricaded/suicidal suspect prohibit officers from allowing anyone other than an officer to talk with the suspect, barring extraordinary circumstances. You never know what will trigger an unbalanced suspect. This guy’s friend was upset that the police didn’t let him intervene. For all the cops know, this guy was sleeping with his ex. It’s a good tactical call by the cops.
Civilians think the cops are heartless and authoritarian, because they know the suspect and THINK they know how he is going to respond to their entreaties. When the situation devolves to the point where their friend has a gun and is threatening to kill himself, nobody knows how he’ll respond. The police did the right thing to attempt to save suspect and limit collateral damage. The suspect committed suicide by cop (if you do anything other than drop a gun in the presence of a cop in this set of circumstances, you are asking the cops to shoot you). His friend feels bad and transfers his anger onto anyone but himself (where was the friend when this situation was developing?)
Cops come on scene and are forced to resolve a situation that friends let fester. Cops have a larger mandate to protect all the public, which is threatened by a suicidal man with a gun.”
The recent Virginia Tech incident proves these truths: a suicidal young man murdered a police officer before taking his own life. So does the young man in Hollywood who, screaming he wanted to die, murdered one man in a random shooting spree on Sunset Boulevard, and then pointed his gun at cops after they ordered him to drop it.
Leave it to an anti-gun, anti-cop rag to shoot and not bother asking intelligent questions.
I didn’t want to write this, and I take no pleasure in it. But it’s vital to face trouble if you want to head it off before the manure pile lands on your head.
Now that they’ve shot down Cain, it’s time for the insiders and their media lackeys to turn their attention on Gingrich, until it’s over for the Anyone-But-Romney camp. Then begins the long, slow march to Obama 2.
It’s already begun. Peggy Noonan recently wrote that Gingrich is “disturbing” and “ethically dubious,” and that those who know him “are mostly not for him.” Meanwhile, she wrote that “those who’ve known and worked with Mitt Romney mostly seem to support him…” Her depictions may be accurate, but she said nothing about Obama’s inexperience and destructive presidency, providing no context for her Gingrich analysis.
Popular, allegedly-conservative talk show hosts benefitted Obama’s campaign, too:
- Michael Savage offered Gingrich $1M to drop out.
- Glenn Beck said he’d vote for Ron Paul as a third party alternative, if Gingrich won the nomination. Beck also believes if you support Gingrich over Obama, you’re racist.
(Not that Newt is some great prize. Being a longtime GOP operative and consultant for Freddie Mac, plus his affair while investigating the Clinton/Lewinski scandal, should give one pause. Unfortunately, the other GOP candidates make the nomination race reminiscent of the Seven Dwarfs.)
GOP insiders want Romney, because he best represents business as usual. They offer us a “better” candidate than Obama, but not the best, because the best would support smaller government, which is anathema to the money and power brokers of both major parties.
Open Secrets calls their game the “Revolving Door:”
“Although the influence powerhouses that line Washington’s K Street are just a few miles from the U.S. Capitol building, the most direct path between the two doesn’t necessarily involve public transportation. Instead, it’s through a door—a revolving door that shuffles former federal employees into jobs as lobbyists, consultants and strategists just as the door pulls former hired guns into government careers. While members of the executive branch, Congress and senior congressional staffers spin in and out of the private and public sectors, so too does privilege, power, access and, of course, money.”
Romney won’t win because he’s Obama’s Mini-Me. Examples why: Romney Care, and socialist states like Massachusetts breed “Republicans” who’d be liberal Democrats in Texas. When faced with a choice between Obamney the Me-Too Socialist and the genuine article, voters will choose the real deal. Better the devil you know…
Some claim Obamney’s better than Obama, because a GOP Congress will control his worst socialist tendencies. Really? You mean that Kabuki theater run by Speaker Boehner, who hasn’t the spine to cut the budget or close the federal government temporarily to underscore its runaway spending and power grabs (April and November) and who renewed the PATRIOT Act in toto? Including their part in the failed deficit reduction theater, the GOP has done what it can to restore a Democrat Congress in 2012 by supporting big government at every opportunity.
The November 11 Newsweek ran a piece by Paul Begala entitled “Republicans are getting stupider” on their front cover. True. Eventually, they’ll all be Democrats, and then maybe people will finally see we’ve had one big Socialist Party for decades, assuming voters can turn off the modern opiate of the masses–TV–long enough to attempt critical thinking.
To pull this out, there’s only one tough options:
- Pick the least stinky of the GOP offerings and then plan on four years of non-stop activism/delaying action to slow their feudalist tendencies long enough to…
- Find somebody good among the People who’s not a career candidate/prostitician.
In any case, the best strategy is to stop looking for a messiah. Don’t ask an elected official to do for you what you’re unwilling to do for yourself. Make them fear you, the voter. If you want smaller government, plan to fight for it, as the Founders understood when signing the Declaration of Independence:
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Anything less is a victory for feudalism.
Flashback: Before the Civil War, slave owners favored the “doctrine of paternalism,” justifying slavery as “responsible dominion over a less fortunate, less evolved people.” In other words, the White elites contended it was their responsibility to take care of sub-humans unable to survive on their own merits.
The Democrat party nominated pro-slavery presidential candidates, and tried repealing the Missouri Compromise, in order to spread slavery into newly-forming western territories.
After the Civil War, White Leagues terrorized newly-freed slaves into abandoning the Republican party, restoring Democratic control of the South.
Today’s Democratic racism has a friendlier face, but the same outcome: segregation. For example, Democrats brought suit against the Texas legislature’s congressional redistricting map by playing the race card.
Last week, a federal court presented their own map, which was praised by Democratic race-based activists.
Nina Perales, vice president for litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and an attorney in the San Antonio case, said the new maps will provide opportunities for more minorities in Congress…
The problem is that race-based representation creates ghettos so that those people are motivated to remain within their congressional districts. This makes a sick sort of sense, since my own experience in White liberal enclaves indicates their desire to keep those people out of White neighborhoods.
Last Friday, after filing his emergency stay to halt implementation, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott noted:
“A court’s job is to apply the law, not to make policy. A federal court lacks constitutional authority to interfere with the expressed will of the state Legislature unless it is compelled to remedy a specific, identifiable violation of law.”
Because of its “history of racial discrimination,” Texas needs federal approval to implement new congressional districts.
Black leaders played into Democrats’ desire to recreate separate-but-equal policy:
In its own filing Friday, the NAACP cheered the court-drawn interim map as a “step forward for Texas.” The group said it, “recognizes the growth of the minority population and takes significant steps toward remedying some of the startling lack of proportionality in the prior plans.”
The NAACP doesn’t want its members to be Americans, but remain a Democrat special interest group. And while implying the Texas legislature’s racism, the NAACP has no problem using racism to promote its agenda.
The New York Times offers more evidence of Democrats’ modern-day, racist paternalism: They plan to re-elect Obama by abandoning the “White working class” and focusing on a coalition of “well-educated socially liberal Whites” (e.g. college professors, lawyers, teachers) and “a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.”
Thus we come full circle, beginning with White, Democrat, elite slave owners in dominion over non-Whites allegedly incapable of surviving on their own merits, and ending with White, Democrat, “well-educated” Whites in dominion over non-Whites who allegedly remain incapable of succeeding on their own merits.
Democrats’ racist doctrine sees immigrants as political pawns in their quest for power, and doesn’t want these immigrants to become Americans, but to remain dependents on the Democrats’ plantation.
Welcome to the segregation of America, courtesy of the Democrat party…again.
At a national security conference yesterday, Obama administration lawyers were asked about killing Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen involved with al-Qaeda. Government lawyers responded that:
- “U.S. citizens don’t have immunity when they’re at war with the United States” and
- “only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.”
But don’t worry! As long as there’s beer in the fridge and reality TV on a working cable access, things are great in America.
The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) distributed an email regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) proposed animal ID program. This would require identifying and certifying all interstate livestock transportation (registration). All animals would be micro-chipped, with all the attendant expense from investing in technology, bookkeeping, and hiring new bureaucrats to oversee the program.
This is allegedly about preventing disease outbreaks. (Gun control rationale: “If it saves one life, it’s worth it.”)
Here’s another example of banning something–in this case free enterprise–because something bad might happen. The bottom line is that this government regulation would benefit bureaucrats and large agribusinesses, while burying small ranchers under the expense of following the new rules. As FARFA notes:
“These new regulations will harm rural businesses while wasting taxpayer dollars that could be better spent on the real problems we face in controlling animal disease, food security, and food safety.”
Since 1990, Agribusiness has donated over half a billion dollars to federal election campaigns. Even though the sector traditionally gives 68% to Republicans, Obama–whose USDA is promoting this anti-business regulation–was the second-biggest recipient in 2008, and is currently the third-biggest for the 2012 election cycle. Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow is the top recipient. She just coincidentally happens to be Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, which of course oversees the USDA.
You can submit comments to the USDA here. Ask them to consider the following points:
- If there is value in animal ID, then exporters and businesses growing meat for export should pay the costs and offer economic premiums to livestock producers to encourage them to participate in a voluntary system.
- If there’s some value in this proposal, why aren’t agribusinesses stepping forward to lead on this using free market dynamics?
This proposal would simply cost jobs and damage the economy by stymieing exports, small business, and free enterprise.
Urge the USDA to withdraw their proposed animal ID rule. This is just another attempt by feudalists to use fear to induce us to surrender more Liberty in the name of safety, knowing that while we won’t be any safer, the government will be safer from us.
In Bellingham, Washington, a 45-year-old man was renting a room in the home of a single mother. Yesterday, he came home drunk and decided his room “had been messed with,” so he attacked the woman, kicking open her bedroom door and choking her in bed.
Enter our young hero, who was awoken by the commotion. First, he hit the attacker with a board. This got the attacker’s attention, who then chased the boy out of the house. The boy snuck back inside and locked the attacker outside. The attacker began climbing into an open window as the woman tried to close it, so he grabbed her arm and threatened to kill both of them.
She was unable to free herself, but Young Hero came into the room with his Daisy air rifle and shot the attacker “at least four times.”
Now the bad news, or what Cam Edwards of NRA News would call “The Deal of the Day.” (I just heard Cam featuring the boy as Hero of the Day, and rightly so. You can watch it by clicking on Show Archives, scrolling down and selecting Hero of the Day, 2:04:00 into Tuesday’s show.)
Police called the attacker a “frequent flyer,” because he’s “somebody they have had nearly 50 contacts with and who has been arrested dozens of times over the last ten years or so.”
This includes “a history of arrests for DWI, assault, and disorderly conduct.” Despite threatening to kill both victims, when the attacker left the hospital he was charged with “second-degree assault and two counts of harassment.”
Nevertheless, both the boy’s act of self-defense and the government’s inability to control a longtime criminal point to the need for a strong and liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment.
After canvassing local chain drug and grocery stores, we’ve found out that you can no longer buy iodine to treat small cuts and skin abrasions. The reason is that meth dealers use it to make their product. This ban is a fairly recent development.
A law abiding citizen can’t perform simple first aid at home because somebody else might use the product illegally. Same for decongestants, but at least I was able to buy them after registering at the pharmacy desk.
So we have registration and confiscation, all in the name of the war on drugs.
The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)–part of Holder’s Department of Justice–had a budget of $2B this fiscal year, down from a high of $2.6B in 2009. But it’s still 31 times the original 1972 budget.
Don’t you feel much safer?
“General Electric, one of the largest corporations in America, filed a whopping 57,000-page federal tax return earlier this year but didn’t pay taxes on $14 billion in profits. The return, which was filed electronically, would have been 19 feet high if printed out and stacked.”
Remember that GE’s CEO is also Obama’s jobs czar Jeff Immelt, whose company has been sending jobs overseas. (See my article explaining the unholy alliance between Corpirates and Prostiticians, which are also defined there.)
Since 1990, GE has contributed over $20M to federal candidates. This includes $3.5M in 2008, where Obama was the top recipient ($530k). In 2008, business contributions topped $1.7B to all federal candidates, with $272M going to Obama. (All data available at Open Secrets.)
Yes, there are differences between the Tea Party and Occupiers. Little things like paying for permits and policing costs, no public potty behavior, and wanting smaller government so that we can succeed in business, as opposed to demanding wealth from those who earned it.
But under the current unholy alliance, many of the haves game the system to tilt the playing field in their favor, and buying political influence plays an important part. Part of this tilt results in slamming the door in the face of those who simply want the same opportunity to be upwardly mobile.
My last article was about the Bureau of Land Management’s plan to curtail shooting on public lands, curiously, I received a comment alleging this was all a “tempest in a teapot.” If so, why would the Bureau of Land Management decide to revise their draft guidelines on public land usage to include “input and recommendations” from conservation and hunting organizations?
Why did they need to clarify with the following statement?
“We are in no way interested in banning recreational target shooting, hunting, or fishing—on the contrary, our goal is to develop guidance that will help land managers maximize and preserve opportunities for recreational shooting.”
Because the BLM has been “under fire from gun owners concerned about draft guidelines.”
There are a few good quotes about how important eternal vigilance is in defense of Liberty. For those who think this was not that big of a deal, please read the BLM draft document. On page 3 is this vital statement:
“Active management of recreational shooting by identifying areas of low risk or resource conflict that remain open for dispersed shooting activities, and closing areas that are identified as having high risks or conflicts through a temporary or permanent closure are effective ways to reduce risks while preserving recreational opportunities for the public.”
Imagine an anti-rights president stacking the Department of Interior with anti-rights bureaucrats who believe that guns are so dangerous that any shooting is too risky. They declare all public lands to be “high risk” and use these guidelines to ban guns.
Now remember Obama’s quote to the Brady Campaign:
“I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
Be assured that the government maintains eternal vigilance on the People, waiting to see if we’re distracted by the latest celebrity menage a twit. That’s how they’ve gotten away with slowly infringing our rights so far.
Today, the vigilance of those ready to defend Liberty won a skirmish in this ongoing war.
Government Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands Because Urbanites ‘Freak Out’ (Update: Interior Backs Down?)
The Bureau of Land Management has proposed curtailing hunting and target shooting on public lands. They claim: “It’s not so much a safety issue. It’s a social conflict issue,” because “urbanites ‘freak out’ when they hear shooting on public lands.”
No statistics or specific anecdotes were offered to corroborate this freaking out allegation, but here’s some hard data that identifies what city dwellers should be freaking out about. That they don’t casts doubt on their ability to judge what is dangerous and what is safe.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data shows that between 1981 and 2008 (all data available), accidental firearm death rates declined 76.1%, from 0.82 to 0.19 per 100,000 population. During the same time period, accidental motor vehicle deaths declined 41.6%, from 22.39 to 13.07. (See chart below.)
When taken as a ratio, there were over 67 accidental motor vehicle deaths for every accidental shooting death in 2008.
The CDC reports that between 2000 and 2009 (all data available), accidental firearm injury rates declined 26.6%. During the same time period, accidental motor vehicle injuries declined 22.3%. (See chart below.)
In 2009, there were over 225 accidental transportation-related injuries for every accidental shooting injury.
It appears that urbanites “freak out” when confronted with something different than their normal experience. Yet they’re comfortable with a serious threat of death and destruction because they’re used to it in their everyday experience, since cities are clogged with traffic 24/7.
The issue here is city dwellers’ bigotry towards different lifestyles, and their lack of diversity that renders them intolerant of new experiences.
Update (Bryan): It looks like Interior is backing down.
Flashback: In 2009, Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 31 others at Ford Hood. His shooting rampage was assisted by superiors’ ban on personnel bearing arms outside of official training. Hood was a target-rich, gun-free zone, and Americans suffered for it.
Yesterday, it was reported that victims of the massacre are “asking compensation totaling $750 million from the government for failing to stop the attack.”
Let’s examine this concept.
“Suing the government” is a euphemism for extracting money from taxpayers via tort. As Abraham Lincoln said: “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it.”
We are the government, like it or not.
Yes, the government “failed to stop the attack,” and those whose decisions led to this horror should answer as accessories to murder. But the government has no duty to protect, and therefore isn’t responsible for failing to stop an attack, even though we still have to pay for all these “services” that aren’t beholden to us. (See Castle Rock v. Gonzalez and Deshaney v. Winnebago for starters.) So while the Supreme Court could throw this out, the taxpayers still foot a legal bill at the very least.
Returning to the main issue: The government–which orders soldiers to use military weaponry to kill enemies identified as such by the government–doesn’t trust these same people to responsibly bear arms on base. In America. All paid for by American taxpayers who live in country with a Bill of Rights specifically acknowledging the God-given right of self-defense via the Second Amendment.
As with all the school shootings in the last two decades, government infringement created a “gun-free zone” which benefited one murderer bent upon maximizing his statement defined as body count.
In any case, the bottom line is that we pay for government’s failed policies in many ways, while those enacting those policies suffer no consequences. The rest of Lincoln’s quote is:
Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
So what’s it going to be? Or will we just put yokes on our own necks?
This unpleasant experience began with a simple inquiry: Were we coming to the banquet honoring veterans, being held at the local high school?
I had previously declined a Tea Party invitation to speak at this venue, asking promoters: How can we celebrate Liberty when the law makes us felons if we don’t agree to void our Second Amendment rights? (It’s a third degree felony in Texas to bring a firearm into a school’s premises.)
I expressed doubt about attending, based upon this reflection.
Their response was that this was “not so much celebrating liberty as it is recognizing those who have served in our military.”
But how can the two be separated? The mental compartmentalization resulting from rationalizing is a great concern of mine. Experience has taught that humans are not so much rational as rationalizing.
My reply: Veterans offered their lives to protect our once-in-history Constitution that actually acknowledges Divinely-endowed inalienable rights, and that the government is supposed to serve the People. Why should we then turn around and let the government tell us we are the servants, and that we may not enjoy the God-given rights that so many gave their lives to preserve? I cannot in good conscience support such a dishonor against those who have honor, foisted upon us by those without honor in the name of safety and security. We either honor the words of the Founders and reject the illusion that the government, even if it wanted to, could provide security at the expense of Liberty, or we dishonor those who served to uphold those Founding principles.
Unfortunately, they chose to label themselves Patriot–implying I’m not–and tell me that considering my attitude, my presence “would be an insult to those who served.”
Disheartened, I submitted to the Oath Keepers for judgment on the matter.
Stewart Rhodes, Oath Keepers’ Founder and President, replied:
It’s disgusting and disturbing to have an event supposedly honoring veterans for their service “in defense of freedom” but also insisting that they disarm when they attend the event. Public schools are now nothing more than little Petri dishes of how the elites would like our whole nation to be – Bill of Rights free zones where only those in official power have the full rights of citizens, including the right to bear arms.
It’s a sad day, when we start rationalizing to justify support for government infringement of our God-given, Constitutionally-acknowledged, and honor-defended Liberty.
Just two weeks ago, Republicans on the Congressional 12-member deficit reduction “super-committee” were unwilling to consider new taxes. Instead, they wanted to cut federal government spending $2.2 trillion over the next decade, $700 billion more than required. This was rejected by super-committee Democrats.
Today, those same GOP representatives offered a $1.5T plan that includes $300 billion in new taxes. Again, the Democrats rejected the proposal.
And why should the Democrats have accepted it, now that the “no new taxes” Republicans have begun folding? Why not wait until Republicans offer a $2.2T plan that includes $2.2T in new taxes?
You shouldn’t be surprised by this new development. This “deficit reduction” Kabuki Theater was scripted at the outset. The GOP hasn’t the spine necessary to shut down the fed, nor do they have the spine to shrink the government bureaucracy. The only thing shrinking is their…well, let’s just say that the only person on that committee capable of wearing pants is Patty Murray.
(Hat tip to Dan Gifford.)
As leader of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), New York Mayor Bloomberg believes all civilian firearms are illegal, and that only police should have guns, which is why he must deny the following scandal impacts NYPD.
The New York Post reported:
Eight current and former [New York] city cops were part of a $1 million ring that smuggled guns, cigarettes and slot machines into New York from out of state, the feds charged today.
Mayor Bloomberg claimed:
“The NYPD is the finest police department in the world, and these arrests do nothing to diminish the selfless commitment of the 35,000 men and women who put on a uniform every day, and who put their lives on the line to keep us safe.” [emphasis added]
Law enforcement professionals understand their diminishment by these rogues.
The FBI’s New York Assistant Director Janice Fedarcyk said: “These crimes, as alleged in the complaint, do nothing but undermine public trust and confidence in law enforcement.”
One veteran big-city officer said:
“This is a betrayal of the highest order of an Officer’s oath. It is a difficult enough task to keep the public’s trust and confidence in today’s society. I cannot even imagine what pain this must cause the families of those who lost their loved ones in the line of duty at the hands of illegal weapons. Every time we take a step forward, a select few help us to take two steps back.”
“The fact that some bad people do bad things with guns, it’s no reason to penalize the vast majority of good, responsible gun owners, nor demonize them.
Because some bad cops do bad things which may or may not involve guns, is no reason to penalize the vast majority of the estimated 35,000 good, responsible cops in New York City, nor demonize them.”
However, Ayoob also agrees that the good guys feel ashamed when rogues on their force do stuff like this, and feel like they have to put out extra effort to win back the trust lost when the public reads stories of officer malfeasance.
One might conclude that anti-gun politicians are no friends to cops, either.
Two separate reports, when woven together, create a tapestry reminiscent of the most brutal and deadly eras in history.
WikiLeaks announced they’re “temporarily suspending publication” because some of the world’s largest financial institutions created a “financial blockade” by not allowing credit card donations.
The financial problems for WikiLeaks started on 7 December last year when Bank of America, VISA, MasterCard, PayPal and Western Union refused to accept donations for WikiLeaks…
The website blamed the blockade on a reaction to its decision to start publishing the first of 250,000 leaked US Government cables days earlier.
In another story, the Vatican called for “global public authority” and a “central world bank,” because of “institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.” This plan includes “taxation measures on financial transactions.”
In other words, because some people in powerful positions have poor judgment or may be corrupt, you will pay for it.
Here’s how some of the most powerful people in the world employ the gun control formula to steal your Liberty. It goes so far beyond gun control that perhaps it should be called the Feudalism Formula.
In the minds of those convinced they’re smarter than us and have God’s blessing to direct our lives, there’s too much Liberty these days: People making personal choices in marriage, career, voting, investment, etc. They want this to stop.
What better way than to control wealth and political power?
It worked wonderfully in the Middle Ages. The noble class assigned careers at birth, and socio-economic classes were heavily stratified. The Church literally got away with murder: The Inquisition during “the Catholic Church’s 500-year struggle to remain the world’s only true Christian religion.”
Now, the Catholic Church hit upon a way to accomplish their goals by “saving” us.
But when the global powers decide columns like this are “unfair,” the world banking authority shuts us down by halting all payments from advertisers by pressing one red button.
They’ll ban gun sales from internet sources like Gunbroker for “safety” reasons. But with a tax on every deposit and check written, you won’t be able to afford guns anyway. Next, do away with paper money and make even buying groceries a “bank transaction” via debit card, and suddenly you’re not only paying a tax every time you spend money, but the New World Bank follows every transaction you make.
Bye, bye, Liberty.
Here’s a perfect example of the gun control formula in action. The Louisiana legislature passed a law this year making it illegal for private parties to use U.S. currency when transactions involve used goods.
The rationale? State representative Rickey Hardy (D-44), who co-sponsored the bill, claimed it was “targeted at criminals who steal anything from copper to televisions, and sell them for a quick buck. Having a paper trail will make it easier for law enforcement.”
Point 1: Sell big government under the guise of protecting us from criminals.
Point 2: “Paper trail” means registration. Registration precedes confiscation.
Point 3: Republicans support bigger government when it’s for something they want. Bigger government means less power vested in the People. Period.
“We’re gonna lose a lot of business,” says Danny Guidry, who owns the Pioneer Trading Post in Lafayette. He deals in buying and selling unique second hand items.
“We don’t want this cash transaction to be taken away from us. It’s an everyday transaction,” Guidry explains.
Substitute the word “gun” for “cash transaction” and you end up with:
Point 4: The “unintended” (likely intended) consequence is that law-abiding people are punished, while criminals–prone to ignoring laws in the first place–continue doing business.
Point 5: This law creates more legal precedent for prostiticians in Louisiana and other states to justify and pass similar laws that do nothing but disenfranchise the law-abiding.
Point 6: Laws like this create a whole new criminal class with the stroke of a pen, creating a need for additional law enforcement and incarceration resources, producing a self-fulfilling need for more government employees.
Contact your reps today, just to say hello, like.
CBS Los Angeles reports that 21 Heckler & Koch MP-5 submachine guns and “a dozen Colt 45 automatic pistols” have been stolen from a “secure site” belonging to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).
(Yes, gunnies: A true automatic pistol is a rare thing, and had MSM journalists known something about guns, they would have written “semi-automatic”.)
Not to worry, though. LAPD launched two investigations to get to the bottom of this.
Also no worries, mates: These firearms were “modified to fire training ammunition.” (Assuming that means Simunition or some other non-lethal projectile.) So they can’t fire live ammunition “unless they’re significantly modified,” according to LAPD Commander Andy Smith.
It would take lots of money, black market connections, organization and the will of a Mexican drug cartel to return these MP-5s to their 600-rounds-a-minute specs. And we all know the cartels can’t get government-owned firearms.
Wonderful to know the government’s taking care of us.
A few days ago, I got this email: “Mr Nemerov, I thought you might be interested in this.”
The message claimed that George Soros has taken ownership of many firearms manufacturers through his shell company.
For the last several years a company called “The Freedom Group” has been buying up American gun and ammunition manufacturers.
Some people worry that Freedom Group is going to control most of the firearms companies in the United States. Of course, If you control the manufacturers you can decide not to sell to civilians, or, you can raise the prices to ridiculous levels or you can make the supply of guns and ammo scarce – all sorts of logjams.
What a perfect way to control America’s guns!
“Cerberus” in the epic book “The Inferno” by Dante Alighieri, is a three-headed demon hound (from Roman mythology) that guards the Gates of Hell to prevent those damned souls who have just crossed the river Styx, from escaping back to the world.
Investor GEORGE SOROS owns Cerberus!
Larry Keane, Senior Vice President of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, had this to say:
You’re asking me to proof a negative proposition. I make it a policy never to debate crazy people. Life is too short. It is sort of like the utterly and demonstrably false internet myth of S.B. 2099. Anyone who really believes George Soros owns the Freedom Group is likely a “prohibited person.”
The National Rifle Association stated: “This rumor is completely false and baseless.” The NRA has a long-standing relationship with both Cerberus and Freedom Group, noting: “The owners and investors involved are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are avid hunters and shooters.” Further, Soros has never been a part of either group. Most importantly:
This unsubstantiated rumor has caused a great deal of unnecessary concern for gun owners. NRA-ILA urges our members to take great care before repeating baseless rumors found on the Internet.
Here’s the crux of the matter. People send these emails around like manic ping-pong balls over the internet, never bothering to check if they have any basis in fact. Five minutes with Google would have disproven this theory to anybody possessing cognition and a little will.
Unfortunately, there are those who prefer to rely on others to tell them what to think. For those people, there’s always Dancing with the Stars.
For the rest of us, guard your Liberty closely by keeping your powder dry, eyes and ears on, and your brain engaged.
(Thumbnail image by Shutterstock.com.)
Many people seem to be confused by the recent protests such as Occupy Wall Street, because they don’t understand who the real bad guys are. Here’s a handy compendium to get you up to date.
A Prostitician campaigns for office, convincing constituents they’re loved while accepting vast sums of money from special interests. Once in office, the prostitician serves their “sponsors” while lying skillfully enough to convince constituents they’re still being represented. Just like prostitutes, somebody’s getting scr***d, somebody enjoys it, and money changes hands.
A Corpirate is a business entity given special tax and regulation considerations because they submitted the proper government paperwork and paid the requisite bribes fees. Corpirates are also members of the executive committee of these businesses, charged with maximizing the value of their stock options regardless of ethical or legal concerns. Corpirates then force via threats of termination encourage employees to pool their campaign contributions under the company umbrella. Yes, businesses cannot contribute directly to prostiticians, but hundreds of employees from one business sends all the message needed, which is why Open Secrets classifies campaign finance by industry and company. When a company’s contributions amount to millions, prostiticians listen. When that company’s industry contributes hundreds of millions, prostiticians respond with favors like the Troubled Assets Relief Program, which stole gave $700 billion of our tax dollars to wealthy corporate “sponsors” to save them from the consequences of their own poor business decisions.
In 2010, businesses contributed $1.2 billion to federal campaigns. That’s a lot of influence to ensure favorable legislation that protects profits by tilting the playing field.
Thus, we have General Electric Chairman Jeff Immelt campaigning for lower corporate taxes, even though GE paid no taxes on $14.2B in profits in 2010. Immelt is Obama’s Jobs Czar, whose company sent jobs overseas while shedding American jobs.
Capitalism is dead! Long live corpiratism!
We don’t need no stinking capitalism!
You see, business as usual works…for those in power. Why should they change?
With 95% of Bastrop State Park burned, nearly all of its outdoor opportunities are gone for now. However, local groups are joining together to help renew the park, also known as the Heart of the Lost Pines because it features a unique variety of Loblolly Pine, representing the western end of the pine forest stretching across the southern United States.
One of the volunteer groups is the Friends of the Lost Pines, which organized a special to ensure 100% of charitable contributions will be used to help restoration.
They released a video showing the aftermath of this historic fire.
Nobel Laureate Resigns From American Physical Society Over Their Manmade Global Warming Fundamentalism
From Climate Depot:
Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.
The APS dogma:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate…They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
In his resignation email, Dr. Giaever said:
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.
According to his numbers, the earth’s temperature has risen 0.28%–about one-quarter of one percent–in 150 years. One way to over-dramatize the increase is to use the Fahrenheit scale rather than the absolute values of the Kelvin scale. That way, you could claim a 2.45% temperature increase, nearly 9 times as large as Giaever’s reference.
It’s that easy to spin global warming by manipulating the numbers.
There will be an unexpected sight high in the skies over the British county of Norfolk next month: a huge balloon attached to the ground by a giant hosepipe.
They plan to create a fake volcano, piping “sulphates and aerosol particles” into the “upper atmosphere, bouncing some of the sun’s energy back into space and thereby cooling the earth.”
There’s one problem: Many scientists have forecast an impending solar minimum lasting decades. Popular Science noted:
Activity in the sun is building toward an expected peak sometime in 2013. Yet, despite a few notable solar flares, things are strangely calm. There are fewer sunspots in this cycle than expected, and they’re fainter than usual, for instance…
Based on these sets of findings, which were presented Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, N.M., heliophysicists believe the current solar cycle, Cycle 24, could be the last one for a while. The sun might be entering a period of hibernation.
This was previously observed from 1645 to 1715, a period known as the Maunder Minimum in which there were practically no sunspots. The period coincided with part of the “Little Ice Age,” in which average temperatures in the northern hemisphere dropped by 2 to 4 degrees F.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science reported on presentations by three researchers, all concluding from different perspectives that “no visible solar cycle will begin at the next expected start time, around 2020.” Again, they mention the Maunder Minimum.
The author quoted dissenters, who note that forecasting solar activity is a new and unreliable science. It’s curious then that people can claim the science is “settled” on manmade global warming, since this research is even newer.
NASA’s graph shows reliable sunspot surveys dating back to 1850. NASA also notes the relationship between sunspots–as an indicator of solar activity–and global temperatures, again noting the correlation between the Maunder Minimum and the “Little Ice Age.”
Purposefully polluting the atmosphere to produce global cooling during a solar minimum could turn a few decades of cooler weather into a real Ice Age.
This coming Saturday, two Bastrop-area bands are being featured in an appreciation party for all the emergency personnel who put their lives on the line during last week’s fire. (And who continue to do so, since the fire remains 70% contained.)
The Academy Jazz Players specialize in swing jazz from the 1940s era, featuring the vocals of Jeff Brister. Local youth R&B phenoms the Peterson Brothers will also appear.
This celebration of gratitude begins at 7 PM this Saturday September 17, at the Lumberyard on 1109 Main Street, across from the Post Office.
Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: The Lumberyard, 1109 Main Street, Bastrop, Texas
From the New York Times:
A little-known Republican businessman from Queens, channeling voter discontent with President Obama into an upset, won election to Congress on Tuesday from the heavily Democratic district in New York City last represented by Anthony D. Weiner.
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was quick to hit the spin cycle. From Fox NY:
“It’s a very difficult district for Democrats,” said Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, noting its Democratic margins there tend to be the second lowest of all the districts in New York City.
Wasserman Schultz told the NY Times:
“In this district, there is a large number of people who went to the polls tonight who didn’t support the president to begin with and don’t support Democrats — and it’s nothing more than that.”
That’s a curious conclusion, because this district has been one of the most reliable Democratic districts in America for nearly 90 years.
Democrat Anthony Weiner held the district 1999-2011. He succeeded Democrat Chuck Schumer, who held it from 1981-1999 and left when he became a senator. Then there’s Elizabeth Holtzman (1973-1981), and Emanuel Celler, who held the district beginning in 1923 until he was defeated by Holtzman. The length of time in office gives the additional lie to it being “a very difficult district.” Everybody was reelected at least 3 times.
The last fiction comes from Ynet News, which wrote “Turner took advantage of the discontent among the Jewish community with Obama’s policy toward Israel…” The wording implies that Turner was a lying opportunist–as opposed to Weiner, who originally denied his sexual predations and verbally abused a CNN reporter for questioning him about them–who used Jews to win. It’s too difficult for socialist elites, who run the New York media and have pinned all their hopes on Obama, to believe that voters were discontented enough to stray from their Democratic plantation for the first time in 88 years.
This incident reveals how liberal elites view average Americans as too stupid to know what’s best. We can only hope they continue this display.
Yesterday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG) officially protested H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, requiring all states issuing concealed handgun permits to recognize all other states’ permits.
The mayors’ group, insisting that Congress is overstepping its Constitutional bounds, launched a national campaign to “defend [the] right of states to decide who can carry…”
While there may be a 10th Amendment concern with H.R. 822–another topic too large to include here–the point is how MAIG curiously has become a pro-Tenth Amendment organization.
Let’s proceed to exhibit A.
For years, Bloomberg, MAIG founder and leader, has complained about the need for an “assault weapons” ban. In 2004, he published this statement urging renewal of the 1994 Clinton gun ban.
Bloomberg continues to work with anti-rights politicians like Rep. Charlie Rangel and Senator Chuck Schumer to implement another ban on semi-automatic rifles–shooting one bullet per trigger pull–that share some cosmetic similarities to real military assault rifles shooting multiple bullets per trigger pull.
Bloomberg’s rifle ban would require a federal law, infringing upon states’ rights to decide whether or not their residents can own such rifles. By supporting this, Bloomberg ignores his own alleged support for the 10th Amendment.
On Sunday, September 4, the piney woods of Bastrop, Texas went up in flames. After one week, the fire is 70% contained. At last count, 1,554 homes have been destroyed, in addition to many businesses including Roscar Chocolates and Texas Kiln Products. Among the 34,000 acres burned was nearly all of Bastrop State Park. It’s miraculous that only two people perished (confirmed so far) and losses are estimated at a Texas fire record of $150M.
The following picture was taken by my wife on Monday September 5. The smoke appears much closer than two miles away, giving an indication of the size of the blaze.
On Saturday, September 10, Highway 71 opened between Bastrop and Smithville to the east. Driving this section revealed a post-apocalyptic wasteland, where once a lush pine forest–one of Bastrop’s main tourist draws–carpeted gently rolling terrain.
Tree stumps still smoldered six days after the fire roared through. Friends nearer the fire said it sounded like a freight train that went on for two days.
A number of charities are supporting the relief and recovery effort. Some of them can be found at the Austin Statesman. “Central Texas Wildfire Recovery” has a Facebook page listing more opportunities.
Two benefit concerts are planned, featuring big-name artists. Proceeds will go to help fire victims who lost their homes. More on this soon, as details emerge.
You know how airports have TV monitors for travelers to watch while waiting? I’d just arrived home from a business trip, when the monitor showed CNN covering President Obama’s jobs talk last night. The screen displayed “Lawmakers gather to hear Obama’s speech” (they misspelled “lawbreakers” but that’s another topic) as the self-congratulation society filed in.
Then the camera showed Reid and Boehner at the podium. I can’t remember who the CNN talking head was, but it’s irrelevant because they all chatter the same talking points. This one was: “Boehner has a warm relationship with Obama, but Boehner’s being held hostage by the freshmen Tea Party congressmen.”
Herein lies today’s lesson.
By a “warm relationship,” what the CNN monkeys mean is that Boehner, like Obama and Reid, is a career politician. They’re like a Ménage a Troika, or a real clusterf…riends. As members of the Kabuki Party, they all pretend to represent Democrats or Republicans while fooling voters into thinking they’re doing something for us, rather than their corporate sponsors and other “players.” So they act their highly structured roles to convince us they disagree, when their common goal is to play on voter passivity to return us to feudalism, all while claiming they’re going to save us from “the other guys” as a distraction.
“Boehner’s being held hostage by the freshmen Tea Party congressmen” refers to all of us unenlightened Americans who swept out so many Kabuki Party members in 2010’s historic election. Doing so, we temporarily stymied their feudalist plans. Boehner, being a career politician, is cagy enough to go off-script for now and act like a conservative, at least until American voters succumb enough to the new opiate of the masses: TV. They expect we’ll eventually go back to sleep, and wake up serfs.
The moral to the story: If you believe a politician, you’re toast.