Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Freedom, Law, Media Bias, Police, Politics, Progressives, Progressivism, Regulation, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Federalizing the Police, Gun Violence, Hard Left Democrats
“Gun Violence” is pure political propaganda. A gun, whether the tiniest Derringer, or an enormous artillery cannon, is an inanimate object. It in incapable of doing anything whatsoever without action by a shooter. It is very clearly the shooters who may or may not be “violent.” Saying “gun violence” suggests that without the inanimate objects of guns, there would be no violence, which is absurd. Far more homicides or deaths take place without guns at all.
Also absurd is the focus on “Assault Rifles” which are just ordinary rifles fancied up with some military cosmetics because people generally like a little added glamour. This Michael Ramirez cartoon is an older one, and the actual numbers may have changed, but the proportions are undoubtedly the same, and the point made remains valid.
Democrats believe absolutely in crazy Right-Wing militias training in hidden hollows in the Rocky Mountain West who may come forth to attack them. That’s the plot of many a thriller. Or if not mountain hollows, hidden in the swamps somewhere in the solid South. They want the public disarmed. (Think of Hillary and her “vast right-wing conspiracy.”)
Most farmers and ranchers keep guns. Varmints. Sometimes a wounded animal needs to be put down. Coyotes go for the chickens. There are around 10.9 million deer hunters alone, not counting those who hunt Ducks, Turkeys elk, quail and so on. Yes, you can buy meat at the market, but many people count on a fall hunt to fill the freezer for the winter.
Gun homicides have been declining steadily since 1994, even as gun ownership has increased.
I didn’t note down who said it, but it is quite accurate: “Blaming guns for the Islamist murder of 49 people in an Orlando gay nightclub is like saying that Zyklon-B Gas was the cause of the Holocaust and not the Nazis.”
If you are given to worrying, worry about Barack Obama’s attempt to nationalize America’s police departments. He wants to put your local departments under federal control in the name of civil rights law.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Regulation, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Freedom to Fail, Through the Eyes of an Aussie, Try Try Again
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, Free Markets, Freedom, History, Military, Regulation, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: A Representative Republic, President Calvin Coolidge, The Declaration of Independence
Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States, who was born on the Fourth of July, gave one of the best Independence Day speeches ever at the celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. Do read the whole thing, or better yet, download it. Here are a few excerpts.
It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.
If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed. While these principles were not altogether new in political action, and were very far from new in political speculation, they had never been assembled before and declared in such a combination. But remarkable as this may be, it is not the chief distinction of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of political speculation is not to be underestimated, as I shall presently disclose. Until the idea is developed and the plan made there can be no action.
It was the fact that our Declaration of Independence containing these immortal truths was the political action of a duly authorized and constituted representative public body in its sovereign capacity, supported by the force of general opinion and by the armies of Washington already in the field, which makes it the most important civil document in the world. It was not only the principles declared, but the fact that therewith a new nation was born which was to be founded upon those principles and which from that time forth in its development has actually maintained those principles, that makes this pronouncement an incomparable event in the history of government. It was an assertion that a people had arisen determined to make every necessary sacrifice for the support of these truths and by their practical application bring the War of Independence to a successful conclusion and adopt the Constitution of the United States with all that it has meant to civilization.
These remarks fro the conclusion of his Fourth of July speech seem especially appropriate today.
Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meetinghouse. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Education, Election 2016, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Freedom, Military, Politics, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Moral Narcissism, President Barack Obama, The Oath of Allegiance
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
On July 4, 2012, in Phoenix, Arizona, about 250 new Americans take the oath of citizenship (reprinted from 2015)
In July, 2015, President Barack Obama stripped out the requirement for individuals becoming naturalized citizens to defend the United States through military service. On September 16. 2015, President Obama said in a video aimed at convincing migrants to pursue American citizenship, that they didn’t need to assimilate.
“It’s not about changing who you are, it’s about adding a new chapter to your journey… and to our journey as a nation of immigrants,” Obama narrates in his two-minute video urging almost 9 million resident migrants to sign up for citizenship so they can vote in 2016.
There’s another new turn of phrase designed to hide or soften what he is doing. “Nine million resident migrants” — think about that for a moment. We wouldn’t want you to get all serious about an oath, or make you uncomfortable. There’s one graduate of Harvard Law School who apparently never really learned anything about the Constitution at all.
Human beings are tribal. It’s an instinct that comes down to us from the first humans, and it’s never completely gone away. Most of the nations of Europe are tribal. That’s why the Czech Republic separated from Slovakia. I don’t think you can become a German unless you have German ancestry, but I’m not sure about that. The countries of Europe each have their own languages and customs. The Middle East is divided between Sunni and Shia, with a large number of other tribes thrown in. And it seems to be human nature for the tribes to fight each other, over things serious or not so much.
Here we join big organizations, tea parties, bridge clubs, Rotary, Job’s Daughters, join a golf club, work for the Salvation Army or Food for the Poor, or just the Thursday night poker club. We form neighborhood clubs, research our ancestry, or join a gym. We are tribal by nature. We are drawn to people who share our interests or heritage, enthusiasm for quilting, or political leanings.
Americans came from all over, but what has bound them together was the formal oath of citizenship renouncing all other allegiance. You raise your hand and your solemnly swear, and you become an American —just as much as the immigrant whose ancestors came on the Mayflower or with the Winthrop fleet.
What Mr. Obama doesn’t get is that Americans are a tribe, we have a proud identity. Many Europeans say that you can identify an American in Europe by the way they walk—heads up, more confident. Does any other country celebrate their founding day with the hoopla and fireworks that we do?
The full-throated “USA, USA, USA” may be annoying, but it’s heartfelt. Howard Zinn may corrupt the young with his soviet-propagandized attempt at revising our history. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright may bellow “God Damn America “to the future president and his family, but there’s a reason why Stalin’s daughter, Khrushchev’s son, and one of Castro’s daughters all became American citizens. Russian oligarchs moor their yachts in New York harbor just in time to get their newborn child American citizenship, and wealthy Chinese just happen to be visiting the country when the baby is due. Mexican women wade the Rio Grande to bear their children in the United States. Why do you suppose they do that?
A small bunch of English religious refugees seeking liberty undertook a dangerous Atlantic crossing to an unknown land. Joined by other discontented Europeans, before long they were pushing back against English taxes, English regulations and English regiments. After sending the British back home, and writing a constitution, Americans pushed on across the Appalachians, facing angry Indians, bears and starvation. First in bateaus, then on horseback and in covered wagons, they crossed the Rockies and conquered a continent, fought a bloody civil war to free the slaves. World Wars, John Wayne, the Super Bowl, Star Wars, the Marshall Plan, GI Joe, Baseball, Dunkin’ Donuts, the Grand Canyon, — so many things go into the making of an American, including complaining about the government. But here, it’s your right to complain. In Stalin’s Russia — off to the Gulag. In today’s Syria, we don”t even want to think about that.
Don’t be messing with the Oath Of Allegiance, Mr. President. We know that you are out to “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” but if we had realized what you really meant by that, you’d be back in your house in Chicago and someone else entirely would be our president. You go too far.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Immigration, Law, Progressivism, Regulation, The Constitution, The United States, Unemployment | Tags: President Baack Obama, US Court of Appeals, US v Texas
In the case over the Obama administration’s controversial immigration reforms, U.S. v. Texas, the Supreme Court confessed its inability to bring clarity to the broader debate over the scope of executive authority, splitting four-four and affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by an equally divided vote. This essentially means that in all likelihood, had Justice Antonin Scalia not passed away earlier this year it would have been settled.
On Thursday the Supreme Court shot down Barack Obama’s illegal executive amnesty – something he alleged at least 22 times he did not have the authority to pass before he went ahead and pushed through his executive authority anyway.
“During his comments Barack Obama once again argued that we need illegal aliens to “make our beds.” Well, never mind. “Speaking shortly after the Supreme Court’s immigration decision, President Obama made it ‘very clear’ that deporting illegal immigrants is not a priority of his administration.”
We knew that. We are interested in why this president who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution believes that he should overrule it. Obama wants more Democrat voters. He has lied about deportations insisting that he has deported more people than any other president in history. That’s hooey. There are always consequences. Criminal immigrants reoffend at a higher level than ICE has suggested. A smuggling network brings Middle East illegals to our border. Obama accuses a judge of “scaring’ illegal aliens from signing up for amnesty. Here are the shoes handed out to many of the “unaccompanied children” who arrived last year, to remind them of just who allowed them in, and gave them shoes.
Six diseases that had been near eradication are making a comeback, thanks to Obama’s refugee resettlement industry. They are 1.Tuberculosis 2.Measles 3.Whooping Cough 4.Mumps 5.Scarlet Fever and 6. Bubonic Plague. The number of communicable TB cases, dubbed active TB, increased by 1.7 percent to 9,563 in 2015, after 23 years of steady decline in the United States. Parents who got all excited about the canard that vaccination is bad, should investigate those claims a little more thoroughly.
The problem is not so much illegal immigration, as it is that the President of the United States seems to believe that he is above the law and has no need to follow the laws. That’s really a problem.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Domestic Policy, Law, Media Bias, Progressives, Regulation, The Constitution | Tags: Chick-fil-A, Rep. John Lewis, Sixties-Style Sit-Ins
Democrats were inspired by memories of the Sixties, and decided to hold a “Sit-In” on the floor of the House chamber. They were demanding gun control by disallowing anyone on the no-fly list from being able to purchase a gun. Trouble is, the U.S, Constitution guarantees citizens Due Process before they get forbidden to do something—that means a hearing before a judge or judge and jury, not a quickie law written as a stunt. But as people started to focus on the stunt, they quickly learned that 26 of the Democrats who took part in the sit-in own guns.
Rep, Lewis was once on the no-fly list (erroneously), but they were interested in backing up their ban on buying guns with evidence, but the evidence clearly shows that crime has been dropping for several years, but is starting to edge up in response to the anti-cop publicity, and release of felons from prison (who have a 75% recidivism rate).
Then it began to get funny. Several Twitterers pointed out that it was absurd to stage a “sit-in” on the floor where there were enough chairs for everyone. Charlie Rangel said he thought it should not be possible for his constituents to own guns, but when asked, said that Congressmen ‘deserve’ protection. Despite a long speech about the problem of guns in the inner city and the deaths of so many young blacks, when it came time for dinner they turned to the fast food restaurant that NY Mayor De Blasio demanded that New Yorkers should boycott — Chick-fil-A. Which was also a validation of the restaurant’s tasty fried chicken and denied Chick-fil-A’s supposed anti-gay bigotry.
The media fell all over themselves with the drama of a real live sit-in, and failed to notice the absurdity of the whole thing as the video above shows. Don’t expect consistency or logic. That’s just the way Democrats are.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Law, Police, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution | Tags: Bureau of Justice Statistics, President Barack Obama, The Butterfield Fallacy
An official from the U.S. Department of Justice has said the agency will no longer call people “felons” or “convicts” after they are released from prison — because it is too hard for them emotionally.
This fits right in with the Obama administration plan to release large numbers of “non-violent” felons to remedy “mass incarceration.” To a liberal, crime is never the fault of the perpetrator. It is the fault of society, the criminal’s parents, his lack of a good education, poverty, drugs, or lack of opportunity. Federal prisons are filled with “first-time, non-violent drug offenders” they claim, who were caught up by the criminal justice system and imprisoned, unfairly, for years. This conviction is behind the current drive for criminal justice reform.
Mass incarceration of such prisoners tears apart families, and most of these unfairly imprisoned and nearly innocent are African American, which means that the system is deeply racist. Trouble is that all of these popular buzz words are bunk. There is no mass incarceration. Each prisoner is there because he was arrested for committing a felony, was convicted by a judge and jury or pleaded guilty, may have appealed the sentence or chose not to to appellate courts and received all the rights of due process that are provided by the U.S.Constitution.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that almost all drug offenders in federal prison are serving sentences for drug trafficking, which does not mean selling small amounts of marijuana or heroin.
The Butterfield Fallacy is also at work here. Because crime has decreased, it is believed there is no need for so many people to be in prison. Wrong assumption. Crime is down in a simple cause and effect matter. Because so many criminals are in prison, there is less crime. The vast majority of prisoners are in state prisons, not federal prisons. Recidivism rates for chronic drug traffickers are over 75 percent, in other words three quarters of those released will be arrested again for committing serious crimes. And for every arrest, such criminals commit, on average, twelve other unsolved crimes.
Malcolm B. Benson pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1995, and spent 19 years behind bars. He was released early for good behavior in January 2015. It took him only nine months to kill a 59 year-old Army veteran who was waiting at a bus stop on his way to work, when Benson shot him during a botched robbery. Recidivism is common. According to Breitbart —
Over the past several years, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has ordered the release of thousands of serious criminals from federal prison, and in 2014 reduced the guidelines for all drug traffickers, regardless of the type of drug, criminal history, history of violence, gang or cartel ties making over 46,000 convicted drug traffickers eligible for early release. It is estimated that the bills now pending in Congress could make another 12,000 eligible for early release.
Jason L. Riley, writing in the Wall Street Journal. asked plaintively:
Why the fate of criminals should matter more than the fate of crime victims is a question that went largely unasked, let alone answered, during last week’s bipartisan celebration of President Obama’s decision to release dozens of individuals from prison and push for looser sentencing guidelines.
If the president is to be believed, it is not the prevalence of thugs that turns black ghettos into living nightmares for residents. Rather, the police, prosecutors and judges who pursue lawbreakers are the bigger cause for concern.
“A growing body of research shows that people of color are more likely to be stopped, frisked, questioned, charged, detained,” said Mr. Obama in his recent address to the NAACP. “What is that doing to our communities? What’s that doing to those children? Our nation is being robbed of men and women who could be workers and taxpayers, could be more actively involved in their children’s lives, could be role models, could be community leaders.”
This is apparently a big part of President Obama’s effort to establish a legacy. He is attempting to empty the detention center at Guantanamo Bay as well, and no new detainees have been held there. He just released the detainee responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, and the deaths of 17 servicemen. Congress has acted to make it illegal to bring detainees to the United States, but none seem to be tried by Military Commissions, as was the original intent, and most of those released have returned to the battle against Americans.
ADDENDUM:The White House “announced that they have commuted the sentences of 58 federal convicts, part of a broader push to revamp the criminal justice system and ease punishments for nonviolent drug offenders.”
Those whose prison terms were cut short include 18 who were sentenced to life terms.. Most will be released on September 2, though others will be released over the next 2 years.This group includes defendants who were convicted of selling cocaine, crack and methamphetamine, and makes a total of 306 whose sentences Obama has commuted.