Notice how many of them are no longer in Congress? And We the People still hate it, more now than before it was passed. It’s time for Republicans and those Democrats who like their cushy perks of Office to abort ObamaCare.
Archive for the ‘Law’ Category
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2015/01/27
The US has 90 guns per 100 citizens, far outstripping any other country. That’s something Bloomberg bought and sold Shannon Watts will tell you. What she won’t tell you is that the US is also in the bottom half of all countries in murder rates, with the Socialist, huge gun-control countries above us. She also won’t tell you that the US would be far lower if not for the murder rates in the Democrat-controlled gun-control cities of the US, such as Detroit, Chicago, DC, Atlanta, Cleveland, etc, etc.
Dallas, the Democrat run city in gun nut Texas, is the Texas city with the highest murder rate, and it’s not even in the top 20 in the US. So, as everyone with even a lick of sense knows, gun-control laws increase murder rates instead of decreasing them.
Posted in 2nd Amendment, Conservative, Constitution, crime, Culture, Law, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, truth | Tagged: gun control, Gun Sense, murder rate, Shannon Watts | 6 Comments »
Posted by DNW on 2014/11/18
A reminder that big business and the free market are not the same thing, as we see the Lords of Crony Capitalism collaborate with Welfare State Diktat, and declare it “Good”.
“Insurers and the government have developed a symbiotic relationship, nurtured by tens of billions of dollars that flow from the federal Treasury to insurers each year,” said Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.
So much so, in fact, that insurers may soon be on a collision course with the Republican majority in the new Congress. Insurers, often aligned with Republicans in the past, have built their business plans around the law and will strenuously resist Republican efforts to dismantle it. Since Mr. Obama signed the law, share prices for four of the major insurance companies — Aetna, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth — have more than doubled, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has increased about 70 percent.”
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/11/16
Back when we had control of the northern half of it, we should’ve annexed it then. But we didn’t, and we’ve been suffering for it since. And what is “it”, you ask? “It” is this.
And I know certain empty heads will esplode because I wrote this.
Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, crime, Culture, economics, Humor - For Some, Law, Politically Incorrect, politics, society | Tagged: corruption, drug lords, Government corruption, Mexico | Comments Off on We Could Annex The Northern Half Of It
Posted by DNW on 2014/10/18
… really, to the Activist Left.
With the most recent publication of the New York Times article on the Grand Jury findings and the likely Justice Department decision not to prosecute Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting of Michael Brown, it would seem that with a large portion of the uncertainty surrounding this event dissipating, so too would the causes for emotional inflammation lessen at least proportionally.
The Times reports:
“The officer, Darren Wilson, has told the authorities that during the scuffle, Mr. Brown reached for the gun. It was fired twice in the car, according to forensics tests performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first bullet struck Mr. Brown in the arm; the second bullet missed.
The forensics tests showed Mr. Brown’s blood on the gun, as well as on the interior door panel and on Officer Wilson’s uniform.
Officer Wilson told the authorities that Mr. Brown had punched and scratched him repeatedly, leaving swelling on his face and cuts on his neck. This is the first public account of Officer Wilson’s testimony to investigators …”
So, Officer Wilson’s testimony does at this point seem consistent with the forensic results.
But, says the Times, “ … it does not explain why, after he emerged from his vehicle, he fired at Mr. Brown multiple times.”
Now let’s just stop here for a moment and consider where we are even if we discount not only Piaget Crenshaw and Tiffany Mitchell’s versions of the encounter at the police car, but also Dorian Johnson’s potential “spin”. After all, Dorian Johnson was an accomplice in Michael Brown’s moments-before robbery of Ferguson Market and Liquors . So, just for the sake of argument, let’s also suppose that Johnson’s version of Officer Wilson’s reaching up and out through the police SUV window, and grabbing the 6’4″ tall, 300 lbs, Michel Brown by the scruff of the neck with one hand , and drawing him back into the police vehicle in order to shoot him, is discounted.
Let’s suppose instead, and based on videotaped fact quite reasonably, that Brown, highly conscious of the strong arm robbery he had just perpetrated, and of the success he had just had in assaulting and technically battering the store clerk into submission during the robbery, figured he would try the same technique on the cop who was trying to tell him to get out of the middle of the road and to stop blocking traffic; a cop who in returning to deal with Brown’s refusal, and while in radio contact with headquarters, would in all probability become more curious regarding Brown’s recent activities and current motives.
Let’s suppose then, that Wilson is telling the substantial truth: that Michael Brown, knocking Officer Wilson back into the SUV as he attempted to emerge, went himself partly in through the car door window in order to batter Wilson into submission. And, that during the course of Brown’s battering Wilson, Wilson and Brown struggled for control of Wilson’s gun, and that, as the forensics show, the gun was discharged twice in the vehicle, spattering the vehicle interior as well as Brown and Wilson, with blood from Brown’s arm.
At which point Brown wounded once in the arm, takes off running; and Wilson, battered about the head and face emerges from the vehicle in pursuit.
The first point to make here is that many on the left would object to Wilson shooting Brown under any circumstances: even to save his life in the midst of a potentially life or death struggle.
How do we know this? We know this, because in what they are positing as roughly parallel cases, wherein there was perhaps even more existential provocation for shooting an assailant, such as for instance, having your head smashed on a concrete walk, leftists and race hustlers have in fact vehemently objected.
In the specific instance just now referenced, the case of Zimmerman-Martin, even after it was demonstrated through imagery, and geometrically, and through the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s so-called “girlfriend”, that Trayvon had to have doubled back on Zimmerman in order to assault him; even after Zimmerman’s bloody skull and broken nose were finally shown to the public; even after the ballistics showed that Zimmerman shot up into Trayvon’s chest while, or virtually while, being battered by Trayvon, the blase’ response of the left – agreed to by our friend the Old Gap Bridger for another example – was that Zimmerman had earlier invaded Trayvon’s space, deserved an assault and battery in response, and should therefore have “taken his beating like a man”.
In other words, to some on the left who still like to pose as fellow citizens instead of declaring as outright enemies, it doesn’t matter if you are being maimed or killed by a member of the imagined victim class. You are to passively suffer it; or maybe, flee. The victim classes’ “right” to inflict mayhem on you, trumps your very right to life.
Now in the case of Officer Wilson and Michael Brown, it is apparent, even according to our hypothetical scenario here, that Brown was shot multiple more times after Officer Wilson drove off Brown’s initial attack. This additional shooting occurred after Officer Wilson extricated himself from the vehicle and, as was his duty, set off in hot pursuit of the man who had mere seconds before been battering him.
It is at this juncture that (generalizing) a further supposition of the activist left comes into play. Already under their scheme of things, you are presumed to be obligated to to suffer a beating at the hands of a member of an official victim class without responding with fatal or potentially fatal force. At the very least, the moment any such assailant pauses in his attack on you, he is presumed immune from any retaliation.
In the specific case of Brown and Wilson, Brown (under our assumed scenario) having unsuccessfully attempted to batter and or kill Officer Wilson in Wilson’s car, was fleeing the failed attempt, and thereby had under collectivist moral sensibility become immune from the leveling of deadly force in retaliation. It would not matter if Brown had just 5 seconds before gouged Wilson’s left eye out and ripped off his right ear. As the leftist activist sees it, the perpetrator is morally immunized [legally is another matter] from physical retaliation through the act of flight.
Furthermore, even if Brown ceased flight, not in order to surrender, but only to resume his assault under the transparent pretext of pretending to surrender, the left would still assert that to kill the assailant prior to a repeat of physical contact, no matter how many warnings to halt were given, was “unjust”.
The reason is that under their scheme of interpretation, neither Wilson, nor Zimmerman, nor any other person not a member of an official victim class, is even entitled to self-defense. More broadly, no one is under the leftist system, actually. But this most especially applies to all such people already considered guilty of capitalism, and economic privilege, and of engaging in the pursuit of self-interest. Those, thinks the leftist, of this bourgeois kind, who are not yet the recipients of an assault or battery or murder, are only awaiting their turn at a proper fate.
Unfortunately this attitude, more broadly predicated and subtly construed, at least superficially, has been creeping steadily into law over some generations now.
There can, it is plain, be no real reasoning across this kind of moral gulf.
One can only resist, or submit.
Posted by DNW on 2014/10/16
NBC News reports
“President Barack Obama is expected to issue an executive order Thursday paving the way for the deployment of National Guard forces to Liberia to help contain the Ebola outbreak there, sources told NBC News.
The sources said that eight engineers and logistical specialists from the Guard, both active-duty and reservists, would probably be included in the first deployment. They are expected to help build 17 Ebola treatment centers, with 100 beds apiece. The sources said that no decision had been made.
Defense Department officials said that the executive order was necessary to speed the deployments, and would allow the president to send additional forces as needed. Health officials have recorded more than 2,400 Ebola deaths in Liberia, the highest of any country.”
The National Guard? There have undoubtedly been numerous changes for the worse in our laws in recent years, but when did the President get the authority to call up National Guardsmen for duty beyond our borders on his own imperial say so?
What the hell has this country, and have its people, become?
In partial answer to my own question we have this from the Heritage Foundation. I have made paragraphs in some cases where none were before in order to emphasize certain points.:
“In the 1980s, governors again resisted a presidential call for the militia (National Guard). Some of them objected to the deployment of their states’ National Guard troops to Central America. Led by Minnesota governor Rudy Perpich, these governors withheld their consent to federally ordered National Guard active duty training, as was their prerogative under then current federal law.
In response, Congress enacted the Montgomery Amendment, which prohibited governors from withholding consent for National Guard active duty service outside the United States.
Perpich filed suit against the Department of Defense, arguing that the Montgomery Amendment was unconstitutional because it infringed on the militia training authority granted to the states under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.
Perpich also sought to enjoin the use of Minnesota National Guard troops in any training outside the United States that did not have the governor’s consent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the supremacy of presidential control over the operations of the militia when called into actual service of the United States.
Like James Monroe and Justice Joseph Story, the Court held that a state governor could not veto the use of a state militia when called upon by the nation in accordance with Congress’s constitutional power and the President’s constitutional authority.
Recent Presidents have made more use of the National Guard as a reserve, calling units up for long periods of duty abroad, in actions in the two Gulf Wars, Bosnia, and Afghanistan.”
All this still leaves open the matter of Congressional assent, and under what legal authority the militia is being “called into the actual service of the United States”.
My, what a race of serfs we have become.
Posted by DNW on 2014/09/16
Just trying to keep things straight here in case of potential developments in the Still Somewhat United Kingdom: but, if Scotland declares its independence in order to form a more perfect collectivist state, is Scotland somehow automatically grandfathered in on the various agreements and crap we have with Great Britain?
I mean, like, man, how could this legally be? Wouldn’t Scotland then be a brand new country, with no treaties or agreements with anyone and no membership in any international organizations?
So … then Scotland wouldn’t even be a member of the United Nations, right? And the United States, for example, would have neither direct nor indirect obligations or arrangements with the Scotch – assuming they even exist for much longer before turning their country over to foreign laborers in return for a promise that their pensions will be paid until they die, or whatever.
But think for a minute. What if Denmark invaded Scotland? Would anyone be legally obligated to respond in its defense? What if Donald Trump invaded … with the intention of turning the whole place into a game preserve?
And, in somewhat happier terms, might this mean in a legal context, for example, that any annoying socialist son-of-a-bitch you might run across, would be – as long as he was Scotch – virtually outside the law … if that is, you could catch it off its home turf?
Now, “Why in the world … “, you might ask ” .. would I even wonder about something like that”? Especially as I am always carping in favor of freedom and self-determination?
The answer is obvious: Alex Salmond.
Yes, that Alex Salmond, pictured above. (Though you might be forgiven for mistaking him for that other tubby leftist Scotch miscreant George Galloway.)
I’ve been doing a little reading about the Scottish Independence referendum, and it is clear that a great deal of what has been driving it, unfortunately, is not a desire for more freedom, but a demand for less.
And who is especially in favor of it? Well, according to those profiled in The Guardian, it’s those who have heretofore had little or no interest in politics, and but who presently draw checks from it.
So what we have here in the Scotch Independence Movement, is a movement that appears to be largely by and for those who draw their meal tickets from the government and who are determined to make sure that if England is infected by “neo-liberal” ideas of the kind that spell individual rights and less government direction, they will not be part of it.
Of course others have a different opinion. Some see it, and speaking of Donald Trump, as part of a vast right wing conspiracy for which Salmond is acting as crony or front man.
Who can say really. All we really know is what the Scotch in favor of the movement say, and that is that they want less dangerous classical liberalism and more guaranteed welfare statism, even if it means paying for their “Independence” by importing a non-Scots replacement population in order to to underwrite it all.
Why don’t they just put guns to their heads and pull the triggers?
The Nazis, famous for being infamous, were once also famous for complaining that many of the most vigorous of the German nationality had emigrated to America; leaving behind a more stolid and less heroic population than was necessary for an anti-classical liberal national revivification of the kind they envisioned. Their proposed solution was the organized militarization of their political culture, and the expulsion (or murder) all non-Germans in the perfervid hope of reinvigorating their “people”.
The Scotch solution to an endemic national ennui and the threat of encroaching classical liberalism, is to declare independence from the source of the individual self-direction taint (England), and turn the country over to immigrants who will, they hope, underwrite the comfort of the present pensioner class.
Talk about two suicidal extremes proposed as answers to what was essentially the same question …
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/07
From Facebook comes this gem. See how many squish Republicans are there. I saw a couple of very noteworthy Republicans in that list. And people wonder why the grass-roots are up in arms against Republicans, too.
The DEMOCRAT John McCain is on that list, as is the other Flake from Arizona and the sore loser from Alaska who needed K-Street to win as a write-in against the Republican in the race, as the Democrats jumped ship from their loser candidate to vote for her over the grass-roots Republican (who went on to snub the one person who had the king-maker mantel who could help him win). And of course, there’s Orrin Hatch, who got all wee-weed up that the grass-roots didn’t like him. Ever wonder why the grass-roots didn’t like you, lifer Orrin? (Even though I post your very worthy Hanukkah song every year.)
Posted in Character, Conservative, Constitution, Culture, economics, Elections, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, society, war | Tagged: Jeff Flake, John McCain, Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch, Republicans out of touch, RINO, Senator Murkowski, Veteran Pensions Cut | 1 Comment »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/09/01
Yeah, the title is grammatically incorrect. I won’t suggest you sue me, because there are morons who do just that for other frivolous crap. (I’m looking at you, Wee Willy Widebody (and barely keeping my lunch down) and your idol, TDPK.)
So, I’m watching FOX News, and they tease an upcoming report regarding Michael Sam and ESPN. Yes, as I write this, ESPN reported on Michael Sam’s showering habits in regard to the rest of the team. And later apologized.
But that brings up an important point.
For many decades, pro sports did not allow women journalists into the locker rooms where men tend to be naked or almost naked. Likewise, pro sports did not allow their athletes to shower with the cheerleaders. Well, due to some blow-hards, there are women journalists in locker rooms with naked men. Movies like Jerry Maguire do comedic bits with this. Woman journalist asks naked man a question; woman journalist drops microphone; woman journalist looks away as she squats down and fishes for dropped microphone. But there are still rules preventing the football team from showering with the cheerleading squad.
I don’t think there is any reasonable person or group of people who would suggest the Lakers should be able to shower with the Laker Girls, or the Raiders should shower with the Raiderettes. And for good reason. Pregnant cheerleaders are kind of a turn-off. A Family Feud winner’s question session (I don’t know what they actually call it) asked 100 men about the visual rating (you know, rate a girl from 1 to 10) of a pregnant girl. It was extremely low.
Okay, there was some snark there. But it was based on the facts that are there, too. What happens when you put a bunch of naked alpha-males and a bunch of naked beautiful women in a group shower? You get a bunch of naked sex. Not every time, but it will happen.
There is also the morality aspect. Millennia of moral standards say women and men should not do such a thing. It will inevitably lead to the slippery slope of immorality. Yes, the slippery slope is real; thus, not a logic fallacy.
But what does the Cavaliers showering with the Cavalier Girls have to do with Michael Sam showering with his teammates? As “The Plague” said to “Zero Cool”, “think about it.” If you are against homosexual “marriage” (like me) or you are for it; if you think the Bible is truthful in calling homosexuality an abomination (like me) or you disregard the Bible; if you think homosexuality is abnormal (like me) or you think it’s normal, you have to agree that homosexual people showering with those of the same sex (the people they are attracted to) has to be a bad idea, because of what can result.
What can result if men and women shower together? Sex. Rape. Assaualt and battery. Murder. Self-defense – caused death. Appropriately modest people having to decide to stay stinky or violate their own modesty rules. Ostracization due to a person’s modesty. Ostracization due to a person’s lack of modesty. Ostracization due to a person’s Christian values. Ostracization due to a person’s refusal to bow down to the Leftist PC bovine byproduct.
Why should Michael Sam not have the option to shower with other football players? He is sexually attracted to what is between their legs. It’s the very same reason no football team should have the option to shower with the cheerleaders. They are sexually attracted to what is between the cheerleaders’ legs.
And, quite frankly, I should not have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to sexual parts people of my sex have. Women should not have to shower with someone who is sexually attracted to their sexual parts. And women have no business being in a locker room full of men who are fully or partially naked.
Period. (For you Limeys who frequent this site, that means Full Stop.)
Posted in 1st Amendment, Character, Christianity, Constitution, Culture, funny business, Law, Liberal, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, truth | Tagged: cheerleaders, ESPN, FOX News, homosexual agenda, Michael Sam, showering | Comments Off on Who Do YOU Shower With?