Freedom and Liberty
Don’t expect this sort of treatment should Queen Hillary ever get the nomination. Expect every one of the GOP candidates to be treated like this if they’re even somewhat viable. The Washington Post takes Bernie to the whipping post:
Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want.
He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.
And that’s just a sample. They pretty much trash the low information, economically illiterate’s dream candidate. Bernie’s the “free stuff” guy, yet even he has to admit that someone has to pay for his “free stuff”. Of course those who support him stop listening right after “free”.
But that’s really not the point. Hillary is sinking in the polls. The presumptive favorite is in a tight race in the first two primary states. Bernie, despite the fact that he’s clueless, is almost even with the chosen one of the big time Washington media establishment. You know, the one’s with Democrats with bylines? Way to close for comfort. And Clinton isn’t helping. In fact, it seems she’s beginning to crack a little bit. Additionally, she’s wearing thin with the voters who are just as tired of the circus she was a ringmaster in as they are of the Bush dynasty. And all these reminders of her past residence in the big house is beginning to make inroads and erode her support. Then there’s that email thingie.
So up steps the editorial board of the WaPo to take a few well aimed pot shots at her closest competitor. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily disagree with anything they say about Bernie. I just question the timing and intent.
That said, I loved this chaser they included near the end:
Mr. Sanders tops off his narrative with a deus ex machina: He assures Democrats concerned about the political obstacles in the way of his agenda that he will lead a “political revolution” that will help him clear the capital of corruption and influence-peddling. This self-regarding analysis implies a national consensus favoring his agenda when there is none and ignores the many legitimate checks and balances in the political system that he cannot wish away.
You can’t make this stuff up and it again points out something that I’ve wondered about for some time …. do these publications actually have editors?
Again, it’s the Atlantic. The writer is David Graham. His problem? Well, you see, various corporations are providing the citizens of Flint, MI … you know, the town where the government managed to make the drinking water undrinkable … free water.
That these firms are stepping up to deliver water is good news for Flint’s schools and citizens in the immediate term. But a one-time infusion of gallons of fresh water doesn’t do much to address the systemic failures of government that led to the water crisis in the first place. By making four for-profit corporations into a de facto public utility, the gift might actually risk making things worse in the long run.
Ye gods. I must be missing something Mr. Graham. Why is this bad again?
Walmart, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and Pepsi aren’t just charitable organizations that might have their own ideologies. They’re for-profit companies. And by providing water to the public schools for the remainder of the year, the four companies have effectively supplanted the local water authorities and made themselves an indispensable public utility, but without any amount of public regulation or local accountability. Many people in Flint may want government to work better, but with sufficient donations, they may find that the private sector has supplanted many of government’s functions altogether.
So, wait, they fill in where government has utterly failed and you’re worried that the citizens may say, “wow, these guys are better than government” or something? Well, if they’re providing water to schools for the remainder of the year they already are, aren’t they? So, again, what’s the problem sir?
Oh, I bet I know … privatization. Don’t want any privatization now, do we? Lord help us if the citizens of Flint should find out that nasty “for profit corporations” might be able to deliver a basic commodity like water better than government, huh? And especially if they can do it cheaper as well!
Let’s remind Mr. Graham of something he wrote prefacing the whole “OMG, for profit corporations might be seen in a positive light” nonsense:
The Flint water crisis is above all a human tragedy: The effects of lead exposure on development can be lifelong and irreversible. But it is also a fundamental failure of government. At all levels, government failed to protect citizens.
Not only did it fail to protect its citizens, it failed spectacularly in the delivery of a very basic “every-city-does-it” sort of duty – potable water. Government has always claimed that only it can reliably deliver such a commodity safely.
Yeah, well Flint disagrees. And it should be clear to Mr. Graham that despite “public regulation” and “local accountability”, that government failure occurred.
Now what, sir?! Any bets on who will be held accountable? In government, I mean.
Yeah, me neither.
Mostly because of its liberty stifling oppression:
California Attorney General Kamala Harris has joined New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in trying to prosecute ExxonMobil for supposedly lying to its shareholders and the public about climate change, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported that Harris is investigating what ExxonMobil “knew about global warming and what the company told investors.”
Neither Harris nor Schneiderman recognizes the outrageousness of what they are doing—which amounts censoring or restricting speech and debate on what is a contentious scientific theory. In fact, they want not just to stop anyone who questions the global warming theory from being able to speak; they want to punish them with possible civil sanctions or even criminal penalties. As I said before about Schneiderman, Harris needs a remedial lesson in the First Amendment.
Perhaps we should investigate what Harris “knows” about global warming or climate change, which Harris (and Schneiderman) treats as if it is a proven, unassailable, incontrovertible fact. However, as the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris has pointed out, “flaws discovered in the scientific assessment of climate change have shown that the scientific consensus is not as settled as the public had been led to believe.”
In fact, what Harris and Schneiderman are doing is treating the “contentious scientific theory” as a proven fact. It isn’t even close to being proven and instead a very believable assembly of facts to the contrary has made the ‘theory’ seem more like a religion than a reality. John Cleese … John Cleese for heaven sake … said it best:
So why is government so insistent that the world is heating up? Why does it show this bias … and bias it is. Roy Spencer notes:
I’m not claiming our satellite dataset is necessarily the best global temperature dataset in terms of trends, even though I currently suspect it is closer to being accurate than the surface record — that will be for history to decide. The divergence in surface and satellite trends remains a mystery, and cannot (in my opinion) continue indefinitely if both happen to be largely correct.
But since the satellites generally agree with (1) radiosondes and (2) most global reanalysis datasets (which use all observations radiosondes, surface temperatures, commercial aircraft, satellites, etc. everything except the kitchen sink), I think the fact that NOAA-NASA essentially ignores it reveals an institutional bias that the public who pays the bills is becoming increasingly aware of.
Because there are large … very large … wads of taxpayers money at stake. There is the UN’s chance to redistribute the wealth, a dream the Third-World Debating Club has harbored for decades. So alarmism remains the way in which governments and the UN try to peddle their product.
And, as Dr. Spencer says, the public, who pays the bills, “is becoming increasingly aware of” the bias and the fact that the alarmists have yet to prove their point, to wit:
Thermometers Still Disagree with Models …that even if 2015 is the warmest on record, and NOAA has exactly the right answer, it is still well below the average forecast of the IPCC’s climate models, and something very close to that average forms the basis for global warming policy. In other words, even if every successive year is a new record, it matters quite a lot just how much warming we are talking about.
Oh, and about that 2015 being the warmest year on record, again, the data doesn’t support the claim:
We now have the official NOAA-NASA report that 2015 was the warmest year by far in the surface thermometer record. John and I predicted this would be the case fully 7 months ago, when we called 2015 as the winner.
Oh my … and El Nino was kickin’ this past year, wasn’t it? In fact, per Spencer “El Nino …that a goodly portion of the record warmth in 2015 was naturally induced, just as it was in previous record warm years.” Or said another way, the warmth was due to a weather event, not global warming.
But of course, the incurious press ran with the headline of the “warmest year evah!” and now governments of California and New York are on record of considering certain speech which doesn’t support the government line to be punishable under the law.
So what do we have going on in the two states? Something we thought was dead and buried:
These investigations are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those who he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Besides sending them a copy of the Constitution so they can review the First Amendment, residents of both New York and California might also want to include a copy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.
And that’s precisely the problem here. This, to us old timers, is precisely how the Soviet Union (and China) operated. Of course it made no difference in the reality of science. What is, is. But it certainly made a difference in the lives of those who were persecuted by the state because they disagreed with the State’s version of science.
The bottom line is that the state attorneys general of New York and California are not acting like level-headed, objective prosecutors interested in the fair and dispassionate administration of justice. They are instead acting like Grand Inquisitors who must stamp out any heresy that doubts the legitimacy of the climate change religion. They are treating an unproven scientific theory as if it is a creed than cannot be questioned, probed, examined, or doubted.
Indeed. Welcome to the USSA.
We’ve covered the SJWs and their protests on various of the universities and colleges in this country to some extent. But while wandering through some links I came upon an Atlantic article that was very sympathetic to the SJW cause, especially that of racism – institutional racism – as it were. And I found this quote below to be a fascinating look into the mind of an SJW without a clue:
During a protest at Princeton last semester, students confronted university President Christopher Eisgruber, explaining the emotional reasons behind their demand that the school remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from university buildings. A female protester was shown in a video saying:
I don’t think [racism] is just one or two evils. I don’t think it’s just a flaw, and I don’t think that you as a white person understand what it’s like to walk past a building or to be studying in a school or to have it on your diploma from a school that was built on the backs of and by your people. I don’t want to see that. I do not want to sit in Wilcox hall and enjoy my meal and look at Woodrow Wilson, who would not have wanted me here.
Here you see a very immature individual who has chosen to have an emotional response predicated on a negative feeling to a silly premise. The premise? Woodrow Wilson was a racist and wouldn’t want her there, therefore she’s uncomfortable and it is the worlds duty to assuage that uncomfortable feeling.
Really? See, if I were her, I’d approach that in a completely different way. I’d be grinning at the image of Wilson saying to myself, “see, you racist old goat, I’m here! I was invited to be here! You wouldn’t have wanted me here but I am here! Your kind no longer holds sway! See how far we’ve come since your backward and retarded beliefs were predominant! I’m going to sit here everyday and enjoy eating lunch in front of your image!”
But if she had approached it that way, she couldn’t have thrown the little pity party for herself, gotten herself labeled a “victim (with special status)” or found some lefty journalist with a platform to sympathetically, if not unthinkingly, perpetuate this nonsense.
And, as we’ve pointed out endlessly, giving credence and support to this sort of pre-teen emotionalism, especially in college, does nothing to prepare these tender young flowers for the harsh realities outside of University.
There’s also a problem of historical memory at work here. None of those attending college today lived with or suffered the real institutional racism their grandparents suffered and overcame. None of them realize that to that generation, both black and white, who fought for civil rights, the end of Jim Crow and equality for all people, their whining about a dead man’s beliefs – beliefs which don’t affect them in the least – seem exactly as I’ve characterized them … childish and immature.
Just as interestingly is their “solution”. Voluntary segregation. What their grandparents fought to dismantle, they want to reassemble. They also want to restrict speech to that of which they approve, which is again something that their grandparents fought against.
One more bit of irony here is the fact that Woodrow Wilson was the progressive’s progressive. He was a part of the party of Hillary Clinton … and Bull Conner. But our friendly Journo nor the spoiled special snowflake seem to be aware of that (or are studiously ignoring it).
Funny, sad stuff, this …
Another SOTU, another trip to Fantasy Land. I saw it all summed up in one wag’s sentence: “Obama has put Joe Biden in charge of finding a cure for cancer.”
There were some blatant lies and some pure nonsense in the mix last night. One that stood out to me was this:
I told you earlier all the talk of America’s economic decline is political hot air. Well, so is all the rhetoric you hear about our enemies getting stronger and America getting weaker. The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It’s not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined. Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world.
No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin. Surveys show our standing around the world is higher than when I was elected to this office, and when it comes to every important international issue, people of the world do not look to Beijing or Moscow to lead — they call us.
Surveys? Really? That’s his “source” of information.
I wonder if the surveys answered this question posed by David French.
Yet if America is the world’s most powerful nation, why are so many of our worst enemies far stronger and more dangerous than when Obama took office?
Probably not. In fact, much like Hitler’s “paper divisions” weren’t worth the paper they appeared on, I’d guess these surveys are about as worthless.
Claudia Rosett does a yoeman’s job of setting the record straight:
Here’s the real State of the Union, which is inextricably linked to the increasingly alarming state of the world: It is open season on America.
Not that America is by any stretch a lone target. Terrorist slaughter has become a staple of the world news. On the same Tuesday that just saw American sailors seized by Iran, the news was filled earlier in the day with accounts of a terrorist bombing in the historic center of Istanbul (which the State Department at least labeled “terrorist,” as opposed to “workplace violence”). ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban and a host of their kindred organizations are bedeviling the civilized world.
And then there are the sovereign-state behemoths: an expansionist China and an aggressive Russia, pushing the boundaries and arming for war — as the U.S. guts its military and turns over its resources to a domestic bureaucracy that is busy regulating America’s old free markets and resulting economic muscle into fading memory.
Obama’s presidency began in 2009 with apologies for America, a “reset” with Russia, a bow in Cairo and an outstretched hand to Iran — promising that this would boost America’s standing and security, and pave the way to more peaceful world. After seven years of American retreat, appeasement, vanishing red lines, diplomatic farce and an implausible nuclear deal with Iran, the clear message to every opportunist on the planet is: grab what you can.
But, as this graphic illustrates, Mr. Obama resides down another road the rest of us can’t afford to live on.
It is, as usual, all about the narrative and before he ever stepped to the podium, we knew that. We knew we’d hear the narrative even when it is so obviously fantasy. Reality is and has been banished from this administration as being unfriendly if not down right hostile to the narrative.
Are we the most powerful nation on earth? Yes, I think so … but that was so before Mr. Obama. I see it as much less of a fact now. The most powerful military in the world? Yes, but again, in decline. And I’m sorry, but there is no nation that I know of that is calling the US for help and certainly not to “lead”. Not with this yahoo in the Oval Office. In fact, as Rosett points out, two very powerful nations are pushing the envelope even as we speak and our answer, thus far has been the chirping of crickets. China has decided to take over the South China sea and has established its first military base in Africa. What have we done or said about that? Nothing.
It’s nice to be considered the most powerful nation on earth with the most powerful military. But it means nothing if that power isn’t used to advance the interests of your nation and its citizens or those of your allies. That doesn’t mean war, it usually means deterrence – maintaining the peace or the status quo in some instances. And it requires leadership, something we’ve been without for the last 7 plus years. Its about drawing limits and enforcing them. We have refused to do either these past 7 years.
The world knows that. That’s why little pop-gun states like Iran feel they can pretty much do what they want without fear of all that power we have. And that means we really don’t have any power at all. That’s been proven any number of times over the years with red lines crossed and the obvious refusal to recognize or meaningfully engage ISIS. At home the refusal to even say “radical Islam” has diminished the stature of this administration domestically as well.
We’re leaderless in a perilous world. Yes, we’re powerful – potentially. But without resolution and the threat of meaningful action that potential means absolutely nothing … except in the narrative.
I’m more than a little bemused by the current self-inflicted problem Europe is experiencing and the US seems more the willing to allow to happen here, given that the current administration pretty much shares the ideals under which Europe is foundering. I certainly understand the wish to aid people displaced by wars. But since when did that mean committing to the mass immigration of a religious culture that has, demonstrably, refused to assimilate into the dominant culture of the countries into which they’re being imported (this isn’t a new phenomenon for Europe … it’s been going on for decades). How does Europe, which has existent large populations of unassimilated migrants of the same religious culture assume this will somehow be different?
Of course, we’re talking about Islam. Well, we’re talking about it. As Andrew McCarthy points out, those in favor of welcoming this mass importation are talking about “fantasy Islam”. This New Year’s Eve, reality slapped fantasy Islam and its adherents in the chops:
Nearly 200 women have filed criminal complaints in Cologne, the vast majority charging all manner of sexual assault. There have been few arrests, though, and nearly none involving sex crimes. The Muslim men used a tactic that has escaped the notice of fantasy Islam devotees but is well known to those of us who’ve followed the scant reports on the rape jihad as it has proceeded from Tahrir Square to Malmö to Rotherham: A group of men encircles the targeted woman or girl, trapping her while walling off police and other would-be rescuers. Knowing they are a protected class, the Muslim men have no fear of the cops — “You can’t do anything to me,” and “Mrs. Merkel invited me here,” are just some of the reported taunts. By the time “help” reaches one victim, the assailants have moved on to the next.
But, but … that’s not supposed to happen. Not in fantasy Islam which is all about peace and coexistence. In fact, those that believe that nonsense are all about naiveté and willful ignorance. And there is a building backlash to this absurd policy:
A poll published by the Sunday edition of the influential tabloid Bild showed 49% of Germans feared a repeat of the Cologne events in their hometowns. Similar New Year’s Eve assaults were reported on a smaller scale in the cities of Hamburg and Stuttgart.
Authorities, who have described the violence in Cologne as unprecedented in the country, have also said that most potential suspects had applied for asylum in Germany or were in the country illegally. Cologne’s police chief was forced out Friday amid criticism over the police’s failure to prevent the attacks and its apparent hesitation to acknowledge that the attackers may have been asylum applicants. The police chief, Wolfgang Albers, denied trying to cover up the backgrounds of suspected attackers.
The attacks have also provoked an emotional debate in Germany on how to deal with sexual violence. Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker drew heavy criticism after saying that women should keep an arm’s length distance from men in situations that could escalate. She later apologized, saying she didn’t mean to set a code of conduct for women and that the attackers were the ones responsible in cases of sexual violence.
Since the New Year’s eve attacks in numerous cities in Europe, the narrative that has been spun by the backers of this mass immigration has been reduced to tatters. There’s even evidence other incidents have been essentially covered up. In Sweden, for example, a major newspaper stands accused of no failing to report such problems, but essentially refusing to do so.
And the media in the US seems just as complicit in trying to deny what happened on NYE was anything to do with refugees or, by inference, Islam:
“It was not clear,” the New York Times opaquely explains, “that any of the men involved were among those who arrived in Germany over the past year from conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
While the NYT tacitly agrees that the incidents happened, in this land of #allwomenshouldbebelieved, it apparently has difficulty believing the descriptions of the men those 200 assaulted women identified because of what that would mean in terms of identifying their religion. One thing that seems to be clear, however … it wasn’t a mob of German (or other) European males.
So the fellow travelers invested in fantasy Islam continue to refuse reality and are reduced to shouting “Islamaphobia” at anyone who disagrees.
The situation here isn’t much different. I understand Obama will have a Syrian refugee sitting in the balcony for his (thankfully) last State of the Union speech. It is obviously a symbolic presence meant to assure us that there’s nothing to fear by importing fighting age men from an Islamic country into this nation. Because, you know, government is on the job and has this rigorous vetting process before any refugees are allowed in the country. You have nothing to fear.
Two men born in Iraq who came to the U.S. as refugees had court dates in California and Texas Friday on terror-related charges, as investigators say one of the men wrote that he wanted to travel to Syria because he was “eager to see blood.”
How did that happen? One assumes those two were also a product of that “rigorous vetting process”. How many more like them are still at large?
As for those who might come here from Syria, guess who is handling their screening?
The recent terrorism-related arrests of two refugees from the Middle East again showed the national security risks associated with the present refugee screening process. A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies analyzes this refugee resettlement screening process and the large role played by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the entity entrusted with the entire pre-screening process for Syrian refugees being considered for resettlement in the United States.
The UNHCR screens refugees and then presents the U.S. with potential resettlement cases; 22,427 Syrian refugee cases have been submitted. The selecting, pre-screening, and referring refugees for resettlement, as well as the humanitarian care of the well over four million Syrian refugees, has been accomplished with what amounts to one staff member for 2, 862 refugees. The selection process uses the following guidelines: “The mere absence of information, or one’s inability to find information that supports an applicant’s claim, should not in itself justify a negative eligibility decision.” The only requirement for applicants’ statements is that they “must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.”
Yes, friends, that same entity whose “peacekeeping” troops are so well known for rape. I’m sure that gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling, no?
So why is it that Europe’s leadership and media continue to invest themselves in fantasy Islam? Here’s one explanation. Remember when the Catholic church’s sex scandal broke? Remember how abysmally the church handled it? Remember how badly it all went for the Church?
Instead like the church for political, economic or cultural reasons the countries of Europe hung back and the communities became isolated and unassimilated. And when the cultural effect went beyond the results have been devastating, In Rotherham, in Birmingham, in Cologne, in Oslo in Paris and in literally thousands of other places the authorities have decided to go all in with a comfortable lie. They have chosen to pretend that millions of unassimilated muslims in the west are not a problem, they have chosen to ignore the no go zones, the violence, the murder of their citizen and even the rape of their women and children for the sake of proclaiming that none of these things have anything to do with Islam, its practice or its culture.
Like the church scandal the driving force here is fear and a desire to put off a confrontation that this big lie is making more a more likely. And like the church scandal the longer the west remains in denial the greater the cost of solving the problem
So again, the questions – reasonable questions – arise concerning these refugees. Why must they come here (why can’t they be resettled in cultures in the area they come from which are compatible with theirs?)? And if they come here, shouldn’t they assimilate instead of segregate and demand their own culture be both tolerated and implemented? How does one implement cultural demands that require their own brand of law be superior to ours? Or that women essentially be treated as chattel? How many stonings, rapes, honor killings and acid attacks would we be willing to endure in the name of tolerance?
Victor Davis Hanson gives us 4 points necessary for successful immigration, the model for the past in the US. They are a key to why, unlike Europe, America has been successful with its immigration over the centuries. While the left scoffs at the idea of a “melting pot” and even warns that using the term is a “micro aggression”, Europe’s “salad bowl” proves their alternative to be … another fantasy. Here’s Hanson:
One, immigrants came legally. Breaking the law was a lousy way to start American residency. How can an immigrant continue to respect and follow his adopted country’s legal system when his first act as an American resident is to mock federal law?
Two, immigration was blind and diverse. It did not favor one particular group over another. The more diverse the immigrant blocs, the less likely they were to form lasting separate communities. There were, of course, mass influxes of immigrants in the past, but they were quite diverse: gobs of Germans, hordes of Irish, masses of Italians and Sicilians, huge influxes of Poles and Jews, lots of Japanese and Chinese, large arrivals of Mexicans. But note how diverse and varied were the immigrants’ places of origin and how destined they were to bump into each other upon arrival. Each group was wary of the other trying to use immigration as a crass tool to boost their own political fortunes by bringing in more kin than their rivals.
Three, immigrants usually arrived in manageable numbers; mass arrivals were usually periodic and episodic, not continuous and institutionalized. Only that way could the melting pot absorb newcomers and avoid the tribalism and factionalism that had always plagued so many prior failed multi-ethnic national experiments abroad. To avoid the fate of Austria-Hungary or Yugoslavia, immigrants—geographically, politically, culturally—by needs were soon intermixed and intermingled.
Four, both hosts and immigrants insisted on rapid Americanization. Immigrants learned English, followed all the laws of their host, and assumed America was good without having to be perfect. Otherwise they would have stayed home.
Fantasy, willful ignorance and an abject refusal to confront evil lead to the mess Europe now finds itself facing. Reality, as usual, doesn’t deal nicely with those who refuse to recognize it. The threat to our country comes from those who believe in a culture and religion that, as they would have it implemented, is incompatible with Western ideals. They have no business here.
Hopefully we won’t duplicate the stupidity with which Europe has so naively committed itself. There is nothing wrong with slowing things down and ensuring we aren’t allowing those who don’t want to or won’t assimilate into our country. We don’t need or want those who are like the two just arrested in California and Texas. And, if that is “Islamaphobia”, then so be it. I’ll live with the tag.
Mr. Obama shed a tear yesterday as he told us why he was going to bypass Congress and enact gun control (at least a small part of it) by executive order. Speaking of “gun violence” instead of violence in general, he said:
“We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom,” Obama said.
That’s simply poppycock. We don’t have to like it but freedom, as has been said any thousands of times, is not free. Nor is it pretty or neat. Nor are there those who don’t suffer because of it. It always has a cost – a price. But the alternative, what most Democrats seem to want, is the state deciding everything you can or cannot do, everything you can or cannot own. That alternative is unacceptable to those who value freedom and are willing to suffer the cost.
No one is in favor of “carnage”. But it isn’t the guns which cause the violence, sir. Figure it out please. When you tell me that abortion instruments are what kill about a million unborn human beings in the US each year, perhaps I’ll at least consider your thinking to be somewhat consistent. And of course, that means cars and pools and rope, well you name it, also need to be controlled even more because the “carnage” they cause rivals anything to do with that involving guns.
Gee, given the numbers, perhaps he ought to be going after Planned Parenthood instead of demonizing the NRA.
Oh, and this was rich:
“No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this. I get it,” he said. “But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Apparently he thinks he knows the Constitution, but if true, he’d know it doesn’t allow aristocracy, and certainly it doesn’t allow kings. Laws are passed through Congress and if the President doesn’t have the heft or gravitas or whatever he needs to see it done, then it doesn’t get done. Obama doesn’t have any of that. And the people have been quite clear that they don’t consider guns or gun control to be much of an issue. In fact, it barely registers, no pun intended. So instead he does “work arounds” with executive orders. Tell us again about how you know the Constitution, please?
But let’s get to the nuts and bolts of what went on yesterday, shall we? It is about, get ready for it, ideology:
Despite professing an unflinching commitment to curbing gun violence, Obama and Biden have been thwarted by Congress and what Obama calls a lack of national will to change the way Americans think about guns.
Got it. It’s about changing the way you think about guns. Its about making them the equivalent of a cigarette. You remember when cigarettes were popular? And what happened? Well, think about it. It wasn’t about people making poor choices and suffering for them that was the “cause” of their diseases. It wasn’t about their refusal to heed the strident warnings about smoking. It became “the cigarette”. That was the “cause”. And it was the cigarette that was killing people, not the people’s choices. The object became the problem. People were excused for making poor decisions even though the information that cigarettes caused horrific health problems had been out for years … decades.
The same sort of argument is being made about guns and “the strategy of a tear” was just the latest emotional appeal to a people who’ve been pretty darn logical about guns so far and aren’t buying into the argument as readily as they did with cigarettes. In fact, they’re not buying into it at all and are, instead, buying more and more guns. If you can’t get them to swing your way, cry on national TV. That’ll show ’em how sincere you are. And, of course, it seems to have fooled a good number of people out there already.
But to the point – this is frustration for Obama because you and most Americans won’t think the way he wants you to. So? So screw you, he’ll stamp his feet, hold his breath and make you do it by taking unilateral action. But he knows the Constitution, by George.
This is just another in a long line of tantrums by this man. When he can’t get his way, he simply looks for a means to impose his will. He has no concept of what a President is or what one is supposed to do and he’s certainly no Constitutional scholar. This is just the latest example.
So why is the cigarette model not working for the left? For the most part it is because there really is no redeeming value to a cigarette. But there is tremendous positive value to a gun. You can’t defend yourself or your family with a cigarette. You can’t feel more secure in your person with a cigarette. You can’t protect your life or your property with a cigarette. So despite the demonization of the object the left has committed itself too, the positive aspects of gun ownership simply won’t be buried, even with a tear.
The bottom line however should be clear – the left will do whatever it thinks necessary to strip Americans of their right to own firearms. You will see every sort of argument tendered and numbers that, without context, seem horrific. Such as “30,000” gun deaths – 62% of which are suicides. Anyone who believes removing guns will prevent suicide just isn’t very serious about discussing suicide. Japan, which has strict gun control laws, has more suicides than the US. The problem isn’t the means. It is the mental state of the person. 35% are homicides, most gang related. No matter the laws passed, criminals are not going to obey them. This seems to be a point the left can’t comprehend. And finally accidents claim most of the remainder (about 606 in 2010). “Mass shootings”? A small minority of the final total. And, in fact, gun violence and gun homicides are and have been trending down for quite some time.
However, like “climate change”, the alarmist hysteria continues despite the fact that the data doesn’t support it.
So now, it is all about an emotion. A tear.
My freedom isn’t for sale for a tear, crocodile or otherwise, Mr. Obama.
There’s a reason the GOP has become known as the “stupid party”. There’s a reason voters seem to be in open rebellion against establishment Republicans. If you are in the dark for reasons there are many, but if you need a couple recent ones, this 1.1 trillion budget deal that raises the deficit by billions of dollars, throws a lifeline to Obamacare, and apparently funds the climate deal might give you a clue.
What in the world does a majority in both houses of Congress do for the GOP if they’re simply going to capitulate to the Democrats and give them everything they want and the Republicans claimed they were against (and if you gave them the chance they’d show you … not). Is it any wonder that there’s a rebellion in the ranks? Keep it up GOP, and you’ll go the way of the Whigs.
And, in case you were wondering if what I said above is true, try this:
Hours after the mammoth spending bill dropped, Democrats are counting their triumphs, outlining conservative policy riders and priorities that were not included in the final spending bill.
A top Democratic Senate aide summed it up in a single tweet. Adam Jentleson, Minority Leader Harry Reid’s deputy chief of staff, wrote:
Say, wasn’t that Paul Ryan guy supposed to be the bee’s knees when it came to budget stuff? Pro Tip: When Harry Reid is celebrating, you did it wrong!
And then there is the Idiot-in-Chief, someone you can always turn too reliably to observe what being totally out of the loop looks like:
Flanked by his national security team, President Obama reassured Americans that there was “no specific, credible threat” against the country ahead of the holidays.
“We do not have any specific and credible information about an attack on the homeland,” Obama said today at the National Counterterrorism Center. “That said, we have to be vigilant.”
That’s always true when you don’t read or attend your own intel briefings.
And on the Social Justice Warrior front, WalMart doubles down on stupid while Martin Luther King rolls over in his grave:
Backlash is growing for the CEO of Sam’s Club after she discussed her dislike for dealing with white men on CNN.
BPR reported Sunday that the company’s black, female CEO Rosalind Brewer planned to call a supplier she met with because she was disgusted that his management staff was filled with all white males.
It was more important to Ms. Brewer that a staff be racially and gender diverse rather than the best people be picked for their jobs. A practice she admitted to CNN’s Poppy Harlow she practices herself.
The president and CEO of WalMart Stores Inc., who owns Sam’s Club, Doug McMillon said the company supports Ms. Brewer and added that they ask their suppliers “to prioritize the talent and diversity of their sales teams.”
“Roz [Brewer] was simply trying to reiterate that we believe diverse and inclusive teams make for a stronger business. That’s all there is to it and I support that important ideal,” he added in the statement.
Yup, it’s not about the content of one’s character or who might be the best person for the job, but instead the color or one’s skin or their sex. Back to the 40’s WalMart, next you’ll be putting in “separate but equal” water fountains.
Yeah, me neither. Yet, we have a group of people out there who are more than willing to take the chance of “inviting” known killers who hate us into the country.
As usual, the media and some pundits have turned a very gray area into stark black and white arguments. You’re apparently for allowing open immigration to anyone or you’re a racist and a bigot if you opt to be selective.
What I’m talking about is the majority of the nation which is reasonably concerned that those who would kill us are seeking entry into the country without being screened and, if necessary, rejected. This is characterized as “unAmerican”. So, then, was Ellis Island where we rejected would be immigrants if they were sick or had criminal backgrounds, etc.
Let’s bear in mind that permitting immigration is a discretionary national act. There is no right to immigrate to the United States, and the United States has no obligation to accept immigrants from any country, including Muslim-majority countries. We could lawfully cut off all immigration, period, if we wanted to. Plus, it has always been a basic tenet of legal immigration to promote fidelity to the Constitution and assimilation into American society — principles to which classical sharia is antithetical. . . .
All important points, but the final point is most likely the most important. McCarthy again:
Our constitutional principle of religious liberty is derived from the Western concept that the spiritual realm should be separate from civic and political life. The concept flows from the New Testament injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.
Crucially, the interpretation of Islam that is mainstream in most Muslim-majority countries does not accept a division between mosque and state. . . .
The lack of separation between spiritual and civic life is not the only problem with Islam. Sharia is counter-constitutional in its most basic elements — beginning with the elementary belief that people do not have a right to govern themselves freely. Islam, instead, requires adherence to sharia and rejection of all law that contradicts it. So we start with fundamental incompatibility, before we ever get to other aspects of sharia: its systematic discrimination against non-Muslims and women; its denial of religious liberty, free speech, economic freedom, privacy rights, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments; and its endorsement of violent jihad in furtherance of protecting and expanding the territory it governs.
And that’s where we must draw the line. If an immigrant wants to become an American, recognize the separation of church and state and embrace the constitutional principles which govern this country, I say “welcome”. If not, I say, “don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass as you leave”.
Of course, the left’s legacy of “multiculturalism” says we must respect different cultures and learn to live with them. I say, no we don’t. Why? Because some cultures are destructive and some cultures are inferiors. I know, not politically correct, but certainly reality based (something the left once tried to convince us was a description of their ideological grounding).
You would no more invite a killer that hated you and wanted to take over your house into your home than any other sane person. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t apply the same principle to this country (and for those of you who don’t read carefully, that means we don’t keep out all Muslims, only those (of any religion or ethnic group) who refuse to recognize our Constitutional principles and won’t assimilate).
We don’t “owe” them anything.
So, what would a ban on all Muslims being allowed into the US do?
Well, I don’t know. I certainly understand why there are those calling for it but there’s a simple point here, as pointed out in San Bernardino:
The attackers who killed 14 people in San Bernardino last week were discussing jihad at least two years before they opened fire in California, the FBI director said Wednesday.
The husband-and-wife duo “were radicalized for quite a long time before their attack,” FBI Director James B. Comey said during an appearance on Capitol Hill. This follows earlier statements by investigators that the shooters had both been adherents to a radical strain of Islam long before the massacre.
And one of them was a US citizen born in the United States.
Certainly, banning all Muslims from entry into the country would probably weed out some potential jihadis. But a committed jihadi isn’t likely to seek permission to enter. Not with the condition of our borders. And, on the other hand, I find it completely contrary to what I believe, even though I certainly have a level of understanding for those calling for it.
More importantly, and right’s questions aside, is the exclusion likely to do to Muslims here exactly what happened to the San Bernardino male half of the killing team. Radicalize them … or some of them. Homegrown jihadis.
All that said, it certainly seems that a devout believer in Islam would have a higher likelihood of embracing radicalism than some other religions. Part of that is because it is so incompatible with Western values and ideals. So, a devout follower is less likely to assimilate than those of other religions. Couple that with the demands of Sharia law and it appears to be totally incompatible with Western values and ideals (to those who become radicalized because of that incompatibility).
What about them? What does a country do with citizens, or non-citizens for that matter, who don’t want to assimilate, don’t want to embrace the country’s ideals and insist, in fact, demand, that the country change to accommodate their beliefs?
Just a bunch of questions that have popped into my mind as I watch all of the politics of the issue flying around the airwaves.