Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Another not to Sen. McCaskill

My reply to Sen. McCaskill’s reply to my comment:

Thank you for replying to my previous note.

Some points:
1.  The issue is not gun violence or gun safety.  The issue is all violence and all safety.  Nobody’s last thought when they are being strangled by an unarmed assailant is, “At least I wasn’t shot.”  More people are killed by unarmed assault in the US than by guns.  Yet the record of countries (Australia, UK) and cities (Chicago, Washington, DC) show that restricting gun rights increases overall violence, including ironically, gun violence.  How many people were shot in Chicago today?  Obviously banning guns isn’t the answer, which makes one suspect that gun violence is not the problem.
2. We do not need to find middle ground.  If the middle ground is always between where we are and where the Confiscators want to take us, then the road will lead inexorably to the Confiscators’ victory.  This is unacceptable.  If current laws are inadequate, maybe it is because they are completely misguided and wrong to begin with.  The issue is not the legal ownership of firearms.  It is the presence of the twisted and deranged who desire to do evil to others.  Try outlawing them.
3.  The proof of the lie in Sen Feinstein’s gun bill is that it exempts the political class from its restrictions.  If gun ownership is bad it is bad for all.  Disarm the Capital Police and Secret Service and put “No Gun Zone” signs outside the Capital and White House.  If politicians can protect themselves with machine guns and the citizenry cannot, then the issue is not about safety.  It is about power.

Please reject Sen. Feinstein’s gun ban legislation.  It is a dishonest attempt by the Confiscators to eliminate the 2nd Amendment one little step at a time.

The Dealiest Thing Ever Created By Humankind

The deadliest thing ever created by humankind is government.

Sure guns are dangerous.  So are cars, and ladders.  But if you really want to rack up body counts in the tens and hundreds of millions, ya’ just gotta’ have a government.

So what do the good, gun grabbing Progressives offer us.  More government.

What have gun grabbing pro-government “Progressive” sorts given us?  Gulags and gas chambers.

What is the only counter to Murder by Government?  An armed populace.

I used to work with an anti-gun fanatic.  When I heard the news about the Newtown shooting, I figured the e-mail would show up in…3…2…1…”you have mail”.  I try to keep discussion with him civil, so I didn’t point out that he had far more responsibility for the killing of those kids than the gun supporters do.   If the gun supporters had been listened to, the crazy guy would never had made it to the classroom where the kids died.  Instead, the gun haters had the school put up signs saying, “Open season on our kids!”  It took 20 minutes for the police to show up.  This guy could have done the dirty deed with a baseball bat.  Do the gun haters care?  No.  They want more dead kids so they can ban guns and open up their gulags and gas chambers.

Umm.  No.  I don’t think they have the moral high ground.  They present arguments based on hatred and ignorance and the world will be the worse for it.

An armed society is a free society.  An unarmed society is a slave society.  Freedom is messy.  Slavery is unacceptable.

PS: Do you know that the origin of gun control in the United States was to keep blacks from arming themselves against the Ku Klux Klan in the South?  If you are a gun grabber, you travel with a fine crowd.  Chew on that.

National Treasure

And by that, of course, I’m actually referencing the movie of that name.

The premise of the movie is that the Founding Fathers laid out an intricate puzzle of clues all over the world leading to the discovery of a King’s Ransom on steroids.  Yeah, they probably weren’t that smart.  And even they in the 18th Century could probably have figured out that many of the structures that existed then may or may not stand long in a growing city.  Of course, the movie use Revolutionary vintage buildings because those were the ones that weren’t torn down.

So do I think there is a Great Treasure sitting under my feet.  Hardly.  If I did, I wouldn’t be writing about it to my ones of readers.  I’d be having a date with a shovel.

The Federal Empire, formerly known at the Federal government has become in frightening ways every bit the oppressive overlord that King George III was when the Founding Fathers said, “Time to move on.”  Not sure what KG III was into?  Try reading the entire Declaration of Independence.  It’s only one page long.  <cue Jeopardy music> I’ll wait </cue>  Notice any similarities?

There have been various stories about different Founding Fathers being transported to the current day to see what they had wrought.  I think it would be safe to say they would be blown away by the size and scope of the technological wonders.  Cars racing down paved roads at speeds unknown in their day except by bullets and arrows.  Buildings bigger than the pyramids.  Airplanes.  Smart phones.

But then there is the issue of what they would think of the size and power of the federal government.  Any ambiguity they may have had about the benefits vs. the cost in liberties would probably be resolved after being fondled by the government appointed sexual predators of the TSA.  Would they be shocked?  Would they be despondent?  Would they wail about how their experiment in self-government went so wrong?

I think not.  First off, the Founding Fathers were not a bunch of weak kneed whiners.  I think after the initial shock of the sexual assault, they would draw themselves up, recompose themselves, look at their hosts with some disdain in the knowledge that their hosts allowed this to come to pass in the first place and go, “So now what are you going to do?”

I don’t think they would be shocked because I think they suspect it would come to this…again.  Governments accumulate power.  That’s what they do.  Trees grow.  Birds fly.  Fish swim.  Governments become oppressive.

So now what are you going to do?

Reform 5: Direct representation clause

Here’s an idea for improving the popular representation in Congress.

Proposal:

The House of Representatives shall consist of 400 members.  Each member shall stand for election every two years.  Representatives shall be selected in the following way:  Each Party filing for the House of Representatives shall submit a slate of 400 electors listed by priority.  The number of electors selected in order of priority from each Party for seats in the House shall be proportional to the popular vote for that party.

Rationale:

I’ve heard people propose ratifying the first constitutional amendment proposal in order to increase their “representation” in Congress.  The first proposed amendment would fix congressional districts at one congressmen for each 30,000 people.  That would be a House of Representatives of over 10,000 members.  If Congress has to meet in a football stadium, you are not getting represented.  Few representatives would even get opportunities to speak.  The chamber would be completely dominated by a handful of “congressional leaders”, kind of like the current seniority system.  Ultimately, such a useless body would simply contribute to the growth of an Imperial Executive.

The current House elected by district may only represent a little over half the population.  I haven’t had a representative in Congress for most of my adult life.  Proportional representation says any group that makes up 1/4 % of the voting public gets a representative, or about 150,000 people on big election days.  Of course the slate of candidates would be affected by the term limits.

Proportional representation is the best way to break the stranglehold the Binopoly on power held by the two big parties.  There were more than enough votes for third parties to get substantial representation under the district system but it never happens because the votes are spread all over the country.  Proportional representation fixes that.

As a secondary effect, proportional representation makes it harder for the corrupting practice of “bringing home the bacon” to work because for the most part, individual  representatives would not have a home district to send bacon to.  Now a big area, like New York City could create a local part (call it the NYC Party) whose whole purpose is to steal for the City.  They could conceivably get enough votes to hold a number of seats in the house (one seat for each 150,000 votes).  But they would have to influence all the other representatives, many without clearly defined constituent areas, to steal from their own constituents to give to New York.  Politics would ensue, but that’s what legislating is all about.

And now for something completely different

Election poll worker training class tomorrow.   Civic duty and all that rot.  I’ve thought for years that I should do that if only to lower the average poll worker age to less than three digits.

Obama’s Leg Humping, Lap Dog Media

Obama’s Democratic Propagandists in the Main Stream Media loves to refer to Obama’s wonderful 2008 campaign.  Actually, it wasn’t much (“Can’t I eat my WAFFLES!”) of a campaign.  Admittedly, McCain was awful.  The only reason he got any states at all was Palin pulling in the conservatives.  Otherwise he would probably have been shut out altogether.  But a miserable runner doesn’t need much skill when the pundits who are supposed to report on the race throw the miserable runner in the back of a pickup truck, run over the other runners and then drive him across the finish line.

Now they’re at it again.  (Again.  Still?)  Really, seriously, what is wrong with these people?  Obama is absolutely the worst president in history.  No other president actively avoided the actual job of being president like him.  (Jimmy Carter’s problem wasn’t not doing the job.  If anything, he tried to hard.  He just wasn’t up to it)  Obama has absolutely no interest in doing the actual job of president (chief executive of the executive branch)  All he’s interesting in is the trappings of a monarch and the adulation that go with it.  And the press is just as unwilling to do their job of holding him accountable, instead being perfectly willing to be his adulating worshipers.  Why?  No one every entered the White House before who’s very goal was to make the United States weaker and poorer.  Why exactly do those rich, pampered elitists hate the country so?

At least they’re consistent

Why would anyone think that the Democrats would run their convention any better than they run the governments they dominate.  It’s chaos.  It’s undemocratic.  It’s almost guaranteed to be over budget.  And they’ve reneged on their promised performance.  It’s like a microcosm of their failed states and their bankrupt and bankrupting governing practices.

If Hillary is the surprise DNC speaker…

…I’ll try to look surprised.

If Obama announces she’s the VP, I’ll try to look shocked.

Surely the only person on Obama’s staff who thinks Biden is an asset is Obama.  Given his recent gaffes, I’m not sure Biden thinks he’s an asset.  He sounds more like somebody trying to get fired.

Next question….where in the world did the Democrats come up with the idea of Hillary as a savior?  The same place they came up with the idea of Obama as one?

I’ve said it before

Although I don’t remember if I said it here…

The only way to watch anything political is on C-SPAN.  I watched the Republican Convention.  No commercials.  No Libtard Democratic Propogandist Pundits.  No conservative pundits.  I get to watch what people say and make my own mind up.  What a novel concept.

A Post @ Ann Althouse’s House

Stuck this comment on an Ann Althouse post down at 9:08 PM.  It’s my response to people posting that the American Revolution was “anti-colonial”.

The American Revolutionaries were not “anti-colonial”. They were anti-monarchists. The Revolution started as a tax rebellion before it became an independence movement. But the Declaration of Independence was addressed directly at King George III.

What the Founders sought, the basis of classical liberalism, libertarianism, Tea Partyism, etc is the aversion to the concentration of power. The way to avoid concentrations of power is to delegate it to the smallest groups, namely individuals. The system of Checks and Balances, the Advice and Consent clause, the separate branches were all created to prevent the concentration of power and especially the re-establishment of a monarchy. Without constitutional restraint, it becomes possible for 51% of the population to vote the other 49% into slavery.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the goal of the so-called “Progressives”. The concentration of all power in the hands of a government run by “Progressives” that through the dictatorship of the proletariat, unrestrained by quaint concepts of constitutional constraints, enslave opposing minorities to their will. And Obama, the Most Arrogant Man In the World plans on being their King.