Sunday, August 25, 2013
On Guns
I remember when I was growing up, law enforcement officers carried revolvers, .38 caliber most commonly. At some point in the '80s they realized that the criminals they came up against had them out-gunned with semi-automatic 9mm or .45 caliber pistols. The criminals had more powerful weapons, which most importantly, loaded more bullets. Revolvers commonly load 6 rounds. A M1911 .45 caliber magazine carries 9 rounds. Most full size 9mm can load 10 or more rounds. Eventually, police forces traded their revolvers for semi-automatics.
That situation was used as an argument for restricting civilian purchase of semi-automatic guns and 'large capacity magazines.'
But it wasn't an honest argument. The people who out-gunned the police revolvers weren't citizens, they were criminals. The attempts to restrict lawful possession of fire arms had zero effect on unlawful possession, as any sentient being can easily figure out.
Now, the current argument against 'large capacity magazines' and 'assault rifles' is that law abiding citizens don't need such things. The most obvious reply is what has need to do with the right to keep and bear arms. I have the right independent of my need to exercise it.
On a practical level, if one of the purposes admitted as valid by the gun control nuts is for personal protection, isn't it illogical to limit me to a six-round revolver when the home invader against whom I need protection is probably carrying a semi-automatic weapon with twice as many rounds?
Why should I be denied a defensive capability, which logically means an increased probability of survival, than my fellow citizen the police officer? Is his life more valuable than mine? Our situations are similar: we are each confronted by a criminal with a large capacity, large caliber weapon. Why should our chances of survival be made dissimilar by force of law?
I've read a few news and opinion articles on the gun control issue. The most common argument on the side of increased restrictions or, in some instances, total bans; is that citizens don't NEED 'high capacity magazines' or 'assault weapons'. Again, the most obvious reply is: what does what someone else thinks I need have to do with my explicit Constitutional right?
Reading the comments of those articles makes things more clear. commentors who say they oppose gun ownership say they don't need guns because they live in safe neighborhoods, or that the police are there to protect them from violent criminals. I think this displays some very shallow thinking - or more likely an emotional rationalization.
These people who think they don't need guns because the police have guns are abandoning their responsibility to themselves and their family to protect themselves and enforce order in their homes.
The government establishes the police force to keep the peace and enforce the laws for the community.
Law enforcement agencies, particularly our local Sheriff's department conduct patrols and investigate crimes to act as a deterent to crime. But they aren't standing at my door at night. Or yours.
I have the responsibility to myself, my family and, in fact, the community, to keep the peace and enforce the law within my home and person.
I don't live in a dangerous area. I don't often go to dangerous areas. There are very few parts of our country that are really dangerous. Almost all of them are in cities run too long by incompetent, crooked Democrat machines (cf. Detroit, Los Angeles, Camden, NJ, Washington, DC, Chicago, Philadelphia). So, the probability of my being involved in a violent crime is low. But it isn't zero.
If by chance, a criminal picks my house for a robbery or my car for a car-jacking (considering the appearance of my vehicle, that is a VERY remote possibility) or me for a mugging, he almost certainly will have taken into account the likelihood of the sheriff interrupting his activity. So there will be no armed Law Enforcement Officer there to stop the criminal from accomplishing his objective.
But if there is an armed citizen, he may prevent the violence intended by the criminal, he may save his and his family's life. If the criminal knows that the streets outside my house are patrolled by the sheriff and the rooms inside are patrolled by me, his violent act may be deterred from the outset.
That situation was used as an argument for restricting civilian purchase of semi-automatic guns and 'large capacity magazines.'
But it wasn't an honest argument. The people who out-gunned the police revolvers weren't citizens, they were criminals. The attempts to restrict lawful possession of fire arms had zero effect on unlawful possession, as any sentient being can easily figure out.
Now, the current argument against 'large capacity magazines' and 'assault rifles' is that law abiding citizens don't need such things. The most obvious reply is what has need to do with the right to keep and bear arms. I have the right independent of my need to exercise it.
On a practical level, if one of the purposes admitted as valid by the gun control nuts is for personal protection, isn't it illogical to limit me to a six-round revolver when the home invader against whom I need protection is probably carrying a semi-automatic weapon with twice as many rounds?
Why should I be denied a defensive capability, which logically means an increased probability of survival, than my fellow citizen the police officer? Is his life more valuable than mine? Our situations are similar: we are each confronted by a criminal with a large capacity, large caliber weapon. Why should our chances of survival be made dissimilar by force of law?
I've read a few news and opinion articles on the gun control issue. The most common argument on the side of increased restrictions or, in some instances, total bans; is that citizens don't NEED 'high capacity magazines' or 'assault weapons'. Again, the most obvious reply is: what does what someone else thinks I need have to do with my explicit Constitutional right?
Reading the comments of those articles makes things more clear. commentors who say they oppose gun ownership say they don't need guns because they live in safe neighborhoods, or that the police are there to protect them from violent criminals. I think this displays some very shallow thinking - or more likely an emotional rationalization.
These people who think they don't need guns because the police have guns are abandoning their responsibility to themselves and their family to protect themselves and enforce order in their homes.
The government establishes the police force to keep the peace and enforce the laws for the community.
Law enforcement agencies, particularly our local Sheriff's department conduct patrols and investigate crimes to act as a deterent to crime. But they aren't standing at my door at night. Or yours.
I have the responsibility to myself, my family and, in fact, the community, to keep the peace and enforce the law within my home and person.
I don't live in a dangerous area. I don't often go to dangerous areas. There are very few parts of our country that are really dangerous. Almost all of them are in cities run too long by incompetent, crooked Democrat machines (cf. Detroit, Los Angeles, Camden, NJ, Washington, DC, Chicago, Philadelphia). So, the probability of my being involved in a violent crime is low. But it isn't zero.
If by chance, a criminal picks my house for a robbery or my car for a car-jacking (considering the appearance of my vehicle, that is a VERY remote possibility) or me for a mugging, he almost certainly will have taken into account the likelihood of the sheriff interrupting his activity. So there will be no armed Law Enforcement Officer there to stop the criminal from accomplishing his objective.
But if there is an armed citizen, he may prevent the violence intended by the criminal, he may save his and his family's life. If the criminal knows that the streets outside my house are patrolled by the sheriff and the rooms inside are patrolled by me, his violent act may be deterred from the outset.
Who doesn't love a list?
An article listing the 10 Worst Cities to Visit in the United States on the website, escapehere.com caught my attention.
The introduction to the list tries its best to put lipstick on these pigs: "major urban centers can have their share of crime, poverty, and traffic dangers, which have earned the following American cities a bad rap that are not really justified."
For instance, the #1 Worst City on the list is Detroit. "This once celebrated center of the American automobile industry did experience an influx of poverty, crime, and exodus of city residents from 2008 to 2010. However, the Detroit of today is experiencing a million dollar revitalization, with abandoned buildings undergoing commercial real estate developments, young couples, community gardens, and new businesses breathing new life into the area."
See? It's not as bad as Flint, and they are razing some of those thousands of abandoned buildings. I'm not sure, however, how escapehere considers declaring bankruptcy and an inability to perform basic essential services is "breathing new life into the area." I guess that's what they call being on life-support without a pulse.
Here is escapehere.com's list. Maybe we can identify some trends:
Maybe a picture will help those who don't like lists:
The introduction to the list tries its best to put lipstick on these pigs: "major urban centers can have their share of crime, poverty, and traffic dangers, which have earned the following American cities a bad rap that are not really justified."
For instance, the #1 Worst City on the list is Detroit. "This once celebrated center of the American automobile industry did experience an influx of poverty, crime, and exodus of city residents from 2008 to 2010. However, the Detroit of today is experiencing a million dollar revitalization, with abandoned buildings undergoing commercial real estate developments, young couples, community gardens, and new businesses breathing new life into the area."
See? It's not as bad as Flint, and they are razing some of those thousands of abandoned buildings. I'm not sure, however, how escapehere considers declaring bankruptcy and an inability to perform basic essential services is "breathing new life into the area." I guess that's what they call being on life-support without a pulse.
Here is escapehere.com's list. Maybe we can identify some trends:
Rank
|
City
|
Party Control
|
2012 Vote
|
1
|
Detroit, MI
|
Democrat
|
Obama 85.2%
|
2
|
St. Louis, MO
|
Democrat
|
Obama 79.9
|
3
|
Reno, NV
|
Republican
|
Romney 52.9
|
4
|
Cleveland, OH
|
Democrat
|
Obama 82.8
|
5
|
Chicago, IL
|
Democrat
|
Obama 87.2
|
6
|
Camden, NJ
|
Democrat
|
Obama 65.1
|
7
|
Memphis, TN
|
Democrat
|
Obama 78.3
|
8
|
New Haven, CT
|
Democrat
|
Obama 62.6
|
9
|
Stockton, CA
|
Democrat
|
Obama 57.8
|
10
|
Oakland, CA
|
Democrat
|
Obama 87.5
|
NB: Party Control determined by history of Democrat mayors
as recorded by Wikipedia. 2012 vote for congressional district as reported by
dailykos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163009/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presidential-results-by-congressional-district-for-the-2012-2008-elections)
Maybe a picture will help those who don't like lists:
The Wall Street Journal did a similar listing of the 10 most dangerous cities. Here is that list:
Rank
|
City
|
Party Control
|
2012 Vote
|
10
|
Cleveland
|
Democrat
|
Obama 82.8
|
9
|
Baltimore
|
Democrat
|
Obama 76.0
|
8
|
New Haven
|
Democrat
|
Obama 62.6
|
7
|
Birmingham, AL
|
Democrat
|
Obama 72.4
|
6
|
Stockton, CA
|
Democrat
|
Obama 57.8
|
5
|
Memphis, TN
|
Democrat
|
Obama 78.3
|
4
|
St. Louis, MO
|
Democrat
|
Obama 79.9
|
3
|
Oakland, CA
|
Democrat
|
Obama 87.5
|
2
|
Detroit, MI
|
Democrat
|
Obama 85.2
|
1
|
Flint, MI
|
Democrat
|
Obama 60.7
|
The statistics for Flint, MI give you an idea of what it takes to come in #1:
Violent crimes per 100,000: 2,729.5
Population: 101,632
2012 murders: 63
Poverty rate: 40.6%
Now, I know that coincidence does not prove causality, but the correlation between suckiness and Democratic party affiliation is pretty difficult not to notice.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Uncharitable Discourse on Charity
I appreciate Jesuit Father James V. Schall. He is a recently retired professor of Philosophy at the nominally Catholic Georgetown University. I became aware of him through his association with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
I occasionally appreciate Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter. Usually not. NCR is to Catholicism what the Huffington Post is to politics: Left of reality, biased and bigoted against opposing views and critical of authority unless that authority reliably agrees with its worldview.
I don't appreciate MSW's criticism of an article by Fr. Schall on the topic of Christianity's relationship with poverty.
Fr. Schall meditates on the propensity of Christians to "identify" with poverty rather than doing things that actually help poor people stop being poor.
Mr. Winters will have none of it. By misrepresenting Fr. Schall's position and by contrasting that straw-man position with one that he projects upon Pope Francis, Mr. Winters attempts to defend the very point of that does perpetuate poverty.
And he does it in a very uncharitable way. I hope Fr. Schall takes the time to respond, but I doubt it would be worth his effort. Some hearts are too hardened, including the one on Mr. Winter's sleeve.
As I thought about the two sides of the argument, I was reminded of the story of Boaz and Ruth. Ruth, along with other widows, gleaned Boaz' fields after his laborers had harvested. As a righteous man, Boaz obeyed the Levitical law to leave gleanings for the widows and the poor.
Lev 19:9: "9 “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God."
Googling the story of Boaz and Ruth brought my attention to Boaz and Ruth in Richmond, VA. "Planted in the center of Highland Park, one of Richmond, Virginia's most troubled areas, Boaz & Ruth advances a missionof rebuilding lives and communities through relationships, training, transitional jobs, and economic revitalization. "
This seems about right to me. I think Fr. Schall would approve. What of Mr. Winter?
I occasionally appreciate Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter. Usually not. NCR is to Catholicism what the Huffington Post is to politics: Left of reality, biased and bigoted against opposing views and critical of authority unless that authority reliably agrees with its worldview.
I don't appreciate MSW's criticism of an article by Fr. Schall on the topic of Christianity's relationship with poverty.
Fr. Schall meditates on the propensity of Christians to "identify" with poverty rather than doing things that actually help poor people stop being poor.
Mr. Winters will have none of it. By misrepresenting Fr. Schall's position and by contrasting that straw-man position with one that he projects upon Pope Francis, Mr. Winters attempts to defend the very point of that does perpetuate poverty.
And he does it in a very uncharitable way. I hope Fr. Schall takes the time to respond, but I doubt it would be worth his effort. Some hearts are too hardened, including the one on Mr. Winter's sleeve.
As I thought about the two sides of the argument, I was reminded of the story of Boaz and Ruth. Ruth, along with other widows, gleaned Boaz' fields after his laborers had harvested. As a righteous man, Boaz obeyed the Levitical law to leave gleanings for the widows and the poor.
Lev 19:9: "9 “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God."
Googling the story of Boaz and Ruth brought my attention to Boaz and Ruth in Richmond, VA. "Planted in the center of Highland Park, one of Richmond, Virginia's most troubled areas, Boaz & Ruth advances a missionof rebuilding lives and communities through relationships, training, transitional jobs, and economic revitalization. "
This seems about right to me. I think Fr. Schall would approve. What of Mr. Winter?
Monday, August 19, 2013
A Mystery
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama's job performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove (see trends).
The latest figures include 24% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 41% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17."
The number of people who Strongly Approve has been pretty consistently around the 25% range.
Who are these people?
The latest figures include 24% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 41% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17."
The number of people who Strongly Approve has been pretty consistently around the 25% range.
Who are these people?
pics on Sodahead
Oh....
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Happy Birthday Mr. President
Perhaps it doesn't rise to the level of Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy Birthday Mr. President"
but it looks like Pres Obama's birthday celebrations a couple weeks ago were swinging.
Fox New reported that "President Barack Obama kicked off his birthday weekend Saturday with a round of golf with friends and a getaway to Camp David.
Three foursomes made up the party, including FOBs from Hawaii, Chicago and Washington.
Hasan Chandoo - a roommate at Occidental College with whom Obama was very close
Bobby Titcomb - close friend and John from Hawaii
Wahid Hamid - Another Pakistani buddy from Occidental who now is a financier for a company that arranges deals between the U.S. government and oil sheiks. I'm sure global business expansion is a lot easier when the Leader of the Free World is an old college buddy who you went hitching around Karachi with back in the day...
Gets you on cool boards too, like the Defense Business Board (who knew there even was such a thing? Wahid Hamid Bio - Defense Business Board
Wahid Hamid Wahid Hamid was most recently Senior Vice President Corporate Strategy and Development at PepsiCo, Inc., the largest US-based Food and Beverage Company ...
Marvin Nicholson - "Body Man" for both BHO and John Kerry whose qualifications exceed even those of Reggie: windsurf shop clerk and golf caddie.
Sam Kass - "the heartthrob behind the first lady’s White House garden and “Let’s Move” initiative who just landed at No. 3 on the Hill’s “Most Beautiful” list"
Laurent Delanney - another college chum who was among the "influential people in Obama’s life at that time, including Obama’s friends and fellow-organizers Hasan Chandoo and Caroline Boss, his friends Wahid Hamid and Laurent Delanney, and two activists, Earl Chew and Sara-Etta Harris"
Greg Orme - "For most of their high school years, Orme and Obama lived and loved basketball." Wonder if Greg was part of the Choom gang too..."But Orme is a hard man to find. "Greg? He's kind of in and out. He's off the grid,"
Marty Nesbit - Chicago financier and long-time crony of Obama at "the nexus of the public and private sectors," who made his money building parking garages (isn't Jimmy Hoffa in parking garages in the Meadowlands, NJ?)
Mike Ramos - another high school buddy (choom-ganger?), bundler, who has "been a guest at every one of the president’s Hawaiian vacations, and personally travelling with the president on several of his campaign trips"
"The first lady was said to be traveling separately." Of course.
but it looks like Pres Obama's birthday celebrations a couple weeks ago were swinging.
Fox New reported that "President Barack Obama kicked off his birthday weekend Saturday with a round of golf with friends and a getaway to Camp David.
Three foursomes made up the party, including FOBs from Hawaii, Chicago and Washington.
Hasan Chandoo - a roommate at Occidental College with whom Obama was very close
Bobby Titcomb - close friend and John from Hawaii
Wahid Hamid - Another Pakistani buddy from Occidental who now is a financier for a company that arranges deals between the U.S. government and oil sheiks. I'm sure global business expansion is a lot easier when the Leader of the Free World is an old college buddy who you went hitching around Karachi with back in the day...
Gets you on cool boards too, like the Defense Business Board (who knew there even was such a thing? Wahid Hamid Bio - Defense Business Board
Wahid Hamid Wahid Hamid was most recently Senior Vice President Corporate Strategy and Development at PepsiCo, Inc., the largest US-based Food and Beverage Company ...
Reggie Love - world famous former Obama "body man" "who is very famous because he's young and good looking"
and who apparently played "like 15 games of spades" with the Commander-in-Chief while SEAL Team 6 executed its now famous secret raid on Osama bin Laden. Yeah, watching the finest representatives of the greatest Military in the history of the world execute an impossibly difficult and dangerous mission to kill the most wanted man in the world is a lot less exciting than playing cards with the boyz.
Reggie is apparently a lot more fun to spend time with too....
Sam Kass - "the heartthrob behind the first lady’s White House garden and “Let’s Move” initiative who just landed at No. 3 on the Hill’s “Most Beautiful” list"
who, it has been recently revealed, is dating Alex Wagner of MSNBC.
Laurent Delanney - another college chum who was among the "influential people in Obama’s life at that time, including Obama’s friends and fellow-organizers Hasan Chandoo and Caroline Boss, his friends Wahid Hamid and Laurent Delanney, and two activists, Earl Chew and Sara-Etta Harris"
 |
| Wahid Hamid and Barack Obama are seated at left. Hasan Chandoo is seated and Caroline Boss is standing at center. Sara-Etta Harris is standing at right. Laurent Delanney is in the white T-shirt, lower right. |
Greg Orme - "For most of their high school years, Orme and Obama lived and loved basketball." Wonder if Greg was part of the Choom gang too..."But Orme is a hard man to find. "Greg? He's kind of in and out. He's off the grid,"
Marty Nesbit - Chicago financier and long-time crony of Obama at "the nexus of the public and private sectors," who made his money building parking garages (isn't Jimmy Hoffa in parking garages in the Meadowlands, NJ?)
Mike Ramos - another high school buddy (choom-ganger?), bundler, who has "been a guest at every one of the president’s Hawaiian vacations, and personally travelling with the president on several of his campaign trips"
"The first lady was said to be traveling separately." Of course.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Friday, August 2, 2013
Progressive (Eugenic) Science
Strangely, eugenics seems to be cropping up in the news lately.
The social evils that early Progressive eugenicists wished to eradicate are still with us. Poverty, crime, delinquency persists among a seemingly permanent underclass.
Apparently, Progessive eugenic ideas are also still with us. They just changed their name and their approach.
They continue to cloak their arguments in scientific costume. Recall the "abortion reduces crime" hypothesis popularized in the book Freakonomics. The logic behind the argument makes sense. Less underclass youth, less crime, or as an earlier gentleman once said about another violent minority group: "Nits make lice."
I also found some sort of link between the old Progressive eugenics movement and the new scientific fad of evolutionary biology. According to Wikipedia (not an entirely reliable source, but useful nonetheless): "Directly after Roe v. Wade was released (1972), the AES [American Eugenics Society] was reorganized and renamed "The Society for the Study of Social Biology."" The Society also seems to be called, "The Society for Biodemography and Social Biology" Different URLs but identical web content. Neither website has been updated in a few years. The Society for the Study of Social Biology is hosted on the USC Davis school of gerontology website (gero.usc.edu) which is also the home of the USC/UCLA Center on Biodemography and Population Health (CBPH)
From the CBPH web site interspersed with images from AES and similar organizations' archives
Specific aims of the USC/UCLA Center:
Research supported by this center should lead to a better understanding of:
The social evils that early Progressive eugenicists wished to eradicate are still with us. Poverty, crime, delinquency persists among a seemingly permanent underclass.
Apparently, Progessive eugenic ideas are also still with us. They just changed their name and their approach.
They continue to cloak their arguments in scientific costume. Recall the "abortion reduces crime" hypothesis popularized in the book Freakonomics. The logic behind the argument makes sense. Less underclass youth, less crime, or as an earlier gentleman once said about another violent minority group: "Nits make lice."
I also found some sort of link between the old Progressive eugenics movement and the new scientific fad of evolutionary biology. According to Wikipedia (not an entirely reliable source, but useful nonetheless): "Directly after Roe v. Wade was released (1972), the AES [American Eugenics Society] was reorganized and renamed "The Society for the Study of Social Biology."" The Society also seems to be called, "The Society for Biodemography and Social Biology" Different URLs but identical web content. Neither website has been updated in a few years. The Society for the Study of Social Biology is hosted on the USC Davis school of gerontology website (gero.usc.edu) which is also the home of the USC/UCLA Center on Biodemography and Population Health (CBPH)
From the CBPH web site interspersed with images from AES and similar organizations' archives
Specific aims of the USC/UCLA Center:
- To support pilot projects and on-going bio-demographic research that integrate epidemiological, medical, and biological information with the demographic perspective on population health.
- To develop models of population health outcomes that will clarify the effects of changes in risk factors and interventions on population health.
Research supported by this center should lead to a better understanding of:
- The effects of social, behavioral, biological, and medical factors on population health outcomes.
- The causes of observed racial, socioeconomic, and gender differences in population health in later life.
- The interdependence of health outcomes including chronic diseases, functioning changes, disability and mortality.
The Eugenics Record Office was established at Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Cold Spring Harbor continues the proud heritage of the ERO, doing research in genomics and Quantitative Biology, the modern high-tech methods of identifying and eradicating the defective from the gene pool.
GMU's History department traces the roots of the eugenics movement from the early Progressives through the adoption of American eugenic theories on a national scale by Adolph Hitler through its rehabilitation as 'genetics' after the war. In 1949, Josef Mengele's boss, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, became a corresponding member of the newly formed American Society of Human Genetics, organized by American eugenicists and geneticists.
While sterilizations finally stopped in the US in the 1970's, Roe v. Wade opened up a new method. Abortion has killed 16 million African American children since 1973. "Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions." -Black Genocide web site
Illegality Tracker
So, my beginnings of a post are below. Fortunately for all of us, Keith Koffler IS a full-time professional and he has collected two dozen Obama scandals.
It would take a full-time professional staff to keep track of the acts and omissions of the current regime that are contrary to the rule of law, that skirt or exceed the constitutional limits and statutory powers of the president and the executive branch.
Not only do we have 5 years of abuses to record, but new instances are coming to light daily.
I don't have a full-time professional staff. But I'll do my best to highlight the ones that come to my attention.
1. Treasury: Debt Has Been Exactly $16,699,396,000,000.00 for 56 Days - As reported in CNSNews.com on 15 July 2013 the official federal debt has been exactly $25M below the debt limit for almost 2 months while the Treasury has issued more debt instruments than it has redeemed. Now, as anyone who has lied with numbers will tell you, a number with that many trailing zeroes is not an accurate number. There is no practical way that in real life, there could be no change from day to day in the number. That the Treasury has been issuing more debt than it has been redeeming makes the number even more blatantly fallacious.
CNS asks the obvious question: "How could the value of extant U.S. Treasury Securities increase by $51.586 billion during a 56-day period when the federal government’s debt subject to the legal limit set by Congress has remained constant at $16,699,396,000,000.00—just $25 million below the legal limit?"
Jack Lew's response is a classic of bureaucratic opacity: "Treasury Secretary Lew sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner. In the letter, Lew said the Treasury would begin implementing what he called “the standard set of extraordinary measures” that allows the Treasury to continue to borrow and spend money even after it has hit the legal debt limit."
Only a U.S. Federal Government Official could use the term "standard set of extraordinary measures" and proceed to borrow more than is authorized by law - with complete seriousness. Really, if it weren't true, I'd swear it was a Monty Python sketch. I didn't bother to investigate what the "standard set of extraordinary measures" are, but when Timmy Geithner did it, they included failing to fund federal worker pension accounts - an illegal act for any organization that isn't the Federal Government.
2. EXCLUSIVE: Feds admit improper scrutiny of candidate, donor tax records
Justice has declined to prosecute any of the cases According to the Washington Times, "The Treasury Department has admitted for the first time that confidential tax records of several political candidates and campaign donors were improperly scrutinized by government officials, but the Justice Department has declined to prosecute any of the cases.
The Attorney General "is giving new instructions to federal prosecutors on how they should write their criminal complaints when charging low-level drug offenders, to avoid triggering the mandatory minimum sentences." In other words, prosecutors are being told to ignore the actual offense and to enter a charge based on the amount of punishment they would like the alleged criminal to receive, thereby circumventing (once again) the will of the people expressed through laws passed by their elected representatives.
Did I mention that the administration is importing illegal immigrants through a loop hole in the asylum rules?
Two of the three judges from the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia think the government ought to obey the law. Crazy, I know...
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/13/appeals-court-obama-violating-law-nuclear-site-nev/#ixzz2bwvBMaNt
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
UPDATE 4: Sorry for two in as many minutes. But this article by Victor Davis Hanson is a must-read.
It would take a full-time professional staff to keep track of the acts and omissions of the current regime that are contrary to the rule of law, that skirt or exceed the constitutional limits and statutory powers of the president and the executive branch.
Not only do we have 5 years of abuses to record, but new instances are coming to light daily.
I don't have a full-time professional staff. But I'll do my best to highlight the ones that come to my attention.
1. Treasury: Debt Has Been Exactly $16,699,396,000,000.00 for 56 Days - As reported in CNSNews.com on 15 July 2013 the official federal debt has been exactly $25M below the debt limit for almost 2 months while the Treasury has issued more debt instruments than it has redeemed. Now, as anyone who has lied with numbers will tell you, a number with that many trailing zeroes is not an accurate number. There is no practical way that in real life, there could be no change from day to day in the number. That the Treasury has been issuing more debt than it has been redeeming makes the number even more blatantly fallacious.
CNS asks the obvious question: "How could the value of extant U.S. Treasury Securities increase by $51.586 billion during a 56-day period when the federal government’s debt subject to the legal limit set by Congress has remained constant at $16,699,396,000,000.00—just $25 million below the legal limit?"
Jack Lew's response is a classic of bureaucratic opacity: "Treasury Secretary Lew sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner. In the letter, Lew said the Treasury would begin implementing what he called “the standard set of extraordinary measures” that allows the Treasury to continue to borrow and spend money even after it has hit the legal debt limit."
Only a U.S. Federal Government Official could use the term "standard set of extraordinary measures" and proceed to borrow more than is authorized by law - with complete seriousness. Really, if it weren't true, I'd swear it was a Monty Python sketch. I didn't bother to investigate what the "standard set of extraordinary measures" are, but when Timmy Geithner did it, they included failing to fund federal worker pension accounts - an illegal act for any organization that isn't the Federal Government.
2. EXCLUSIVE: Feds admit improper scrutiny of candidate, donor tax records
Justice has declined to prosecute any of the cases According to the Washington Times, "The Treasury Department has admitted for the first time that confidential tax records of several political candidates and campaign donors were improperly scrutinized by government officials, but the Justice Department has declined to prosecute any of the cases.
Its investigators also are probing two allegations that the Internal Revenue Service “targeted for audit candidates for public office,” the Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, has privately told Sen. Chuck Grassley."
3. Circumventing or ignoring completely laws currently in force. There are any number. Refusing to enforce immigration laws in order to effectively enact the DREAM Act by Executive fiat is probably the most egregious. Failing to enforce DOMA, and failing to perform his constitutional duty to defend it in court combine for another. I just came across a relatively minor, but perhaps telling in that his abrogation of his Constitutional responsibilities and his flaunting of laws is becoming mundane. There has been a provision in an appropriations bill for quite some time that prohibits the CDC from using any of its funding “to advocate or promote gun control.” Which effectively thwarted their research because of course the CDC was doing research expressly to promote gun control. Obama issued an executive order instructing the CDC to ignore Congress' intent and to proceed to produce 'research' 'proving' the need for more restrictions on guns.
UPDATE
Did I mention that the administration is importing illegal immigrants through a loop hole in the asylum rules?
Immigrants are being taught to use "key words and phrases" to be allowed to enter and stay in the country.
Just this past Monday, Border Patrol agents say about 200 people came through the Otay Crossing claiming a quote: "credible fear" of the drug cartels.
It's even providing free hotel rooms for them.
UPDATE 2: Charles Krauthammer adds to the list:
UPDATE 3: I see this list is going to grow daily. In this case, reported by the Washington Times, the Administration has been caught ignoring a federal law to open Yucca Mountain. Just ignoring it.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been violating federal law by delaying a decision on a proposed nuclear waste dump in Nevada, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
"In a sharply worded opinion, the court said the nuclear agency was “simply flouting the law” when it allowed the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The action goes against a federal law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear waste repository.
“The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion"
Judge Kavanaugh ought to know better than that. The president certainly can, and has. ACA waivers, DOMA, Immigration, oh, I could go on. But there are only 24 hours in a day...
Besides, if Congress doesn't care, why should the the president?
"Reid, a Democrat, called the appeals court decision “fairly meaningless.” Congress has cut funding for Yucca and is unlikely to restore it, Reid said.
“This isn’t even a bump in the road. This, without being disrespectful to the court, means nothing,” Reid told reporters at a clean energy conference Tuesday in Las Vegas.
How do you call a federal court decision "fairly meaningless" which "means nothing" without thereby being disrespectful of the court and the actual rule of law?
On a slightly more positive note, it seems there IS a precedent for stopping the implementation of a law by withdrawing funding. Mike Lee, call Harry Reid to see how that's done...
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/13/appeals-court-obama-violating-law-nuclear-site-nev/#ixzz2bwvBMaNt
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
UPDATE 4: Sorry for two in as many minutes. But this article by Victor Davis Hanson is a must-read.
It doesn't take much thought to see through through this one
One article amidst the Leftist caterwauling about voter ID laws is this one in the Atlantic: "The Republican Push to Make it Harder to Vote"
Linda Killian writes,"Texas residents will now have to show a state- or federal-issued form of photo identification to vote. The list of acceptable forms includes a concealed-handgun license but not a state university student ID. The omission suggests it is not voter fraud but voters unfriendly to the GOP that Abbott and other Texas Republicans are trying to thwart."
Well, if 'voters unfriendly to the GOP' means people who are not eligible to vote in Texas, then she is correct. Perhaps Ms Killian doesn't have a CHP so she doesn't know that proof of residency is one of the required documents to obtain one. Perhaps she didn't attend college, or attended a local college so she doesn't realize that some students attend class in other states where they are not permanent residents. and thus are not eligible to vote there.
Probably not. Her objection suggests that it is not eligible voters but Democrat voters, dead, alive or whatever that Killian are trying to defend.
Actually, I really am in favor of making it harder to vote. Sure, every citizen who meets the eligibility requirements of age and residency should have the right to vote And there should be no unreasonable obstacles to their exercising that right. But voting is equally a right, a privilege, and a responsibility. It is a right held by citizens of the United States. It is a privilege reserved to citizens only and only those who are not prohibited (felons, minors, etc.) and it is a responsibility that ought not be taken lightly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)