Monday, January 28, 2013

Um....No, That's Not What A "Shotgun" Is

This particular comment is worth commenting on for two reasons.  First, I have my doubts that President Obama knows anything about a shotgun that doesn't involve a joint.  Second, it feeds into the mythos that somehow the Second Amendment is about hunting.  Again, the left is using distraction to change the discussion.  The old leftist mantra was that the Second Amendment was an antiquated provision of the Constitution dealing with the provision of militias and that the comma in the wording of the Amendment meant that it was not an individual right, but rather, the right of a group, the militias, which no longer exist.  Call me somewhat less than surprised that the left speaks in terms of group rights over those of individuals.  The Supreme Court, however, has shot that down recently, much to my delight.  So, now, they are changing the argument.  Now, it is the conciliatory idea that, of course we have rights to guns and arms, but it's just for hunting, and who needs an AR-15 (hint, the AR doesn't stand for assault rifle) or more than 7-10 bullets to kill a deer.  Personally, I'm a pretty shitty shot with a rifle and may need thirty bullets to even alert a deer that I'm in the same geographical area.  Don't let the argument shift rhetorically, or you lose.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

It's Never Too Late to Say You're Sorry...Unless it's Too Late

I would like to thank House Speaker John Boehner for agreeing with my previous opinion on the "fiscal cliff" idiocy.  Mr. Boehner has admitted he regrets the course he took after President Obama's reelection in caving on tax increases.  Mr. Boehner would best be served to remember that principles cannot be compromised for political expediency.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Sanctuary Cities for Guns?

With the recent proposals regarding gun restrictions including the talk of an "assault weapons" ban that bans a bunch of guns that aren't assault weapons some police officials are saying that they will not enforce what they believe to be an unconstitutional restriction on gun rights.  Personally, I don't believe the gun ban is strictly constitutional.  However, I also don't think it is the purview of local officials to decide what is and is not constitutional.  If they feel they cannot enforce the laws, then resign.  This is the same view I hold with regard to "sanctuary cities" and I'm not much for hypocrisy.  What I will say, though, is that the case law of the United States Supreme Court clearly says that the States can afford protections above and beyond those contained within the Constitution, but not less.  As such, should the state, for example, Texas, pass a law that gives greater 2nd Amendment rights to its citizens, allowing for weapons covered by the "assault weapons" ban to be carried and owned by its citizenry, it is well within its rights to do so.  This would make what the sheriffs in the above story within their power to refuse to enforce the federal ban over state law.
It will be interesting to see, however, whether or not those on the left who support the "sanctuary cities" suddenly become enraged at the prospect of local sheriffs ignoring federal law. 

Friday, January 11, 2013

Today's Recommended Reading

Avert thine eyes, oh liberal brethren!  For Ann Coulter comes with the logic on gun control including scientific studies!  But she is Ann Coulter, so you will likely discount it as the ranting of a hysterical conservative that needs to have pies thrown at her and that should be banned from college campuses.  Never mind that what she says makes damn good sense and is supported by (GASP) evidence as opposed to hysterics.

Monday, January 7, 2013

Liberal Zombies Coming to Eat the Rich!!!

Here's the plot of every zombie movie.  Virus/apocalypse/rabid monkey results in hordes of mindless, shriveled corpses that cannot think and desire only to prey on the ones who survived.  Sound familiar?  Every zombie movie ever made should now be seen as an analogy for the tax and spend wing of the Democratic Party.  Irrational hordes of brainless people who seek only to feed on the rest of society.  And it's not just the wealthy.  If President Obama and his allies in the Democratic Party hadn't wanted to increase taxes on people below $450,000.00, the easily could have offset the 2% bump in the payroll tax with a corresponding 2% rate drop, but I don't hear anybody having argued for that.  Hell, they probably could have kept in the payroll tax "holiday" (I love how when you get to keep your own money it is somehow a holiday, keep in mind, these jackasses named that holiday Making Work Pay...seriously), it's not as if they've displayed any concern about the solvency of Social Security.  But it's not enough for Democrats that they got $41 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts they won't ever put in place.  After all, if you ask the President, spending isn't even a problem, despite the explicit conclusion of his own debt commission.  So, it should be no surprise that earlier this week President Obama said that there would have to be additional taxes because we just can't cut our way to prosperity (after all, government is the primary source of prosperity, right?).
It didn't take long for the first shriveled corpse to chime in.  On CBS's "Face the Nation" House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) roundly rejected the notion that the debate on tax revenues (ugh, revenue is something you earn, not something you loot) was not over and that additional looting would be required in any further debt negotiations.  Hell, she couldn't even wait for the question to end before emphatically rejecting the notion she isn't going to feed on the rich.  The evil, evil rich.  What Pelosi is referring to is the elimination of deductions.  You remember those?  They're the little parts of the tax code where the government generously allows you to keep some of your money if you behave the way they want you to, like buy a house.  Personally, I would be all for that idea if it included a reduction in rates, but they already raised rates. She's on the lookout for those "unfair" deductions, i.e., the ones that don't go to her pet causes.  Like battery manufacturers that use recyclable casing materials that smell like peace and love.  Luckily, none of this matters, as we will all be dead soon, Democrats gnawing on what's left of our wallets.

Obamanomination

President Obama today announced he wants an apparent homophobic anti-Semite with a knack for appeasement to terrorism as his choice for Secretary of Defense.  RINO (Republican in name only) Chuck Hagel is a former Nebraska Senator.  He has served in the Obama administration as co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, a position which did not require confirmation by the Senate.  Hagel has, in the past, opposed any sanctions against Iran for its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Hagel is also in favor of entering talks with the terrorist organization Hamas which lobs rockets into Israel like they are cheap fireworks (thanks to funding from....you guessed it, Iran).  Not that laying down for Hitler isn't enough to disqualify someone for Secretary of Defense, Hagel also once criticized an ambassador for being openly, aggressively gay, whatever that means.  Luckily, 14 years later, he managed to eek out an apology.
So what does this say about our fearless leader?  Mr. Hagel is unlikely to survive the nomination process and President Obama knew this before the announcement.  It may signal that Mr. Obama intends to go down the path of alienating Israel, in as much as he hasn't already done so.  This might be further supported by the fact that his nominee for director of the CIA.  Mr. Brennen has referred to Jerusalem as "Al Quds" as well as avoiding language that might tend to offend terrorists, like "jihadists".  It may also be a political calculation aimed at marginalizing Republicans.  The idea would be that he puts forth this token Republican who happens to have some very unattractive "qualities" so that media can splash headlines like "Republican Hagel's Anti-Israel, Anti-Gay Past Haunt Him At Hearings".  Call me a conspiracy theorist, but given the President Obama was offered all of the revenue he asked for in the "Fiscal Cliff" deal through tax reform and yet he insisted that it had to come through raising tax rates tells me his political calculations come before anything else.  The Cynic in Chief reigns supreme. 

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

A Victory for Emotion Over Logic

With the aid of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. KY) and House Speaker John Boehner (R. OH), the Republican Party helped pass a deal to avoid a fictional fiscal cliff.  Democrats succeeded in doing what they always do, changing the topic.  Originally, discussions about this whole matter were focused on our ballooning national debt, Democrats' failure to even allow a vote on a budget in the Senate, and President Obama's rampant spending.  To avoid allowing the repetitive $1 trillion plus annual budget deficits that have occurred under President Obama, the Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement called "sequestration", a set of automatic cuts in discretionary and military spending.  The situation on non-discretionary spending is so dire that the trustees in charge of Medicare say it will go broke in 2016 and Social Security is projected to have to begin cutting benefits by 25% in 2033 if no changes are made to benefits or taxes.  Even worse, in the midst of a recovery that can only be generously thought of as weak, taxes were set to go back to Clinton-era levels, almost ensuring the economy will head back into recession (especially when combined with Obamacare taxes coming out just in time that he didn't have to defend them during his re-election campaign).  And all of us where watching the outcome of these very policies in Europe and especially Greece.
But suddenly, spending wasn't an issue.  Democrats rolled the two items into one and started talking about how rich people somehow weren't paying their fair share.  Keep in mind, the only reason the tax cuts enacted under President Bush weren't permanent was that Democrats refused to pass them if they didn't automatically expire.  But somehow, the argument wasn't about economics, it was about fairness.  And not even a defined fairness, just some nebulous concept that no one had to defend.  Lest we forget the words of President Barack Obama that raising taxes in a recession (struggling economy) is "the last thing you want to do".  Mr. Obama even acknowledged that his original proposed tax raise on income over $250,000 would not have any significant effect on the deficit.  So while logic and evidence show that a tax increase (even at the current level of $450,000 and above) will restrict economic growth and cause job losses, while increased government spending will not stimulate economic recovery and development, those arguments didn't matter.  Because if you believe in economics and history and say we need to cut and tax less you will be called heartless and people will tell you how you aren't being "fair".  Meanwhile, they refuse to engage in an intellectual argument about their position, because it has no backing.
And with backbones made of pure silly string, Republicans folded as President Obama broke their leadership.  Instead, they passed a deal that the Congressional Budget Office, which has to consider promises as literal gold capable of supporting the government coffers, says the deal offers $1 in spending cuts for every $41 in tax increases.  I hesitate to remind readers that history has shown that Democrats will renege on spending cuts.  And President Obama has already said he will not negotiate on the raising of the debt ceiling in February (as if he ever really negotiated on anything).  Meanwhile, President Obama is doubling down, insisting that more taxes are coming, saying the we can't cut our way to prosperity, implying instead, that we can somehow tax our way to it, history be damned.
The only thing Republicans can do to return to credibility is to remove Boehner from the leadership and push Eric Cantor (R. VA) (who voted against the deal) into the prime position and maybe making a stand on the increase in the debt limit to force additional spending cuts.  Do I believe this will happen.  Let's just say I'm going to keep my voting registration as "unaffiliated".