This story says it all. The White House blocked the request for interview by the IG of one of the key players in the scandal. Also, if you read the report and then went back and looked at Eric Holder's statements while in front of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee you'd see a serious problem between the two.
"We reviewed the wiretap affidavits in both Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious and concluded that the affidavits in both cases included information that would have caused a prosecutor who was focused on the question of investigative tactics, particularly one who was already sensitive to the issue of 'gun walking,' to have questions about ATF's conduct of the investigations," the report said.
Holder said at the time: "I've looked at these affidavits. I've looked at these summaries. There's nothing in those affidavits as I've reviewed them that indicates that gunwalking was allowed. Let's get to the bottom line -- so I didn't see anything in there that would put on notice a person who was reviewing either at the line level or at the deputy assistant attorney general level, that you would have knowledge of the fact that these inappropriate tactics were being used."
Whole article pointing this out is here.
Hmmm, nothing huh? Only with a Democrat in office does the MSM ignore things like this.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Insurance and the Affordable Healthcare Act
I feel kind of bad pointing out the missing information to a 12-year old, but since his letter was printed on Huffington Post I felt that some things should be clarified.
First of all, I feel bad that his sister was born with serious medical conditions, it's not something anyone really has any control over. The thing is, when the letter starts pointing out why his family lost coverage it shows the lack of information he has, either because his parents never explained it to him, or his parents (and most people I know for that matter) don't even realize or think about. The thing about using company policies is that you run the risk of losing coverage if you lose your job, thus putting yourself in the situation of having to find another insurance carrier that doesn't want to be put under the additional financial burden of dealing with pre-existing conditions (or didn't before the AHCA, but more on that later).
Companies have been using insurance benefits for years as a way to lure in potential employees, and it has gotten to the point that many people just expect the company they work for to include healthcare benefits as part of their pay (many would actually let you opt out in return for a slightly higher paycheck btw). Most people never even thought of the risk inherent in such a system if they were to lose their job or go find a better one for themselves elsewhere, having to go to a new carrier. What they COULD have done was purchase a private insurance policy. That would have cost them more money true, but it would also have given them the freedom of not feeling chained to a single company in order to retain coverage. Of course, as more and more government regulation got involved it also forced those payments upward to make it harder for individuals to pay for their own plans.
Because of the AHCA requiring insurance companies to cover people even if they have pre-existing conditions people have been watching their insurance premiums go up because the insurance companies now have to cover people for conditions that they have never paid in to have covered. And it's only going to get worse as people opt to not pay for insurance coverage for years until a condition appears or accident occurs since most small businesses do not employ the 50+ people requiring them under the law to provide health insurance. Also, due to the ever increasing coverage costs you're unlikely to see those same small businesses offering coverage for their employees even with the tax breaks they are provided because it still won't cover the majority of the increased cost. The AHCA also includes such stupidity as requiring all females in a household have birth control coverage on the plan, regardless of age or medical condition (pre-pubescent, menopause, etc) which increase costs even more, and it does not make allowances for an individual's religious beliefs.
For anyone wondering why I actually go to a place like HuffPo, it's useful for seeing what false or incomplete information the other side is pushing.
First of all, I feel bad that his sister was born with serious medical conditions, it's not something anyone really has any control over. The thing is, when the letter starts pointing out why his family lost coverage it shows the lack of information he has, either because his parents never explained it to him, or his parents (and most people I know for that matter) don't even realize or think about. The thing about using company policies is that you run the risk of losing coverage if you lose your job, thus putting yourself in the situation of having to find another insurance carrier that doesn't want to be put under the additional financial burden of dealing with pre-existing conditions (or didn't before the AHCA, but more on that later).
Companies have been using insurance benefits for years as a way to lure in potential employees, and it has gotten to the point that many people just expect the company they work for to include healthcare benefits as part of their pay (many would actually let you opt out in return for a slightly higher paycheck btw). Most people never even thought of the risk inherent in such a system if they were to lose their job or go find a better one for themselves elsewhere, having to go to a new carrier. What they COULD have done was purchase a private insurance policy. That would have cost them more money true, but it would also have given them the freedom of not feeling chained to a single company in order to retain coverage. Of course, as more and more government regulation got involved it also forced those payments upward to make it harder for individuals to pay for their own plans.
Because of the AHCA requiring insurance companies to cover people even if they have pre-existing conditions people have been watching their insurance premiums go up because the insurance companies now have to cover people for conditions that they have never paid in to have covered. And it's only going to get worse as people opt to not pay for insurance coverage for years until a condition appears or accident occurs since most small businesses do not employ the 50+ people requiring them under the law to provide health insurance. Also, due to the ever increasing coverage costs you're unlikely to see those same small businesses offering coverage for their employees even with the tax breaks they are provided because it still won't cover the majority of the increased cost. The AHCA also includes such stupidity as requiring all females in a household have birth control coverage on the plan, regardless of age or medical condition (pre-pubescent, menopause, etc) which increase costs even more, and it does not make allowances for an individual's religious beliefs.
For anyone wondering why I actually go to a place like HuffPo, it's useful for seeing what false or incomplete information the other side is pushing.
Busy Busy
Dang it's been a busy month, and I'm not even done yet. Will get more updated posts after I clear the current set of engagements I already have on my plate.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Paul Ryan's RNC Speech
Figured I'd do a quick review of Paul Ryan's excellent speech from last night. His speech included just the right amount of personal experiences, unabashed faith, and ideals. At the end he also made promises, promises that can be quoted and expected to be fulfilled to the best of his ability, one of the most important being the promise to take responsibility; something the current administration sorely lacks. How can the rest of the country be expected to take responsibility when those who are selected as our leaders are unable to do so themselves?
"When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American Dream. That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."
Ryan added just a bit of humor, without having to make jokes at the expense of someone else like so many other politicians tend to do.
Full script for the speech can be found here.
All in all an excellent speech, makes me look forward to hearing what Romney has to say for himself. I still have some doubts about Romney, but they are mostly opinion related on various business practices (and based on incomplete information to be honest), and as opinion I can accept that I will never agree completely with any politician. In the end what we have for the Republicans are the Policy-&-Math Geek and the Successful Businessman, both are excellent family men with an appreciation for hard work, and the people who do that work. The Democrats have the Man-Who-Still-Blames-The-Past while demonizing those who work the hardest (careful, we can't have success spread!), and the Man-Who-Sticks-Foot-In-Mouth.
"When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American Dream. That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."
Ryan added just a bit of humor, without having to make jokes at the expense of someone else like so many other politicians tend to do.
"We're a full generation apart, Governor Romney and I. And, in some ways, we're a little different. There are the songs on his iPod, which I've heard on the campaign bus and on many hotel elevators. He actually urged me to play some of these songs at campaign rallies. I said, I hope it's not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin."
He spoke of his faith without trying to hide it, and the responsibilities associated with those beliefs.
"Our different faiths come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life.
We have responsibilities, one to another- we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves."
He also pointed out a fact that many of this nation's politicians seem to have forgotten, or just plain ignore, in their constant search for more control over our lives.
"Each of these great moral ideas is essential to democratic government- to the rule of law, to life in a humane and decent society. They are the moral creed of our country, as powerful in our time, as on the day of America's founding. They are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government." *Emphasis added*
All in all an excellent speech, makes me look forward to hearing what Romney has to say for himself. I still have some doubts about Romney, but they are mostly opinion related on various business practices (and based on incomplete information to be honest), and as opinion I can accept that I will never agree completely with any politician. In the end what we have for the Republicans are the Policy-&-Math Geek and the Successful Businessman, both are excellent family men with an appreciation for hard work, and the people who do that work. The Democrats have the Man-Who-Still-Blames-The-Past while demonizing those who work the hardest (careful, we can't have success spread!), and the Man-Who-Sticks-Foot-In-Mouth.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Feds Pushing More Spending
Not that anyone is surprised, but the Fed is pushing for more people to take advantage of government programs, thus increasing their spending and the various departmental budgets. Why they seem to think that more people need to be on the government dime given how far in debt we are only the Liberals could tell you. Someone fire the idiot that made that statement...
Typical Obama Tastelessness
As I'm sure everyone knows by now Neil Armstrong died this weekend. It is a great loss to the world at large, and the space community specifically. He will be missed. *SALUTE*
Of course the President felt the need to try and take political advantage of the death of a great citizen. He posted a picture of himself from last April as a tribute... Great idea, let's post an already used photograph of yourself as a form of tribute at the death of someone else. Only in the great narcisist's mind does this make any sense, and it's completely tasteless.
Of course the President felt the need to try and take political advantage of the death of a great citizen. He posted a picture of himself from last April as a tribute... Great idea, let's post an already used photograph of yourself as a form of tribute at the death of someone else. Only in the great narcisist's mind does this make any sense, and it's completely tasteless.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Contact Your Congressmen About the FCC
The newest push by the FCC to further control your lives and communications networks around the country, while raising your internet and phones bills in the process. Contact your congresscritters immediately and tell them not to support this bull.
I'm all for getting people internet and phone access, but if it was economically feasible a private company would have done it by now. Of COURSE AT&T and the like support this idea, it takes costs away from them and forces their customers to pay for it directly instead. Frankly, internet access at home and cell phones are not required for success in today's world. What is required is for people to actually be motivated to improve their own situation. Giving people this stuff for free only increases their dependence on government and their unwillingness to change their current standing in life. After all, why bother to work harder when you'll end up having to pay for all this stuff yourself? Especially when you can get it for free by doing nothing!
*****************************************************************
Spending money on projects like this is all well and good when the government is running a surplus, but not when we're running trillion dollar deficits every year for the last 4 years (and before you blame the various wars, their total cost per year is less than $300 billion). Continual deficit spending will not get us out of this. We need to control government spending, bring it down, and give people are reason to work hard to improve their lifestyle, thus indirectly improving the lifestyle of everyone around them.
If your neighbor gets a job he is now spending more money in the area, which increases the money there is to go around, which motivates more businesses to move to the area, thus providing more available jobs. If the government creates the jobs then that money is not really there, it's newly printed cash that only increases inflation. Governments do not create wealth, they take wealth from private industry and redistribute it, ineffectively mind you, to their various interest groups (which in most cases don't have a clue how to run an actual business; ex: Solyndra, etc).
When the government increases taxes on those with higher incomes it reduces the will of the people to advance their own condition. Why work harder when they're just going to take more of what you earn and it will just leave you in the same living condition, yet more worn out, for that extra effort? People who advocate higher taxes on the wealthy are either already wealthy themselves, thus have more than enough to not care (most of it is already accumulated wealth anyway, which isn't taxed), or they are people who have no intention of advancing themselves, instead living off the backs of others. Anyone that actually intends to change their current situation and move up on the ladder knows (or should know) that increasing taxes on the "wealthy" will only negatively effect them when they finally get to that position themselves. Instead of waging class warfare on those who become successful in their lives, we should be encouraging charitable donations by those who makes lots of money. Give them incentives to give and people will do so.
Mitt Romney is the perfect example of this, and yet the liberal media is trying to make people hate him for it. Sure, he paid only 14% on his taxes last year (I only paid 8.7%, though my unadjusted tax rate is 15% base) but he also gave away 16% to various charities, and that DOES NOT include the 10% yearly tithe Mormons are expected to contribute to their temples. Overall the man gave away 40% of his income last year. How much more do people expect someone to give? What number is considered enough? Who cares if he has plenty more, IT'S HIS MONEY. He earned it through hard work and good investments. What is the problem here?
If you start a business you are paying local, state, and federal taxes on the profit you make. You are paying the SS and Medicare taxes for every employee, in many cases as high as 30% of that person's salary. You took out a huge loan, or mortaged your house, or saved up tons of cash, etc. Most people pay taxes for years before starting a business. Is that not contributing to the construction of those roads and schools and businesses? Is the money you paid to go to the various schools and take classes, or to receive training, suddenly not counted as contributing to the building of those facilities that helped you succeed? Anyone saying that you didn't build that doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
I'm all for getting people internet and phone access, but if it was economically feasible a private company would have done it by now. Of COURSE AT&T and the like support this idea, it takes costs away from them and forces their customers to pay for it directly instead. Frankly, internet access at home and cell phones are not required for success in today's world. What is required is for people to actually be motivated to improve their own situation. Giving people this stuff for free only increases their dependence on government and their unwillingness to change their current standing in life. After all, why bother to work harder when you'll end up having to pay for all this stuff yourself? Especially when you can get it for free by doing nothing!
*****************************************************************
Spending money on projects like this is all well and good when the government is running a surplus, but not when we're running trillion dollar deficits every year for the last 4 years (and before you blame the various wars, their total cost per year is less than $300 billion). Continual deficit spending will not get us out of this. We need to control government spending, bring it down, and give people are reason to work hard to improve their lifestyle, thus indirectly improving the lifestyle of everyone around them.
If your neighbor gets a job he is now spending more money in the area, which increases the money there is to go around, which motivates more businesses to move to the area, thus providing more available jobs. If the government creates the jobs then that money is not really there, it's newly printed cash that only increases inflation. Governments do not create wealth, they take wealth from private industry and redistribute it, ineffectively mind you, to their various interest groups (which in most cases don't have a clue how to run an actual business; ex: Solyndra, etc).
When the government increases taxes on those with higher incomes it reduces the will of the people to advance their own condition. Why work harder when they're just going to take more of what you earn and it will just leave you in the same living condition, yet more worn out, for that extra effort? People who advocate higher taxes on the wealthy are either already wealthy themselves, thus have more than enough to not care (most of it is already accumulated wealth anyway, which isn't taxed), or they are people who have no intention of advancing themselves, instead living off the backs of others. Anyone that actually intends to change their current situation and move up on the ladder knows (or should know) that increasing taxes on the "wealthy" will only negatively effect them when they finally get to that position themselves. Instead of waging class warfare on those who become successful in their lives, we should be encouraging charitable donations by those who makes lots of money. Give them incentives to give and people will do so.
Mitt Romney is the perfect example of this, and yet the liberal media is trying to make people hate him for it. Sure, he paid only 14% on his taxes last year (I only paid 8.7%, though my unadjusted tax rate is 15% base) but he also gave away 16% to various charities, and that DOES NOT include the 10% yearly tithe Mormons are expected to contribute to their temples. Overall the man gave away 40% of his income last year. How much more do people expect someone to give? What number is considered enough? Who cares if he has plenty more, IT'S HIS MONEY. He earned it through hard work and good investments. What is the problem here?
If you start a business you are paying local, state, and federal taxes on the profit you make. You are paying the SS and Medicare taxes for every employee, in many cases as high as 30% of that person's salary. You took out a huge loan, or mortaged your house, or saved up tons of cash, etc. Most people pay taxes for years before starting a business. Is that not contributing to the construction of those roads and schools and businesses? Is the money you paid to go to the various schools and take classes, or to receive training, suddenly not counted as contributing to the building of those facilities that helped you succeed? Anyone saying that you didn't build that doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Amusing Article
So LL Cool J apparently stopped a home intruder a few nights ago, broke his nose and his jaw. I guess that NCIS: LA training paid off. Willing to bet that guy will never break into another house again too. If more people were willing and able to similarly defend themselves you'd see a massive lowering of home invasions.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Hilarity ensues
So if you were the opposition and somebody told you that one of the primary donors for your opponent had said your veep choice's "ideas offer 'a lot of the right long-term thinking for the country'" how would you spin it?
This is the situation that Romney's campaign managers are in, and I really hope they take advantage of it. Marc Benioff, a national campaign co-chair for President Obama not only said the above about Paul Ryan, but he donated $10,000 to his House Rep re-election campaign before Ryan was selected for the Romney ticket.
Almost makes you wonder if they knew that before they chose Ryan, doesn't it?
Sorry for all the short posts by the way, getting back into the swing of things and my mind isn't quite on for full on articles just yet.
This is the situation that Romney's campaign managers are in, and I really hope they take advantage of it. Marc Benioff, a national campaign co-chair for President Obama not only said the above about Paul Ryan, but he donated $10,000 to his House Rep re-election campaign before Ryan was selected for the Romney ticket.
Almost makes you wonder if they knew that before they chose Ryan, doesn't it?
Sorry for all the short posts by the way, getting back into the swing of things and my mind isn't quite on for full on articles just yet.
Germany Starts Jew Bashing Again?
I'm sorry, but given Germany's history against the Jewish community do they really think this is the best idea? Nevermind that circumcisions actually help prevent various medical conditions later in life, and the fact that they are widely performed for non-religious reasons.
It's probably the only time in modern day you'll see Muslims and Jews agree on something for that matter...
Remember people, governments always start small when it comes to removal of your rights. History and knowledge are the enemies of all dictators.
It's probably the only time in modern day you'll see Muslims and Jews agree on something for that matter...
Remember people, governments always start small when it comes to removal of your rights. History and knowledge are the enemies of all dictators.
I'm Back!
Queue the AC/DC... I'm back from my vacation, and trying to catch up on recent events. Tend to avoid politics, etc while I'm on vacation to help actually be able to relax. Can never get away from it completely, but it's nice to slow it down a bit.
That said, the following made my day. "I'm a big believer in: if they punch us, we put on the brass knuckles and punch back," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.
Now that's my kind of political philosophy, enough of this namby pamby friendly crud when dealing with the other side, they sure as heck don't show us that kind of respect, so no reason to treat them any differently than they want to be treated.
Now to find some real news to bi... blog about.
That said, the following made my day. "I'm a big believer in: if they punch us, we put on the brass knuckles and punch back," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.
Now that's my kind of political philosophy, enough of this namby pamby friendly crud when dealing with the other side, they sure as heck don't show us that kind of respect, so no reason to treat them any differently than they want to be treated.
Now to find some real news to bi... blog about.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Congratulations U.S. Olympians...
Now get ready to pay your taxes! The Americans for Tax Reform did their research and were kind enough to mention how much each medal winner gets, and how much of that goes to taxes.
Bronze: $10,000 ~$3,500 in taxes
Silver: $15,000 ~$5,385 in taxes
Gold: $25,000 ~$8,986 in taxes
And that is BEFORE their yearly tax returns. Imagine winning several medals like Michael Phelps, and having to pay taxes in the $50k tax bracket just for the money you got in medals.
We're one of only a few countries that tax worldwide prize money. Thanks for competing everybody, now hand over that tax money!
Bronze: $10,000 ~$3,500 in taxes
Silver: $15,000 ~$5,385 in taxes
Gold: $25,000 ~$8,986 in taxes
And that is BEFORE their yearly tax returns. Imagine winning several medals like Michael Phelps, and having to pay taxes in the $50k tax bracket just for the money you got in medals.
We're one of only a few countries that tax worldwide prize money. Thanks for competing everybody, now hand over that tax money!
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Ah Hypocrisy...
So, I've been talking to some of my rather liberal friends lately, and their statements had me trying hard not to laugh in their faces.
They're completely against any kind of discrimination when it comes to race, upbringing, country of origin, etc... yet completely okay with discrimination by income. If discrimination is such a bad thing, why are we all not paying the exact same percentage (or even better, the exact same dollar amount) in taxes every year? Why are some people taxed far more (even after tax writeoffs) of a percentage of their yearly income than the rest of us, and why is that perfectly okay? It's still discrimination, and you're either for it, against it... or you're a hypocrite.
They're completely against any kind of discrimination when it comes to race, upbringing, country of origin, etc... yet completely okay with discrimination by income. If discrimination is such a bad thing, why are we all not paying the exact same percentage (or even better, the exact same dollar amount) in taxes every year? Why are some people taxed far more (even after tax writeoffs) of a percentage of their yearly income than the rest of us, and why is that perfectly okay? It's still discrimination, and you're either for it, against it... or you're a hypocrite.
A Gentle Reminder
John Adams, our second president said “The Constitution is completely and wholly capable of governing a good and righteous people, and completely and wholly incapable of governing any other kind.” The freedom of this people depends on each individual maintaining high moral and ethical standards.
Alexis de Tocqueville, a French author, after visiting America said, published in his book Democracy in America, in 1835:
I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers; and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies; and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce; and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good; and if America ever ceases to be good; America will cease to be great.
While church and state should be separate, faith and freedom are just as inseparably connected as goodness and greatness. Those who attempt to separate a people from God, are most assuredly attempting to separate them from the source of their freedom.
For more than five thousand years, man has attempted to extract himself from the primordial slime pit, by grasping for another sure hand hold. There is only one anchor for the souls of men, only one true hand hold. Of a truth I perceive, that when Moses came down from the mountain he did not have the ten suggestions.
Many now dismiss the objections raised by people of faith, to corrupt laws, simply because they could be religiously based. Should we legalize lying, or stealing, or murder, or adultery simply because these are mentioned in the ten commandments? If we base our answer on current practices, we have already done so.1 Objections based on religion are just as valid, if not more so; than objections raised on any other basis.
Why sit we in a stupor? Why do we suffer the corrupt to rule? Can sweet water come from a bitter fountain, or bitter from the sweet spring? When the evil engage in good, is it to be seen of men? Is it because they must have public support if they are to retain what they really want: the power to continue a corrupt agenda? If the wolf has been forced to don sheep’s clothing, take no consolation. Note how well the wolf feeds!
Awake, my soul! No longer droop in despair. Rejoice, and give place no more for the enemy of the soul, who is the enemy of freedom. Do not slacken our strength because of the enemy. Rejoice, and proclaim freedom again through out the land. Be clean America. Cleanse the inner vessel, and then the outer. Let freedom ring again, and again. Arise America, lest freedom perish from the earth forever.
How is it that people were able to see this 200 years ago, yet religion is made to be some evil fringe thing these days? Why is it that so many people are not just envious of success, but outright hostile to the idea that other people are successful through their own hard work yet must be punished for that success?
Look throughout history to the places where government is in total control of what people are allowed to do, how much people got paid by taxing certain people more than others (except for those people who paid off the local magistrate and/or tax collector to ignore their "extra" earnings), and all you get is shared misery, not shared success. China may look successful, but they have entire cities with no people, a populace that is miserable and artifically held back not just by the single child policy, but by their government's refusal to upgrade their method of farming and cattle-care to be more like what we have here. Why is that? Because it keeps their people in the place that those in charge want them in, it keeps them more compliant, easier to control.
Look at Europe, where they tried to meld an entire country of varying cultures and economic situations (not much unlike our own states) and they melted down faster than we have. It's amazing, when you combine working countries with those whose currency is worth very little suddenly those low-value countries bomb because they can't maintain their previous sales volumes (or levels of tourism) at the increased cost to their customers. Bu then, that's what happens when you end up with bureaucrats making decisions in industries and fields they have no clue how to operate.
Alexis de Tocqueville, a French author, after visiting America said, published in his book Democracy in America, in 1835:
I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers; and it was not there; in her fertile fields and boundless prairies; and it was not there; in her rich mines and her vast world commerce; and it was not there. Not until I went to the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good; and if America ever ceases to be good; America will cease to be great.
While church and state should be separate, faith and freedom are just as inseparably connected as goodness and greatness. Those who attempt to separate a people from God, are most assuredly attempting to separate them from the source of their freedom.
For more than five thousand years, man has attempted to extract himself from the primordial slime pit, by grasping for another sure hand hold. There is only one anchor for the souls of men, only one true hand hold. Of a truth I perceive, that when Moses came down from the mountain he did not have the ten suggestions.
Many now dismiss the objections raised by people of faith, to corrupt laws, simply because they could be religiously based. Should we legalize lying, or stealing, or murder, or adultery simply because these are mentioned in the ten commandments? If we base our answer on current practices, we have already done so.1 Objections based on religion are just as valid, if not more so; than objections raised on any other basis.
Why sit we in a stupor? Why do we suffer the corrupt to rule? Can sweet water come from a bitter fountain, or bitter from the sweet spring? When the evil engage in good, is it to be seen of men? Is it because they must have public support if they are to retain what they really want: the power to continue a corrupt agenda? If the wolf has been forced to don sheep’s clothing, take no consolation. Note how well the wolf feeds!
Awake, my soul! No longer droop in despair. Rejoice, and give place no more for the enemy of the soul, who is the enemy of freedom. Do not slacken our strength because of the enemy. Rejoice, and proclaim freedom again through out the land. Be clean America. Cleanse the inner vessel, and then the outer. Let freedom ring again, and again. Arise America, lest freedom perish from the earth forever.
How is it that people were able to see this 200 years ago, yet religion is made to be some evil fringe thing these days? Why is it that so many people are not just envious of success, but outright hostile to the idea that other people are successful through their own hard work yet must be punished for that success?
Look throughout history to the places where government is in total control of what people are allowed to do, how much people got paid by taxing certain people more than others (except for those people who paid off the local magistrate and/or tax collector to ignore their "extra" earnings), and all you get is shared misery, not shared success. China may look successful, but they have entire cities with no people, a populace that is miserable and artifically held back not just by the single child policy, but by their government's refusal to upgrade their method of farming and cattle-care to be more like what we have here. Why is that? Because it keeps their people in the place that those in charge want them in, it keeps them more compliant, easier to control.
Look at Europe, where they tried to meld an entire country of varying cultures and economic situations (not much unlike our own states) and they melted down faster than we have. It's amazing, when you combine working countries with those whose currency is worth very little suddenly those low-value countries bomb because they can't maintain their previous sales volumes (or levels of tourism) at the increased cost to their customers. Bu then, that's what happens when you end up with bureaucrats making decisions in industries and fields they have no clue how to operate.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Gun Control Activists
Listening to gun control activists in Congress always gets me steamed, at the same time I get a huge laugh at their complete naivete. For starters, standard military magazine size is 15 rounds, there is no reason to restrict civilian magazine size to anything smaller. In the end, those expanded magazines were created because of restrictions against firearms that used easily changed mags.
That said, there is no reason at all to limit magazine size in the first place. The difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon is about half a second for anyone who actually practices. Given the time the Aurora shooter had prepared for his act, if he had spent a little more time training for quick mag changes the number of casualties would have been the same.
On top of that, they love to say they need more restrictions on illegal weapons. The problem with that is that in order to have a successful overthrow of the government if it becomes necessary (remember the Founders firmly believed that the citizenry should have the power to overthrow the government if it became a tyrannical one like that which they had just left) people need access to a wide range of weapons, they have to be able to effectively fight the State. It's what keeps the government from just making us a police state any time one party or the other gets total control of the government (yes, I really do "trust" both parties that much). Now, I'm not advocating for grenade launchers, tanks, etc for regular citizens, but banning "automatic weapons" is just plain silly.
Saying the cops don't have the same firearms is bull, they DO have automatic weapons, flashbangs, smokebombs, and such, they just restrict them to their SWAT teams. That is the choice of the municipality, guns are generally a one-time cost with minimal maintenance and upkeep if you actually purchase quality gear (not something the government is well-known for I'll grant you). Also, instead of trying to ban more and more weapons for non-military (thus preventing the cops from legally using them) they should open it up to citizens with reasonable background checks to confirm the person is not on medications to prevent stuff like bipolar, multiple personalities, and others that tend to cause instant anger and loss of control (ADD and ADHD do not fall into this category by the way, no matter what a bunch of lazy teachers say) along with ensuring they have no felonies involving domestic abuse, assault, or other crimes that prevent even military members from being issued firearms (there is a standard DOD form that lists all the disqualifiers) and problem solved. No civilian should have to meet more stringent requirements than the military.
In the end, it comes down to one thing; CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. I'll keep repeating myself until people get it.
That said, there is no reason at all to limit magazine size in the first place. The difference between a loaded and unloaded weapon is about half a second for anyone who actually practices. Given the time the Aurora shooter had prepared for his act, if he had spent a little more time training for quick mag changes the number of casualties would have been the same.
On top of that, they love to say they need more restrictions on illegal weapons. The problem with that is that in order to have a successful overthrow of the government if it becomes necessary (remember the Founders firmly believed that the citizenry should have the power to overthrow the government if it became a tyrannical one like that which they had just left) people need access to a wide range of weapons, they have to be able to effectively fight the State. It's what keeps the government from just making us a police state any time one party or the other gets total control of the government (yes, I really do "trust" both parties that much). Now, I'm not advocating for grenade launchers, tanks, etc for regular citizens, but banning "automatic weapons" is just plain silly.
Saying the cops don't have the same firearms is bull, they DO have automatic weapons, flashbangs, smokebombs, and such, they just restrict them to their SWAT teams. That is the choice of the municipality, guns are generally a one-time cost with minimal maintenance and upkeep if you actually purchase quality gear (not something the government is well-known for I'll grant you). Also, instead of trying to ban more and more weapons for non-military (thus preventing the cops from legally using them) they should open it up to citizens with reasonable background checks to confirm the person is not on medications to prevent stuff like bipolar, multiple personalities, and others that tend to cause instant anger and loss of control (ADD and ADHD do not fall into this category by the way, no matter what a bunch of lazy teachers say) along with ensuring they have no felonies involving domestic abuse, assault, or other crimes that prevent even military members from being issued firearms (there is a standard DOD form that lists all the disqualifiers) and problem solved. No civilian should have to meet more stringent requirements than the military.
In the end, it comes down to one thing; CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW. I'll keep repeating myself until people get it.
Nanny State Tuesdays
Decided I liked being able to just post everything I came across instead of having to save a few items for the Tuesdays, so it's back to business as usual.
Don't Worry About Russia...
It's not like the U.S. showing weakness by downsizing our military and kowtowing to old enemies has had any negative effect with countries that have consistently shown an aggressive military posture against us. This is probably nothing...
Idiots in Washington must be looking for another Bay of Pigs incident. Between the Russians expanding their naval bases (Anyone notice they have had one in Syria forever?) and China expanding the area they considering their national waters (historically only 12 miles off your coast for the entire world) all the way down to the Phillipines and denying Indian ships entry into Vietnamese ports, you'd think our leaders up top would get the hint.
Idiots in Washington must be looking for another Bay of Pigs incident. Between the Russians expanding their naval bases (Anyone notice they have had one in Syria forever?) and China expanding the area they considering their national waters (historically only 12 miles off your coast for the entire world) all the way down to the Phillipines and denying Indian ships entry into Vietnamese ports, you'd think our leaders up top would get the hint.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Anti-Gun Twits, Check Your Facts
In this article, Bloomberg said if the laws aren’t changed, 48,000 people in this country will be killed by guns during the next presidential term.
Ok, let's start with the simple fact that more people die from car accidents every year than firearms. In the last 5 years there have been more than 35,000 deaths per year on average (2006/7 actually broke 40k).
Of the gun-related deaths on a yearly basis (about 30k on average), only 40% of them are homicides. Over 50% of gun-related deaths each year are suicides. Those people would have found another way. That leaves only around 3000 deaths each year to accidents, so we add those to the 40% for homicides and we get around 16k deaths per year by guns that were not self-inflicted. That is less than half the yearly deaths by car, but you don't see them screaming for less cars.
Heck, deaths in automobiles have been climbing as the number of small cars on the road has increased. Why is that? Because those things are death traps! Congratulations, you have a nice little smart car, you're saving the environment... when you or someone else screws up, you're also far more likely to end up dead or seriously injured. Hope you can afford the increased cost of insurance thanks to Obamacare.
On the flip side, as gun ownership goes up, crime rates go down. There are over 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians every year, 92% of them are resolved without firing the weapon (the criminal either runs or gives up). On the other side, out of yearly crime rates only 1 million involve firearms, less than half the number of DGUs. The "assault weapon" category of guns only account for around 1% of total gun crimes. I would like to remind everyone that following Australia's ban on firearms their crime rate has been increasing, whereas in D.C. following the repeal of the gun ban their crime rate has been going down. Some people will point at the increased number of "homicides," but they ignore that even self-defense gets counted in police records(justifiable homicide).
Most important of all, let us not forget... CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! If you make guns illegal or harder to acquire, the only people that will be negatively affected is law-abiding citizens.
Another fact; GUN FREE ZONES MAKE GREAT TARGETS! If you are intent on killing lots of people, all you have to do is look for the nearest place that doesn't allow firearms and you now have a target rich environment that is unlikely to be able to defend themselves. In most cases people will not try to counter someone with a firearm unless they are really close. The instinct for survival makes people want to stay hidden or run away, especially when the likelihood of death is greater.
According to the FBI violent crime in 2010 decreased by 6%, and property crime decreased by 2.9%. That'd be pretty consistent with increased gun sales per their national instant check system which puts the gun sales increase between 2009 and 2010 at around 13%.
Meanwhile you have places like Chicago, where handguns were illegal for the longest time and they are one of the deadliest places on Earth. Might be a reason for that...
Ok, let's start with the simple fact that more people die from car accidents every year than firearms. In the last 5 years there have been more than 35,000 deaths per year on average (2006/7 actually broke 40k).
Of the gun-related deaths on a yearly basis (about 30k on average), only 40% of them are homicides. Over 50% of gun-related deaths each year are suicides. Those people would have found another way. That leaves only around 3000 deaths each year to accidents, so we add those to the 40% for homicides and we get around 16k deaths per year by guns that were not self-inflicted. That is less than half the yearly deaths by car, but you don't see them screaming for less cars.
Heck, deaths in automobiles have been climbing as the number of small cars on the road has increased. Why is that? Because those things are death traps! Congratulations, you have a nice little smart car, you're saving the environment... when you or someone else screws up, you're also far more likely to end up dead or seriously injured. Hope you can afford the increased cost of insurance thanks to Obamacare.
On the flip side, as gun ownership goes up, crime rates go down. There are over 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians every year, 92% of them are resolved without firing the weapon (the criminal either runs or gives up). On the other side, out of yearly crime rates only 1 million involve firearms, less than half the number of DGUs. The "assault weapon" category of guns only account for around 1% of total gun crimes. I would like to remind everyone that following Australia's ban on firearms their crime rate has been increasing, whereas in D.C. following the repeal of the gun ban their crime rate has been going down. Some people will point at the increased number of "homicides," but they ignore that even self-defense gets counted in police records(justifiable homicide).
Most important of all, let us not forget... CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! If you make guns illegal or harder to acquire, the only people that will be negatively affected is law-abiding citizens.
Another fact; GUN FREE ZONES MAKE GREAT TARGETS! If you are intent on killing lots of people, all you have to do is look for the nearest place that doesn't allow firearms and you now have a target rich environment that is unlikely to be able to defend themselves. In most cases people will not try to counter someone with a firearm unless they are really close. The instinct for survival makes people want to stay hidden or run away, especially when the likelihood of death is greater.
According to the FBI violent crime in 2010 decreased by 6%, and property crime decreased by 2.9%. That'd be pretty consistent with increased gun sales per their national instant check system which puts the gun sales increase between 2009 and 2010 at around 13%.
Meanwhile you have places like Chicago, where handguns were illegal for the longest time and they are one of the deadliest places on Earth. Might be a reason for that...
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A Little Truth On Japanese Gun Control
Interesting post over on SuburbanBanshee today that gives a bit of background information for how Japan managed to be (mostly) gun-free. Information a lot of people who point to Japan for gun control are probably completely clueless about.
Friday, July 20, 2012
John McCain, You're An Idiot
"Senator" John McCain has just displayed his complete lack of understand when it comes to how infiltration and spy games are played. By discounting Michele Bachmann's letter requesting an investigation of those with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, or related to people with such ties, you're playing right in the hands of the enemy. It may well be that Huma Abedin is completely blameless, but the fact that she works for Secretary Clinton and has been dedicated to her job and a hard worker does not remove the fact that she might be a spy.
Given the FACT that the Muslim Brotherhood has been open for decades in its goal to infiltrate and destroy the West from within, and the FACT that Huma's father was an open member of the organization, and the FACT that her mother is an open member of the organization, I want to know how the heck she got a clearance in the first place! When having too much debt can get your clearance revoked, or denied outright during an initial investigation, specifically because they are worried of the member being easily influenced by an outside organization purchasing that debt an dusing it against you; what does it say when the person applying for a clearance is the daughter of not one, but TWO people openly members of a terrorist organization?
If you have a clearance and you want to get married to a foreign national you must submit information to the various investigative agencies on your spouse-to-be and at the minimum her immediate family. This is so they can look into them. My suspicion is that what happened with Huma was due to this investigation being hand-waved through the system because of her attachment to then Senator Clinton as her aide. As an aide to a senator she wouldn't have needed the clearance, so when Clinton was selected for Sec of State she brought Huma along with her and probably did her usual pushy Hillary routine to get Huma's clearance approved. After all, in the end it comes to the Dept of State and the DoJ to approve those if they don't use an outside agency (which is why the military does use an outside unaffected agency, several in fact).
Bachmann sent her request for an investigation into the possibility of Muslim Brotherhood operatives in our government to a Muslim member of Congress. That is not the act of an Islamophobe, as she has been labeled, it is the act of someone looking to get to the truth of the matter. If she was an Islamophobe she'd have gone to someone else over this.
That's the thing about spies, they tend to be very good at what they do, or they don't get anywhere except possibly 6 feet under. If Huma Abedin is guilt-free, fine, but don't discount her just because she has worked with Hillary for so long. All that does is show her dedication, the question is, to what cause?
*****Additional Note*****
For those who would discount Huma's connection because she was married to a Jew (Weiner's mother wasn't Jewish, so by their own tradition he is not a Jew by the way), or the fact she doesn't run around in a hijab you might want to read the Quran (or Koran, however it's spelled in English this week). It's pretty clear that any subterfuge is allowed when dealing with the non-believers, all sins are forgiven if the cause is just. The cause being the advancement of Islam. They can lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc to their hearts content, so long as the person isn't a follower of Islam, and many offshoots of that religion go even further to include those not part of their particular branch of Islam.
Just thought of something else too... if Huma's mother is so moderate, how come she is part of the IICWC? The same organization that posted on their website the following:
Given the FACT that the Muslim Brotherhood has been open for decades in its goal to infiltrate and destroy the West from within, and the FACT that Huma's father was an open member of the organization, and the FACT that her mother is an open member of the organization, I want to know how the heck she got a clearance in the first place! When having too much debt can get your clearance revoked, or denied outright during an initial investigation, specifically because they are worried of the member being easily influenced by an outside organization purchasing that debt an dusing it against you; what does it say when the person applying for a clearance is the daughter of not one, but TWO people openly members of a terrorist organization?
If you have a clearance and you want to get married to a foreign national you must submit information to the various investigative agencies on your spouse-to-be and at the minimum her immediate family. This is so they can look into them. My suspicion is that what happened with Huma was due to this investigation being hand-waved through the system because of her attachment to then Senator Clinton as her aide. As an aide to a senator she wouldn't have needed the clearance, so when Clinton was selected for Sec of State she brought Huma along with her and probably did her usual pushy Hillary routine to get Huma's clearance approved. After all, in the end it comes to the Dept of State and the DoJ to approve those if they don't use an outside agency (which is why the military does use an outside unaffected agency, several in fact).
Bachmann sent her request for an investigation into the possibility of Muslim Brotherhood operatives in our government to a Muslim member of Congress. That is not the act of an Islamophobe, as she has been labeled, it is the act of someone looking to get to the truth of the matter. If she was an Islamophobe she'd have gone to someone else over this.
That's the thing about spies, they tend to be very good at what they do, or they don't get anywhere except possibly 6 feet under. If Huma Abedin is guilt-free, fine, but don't discount her just because she has worked with Hillary for so long. All that does is show her dedication, the question is, to what cause?
*****Additional Note*****
For those who would discount Huma's connection because she was married to a Jew (Weiner's mother wasn't Jewish, so by their own tradition he is not a Jew by the way), or the fact she doesn't run around in a hijab you might want to read the Quran (or Koran, however it's spelled in English this week). It's pretty clear that any subterfuge is allowed when dealing with the non-believers, all sins are forgiven if the cause is just. The cause being the advancement of Islam. They can lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc to their hearts content, so long as the person isn't a follower of Islam, and many offshoots of that religion go even further to include those not part of their particular branch of Islam.
Just thought of something else too... if Huma's mother is so moderate, how come she is part of the IICWC? The same organization that posted on their website the following:
- The IICWC position that the current laws criminalizing female genital mutilation be revoked.
- The IICWC’s position demanding that the laws forbidding child marriage below the age of eighteen be revoked. No new minimum marriage age was given; the group stated that the marriage standard depends on the financial and mental ability and not dependent on a specific age.
- The IICWC’s positions, as reported, demanding that the laws forbidding marital rape be revoked and that polygamy is a right for men.
- The IICWC’s position that a health check-up before marriage be revoked since it is against religion and should not be part of the marriage contract.
- The IICWC’s position that criminal responsibility triggering at age 18 be reduced to age 15. (Probably the only thing I'll ever agree with them on)
- The IICWC’s position revokes the right of a woman to register her newborn by herself for a birth certificate because Sharia states that a child’s lineage is given strictly to the father and his paternal line. The child belongs to the father even if it was the product of adultery.
- The IICWC’s position revokes the criminalization of physical and mental abuse of parents against children, so long as the punishment does not cause a permanent deformity or the beating is too extreme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)