Tag Archives: control

King Obama: Ruling by Executive Action

obama-king1

When the national village idiot, Joe Biden, suggested that President Obama may take executive action rather than work through Congress to pass new gun legislation, I thought – eh, Biden’s lips are moving again. But here we are today, with the President saying just that.

My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence,” said Obama. “Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. And so I will be reviewing those today, and as I said, I will speak in more detail to what we’re going to go ahead and propose later in the week. But I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it.

Amazing that President Obama, our esteemed law professor, who taught at the University of Chicago for 12 years without publishing one academic article, finds that “executive action” is the way to go rather than let Congress do their job. While he has not said that he is solely relying on such action to limit ‘gun violence’, it is not unlike him to rely on such power. President Obama did the same with immigration laws, not that long ago. Why bother executing the laws, when you can write them yourself?

President Obama probably feels that Congress will be unable to agree on new gun control measures – therefore, he should go ahead to take “some steps… that don’t require legislation…”. We will see what steps he’s referring to sometime in the near future. In this second term, with nothing to stop him, I think we can all be seriously concerned.

Ben Shapiro Takes Foreign Gun Control Bully Piers Morgan Down a Notch

emvideo-youtube-LJdhAm_oUUs

Breitbart editor-at-large and author of “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans” Ben Shapiro took Piers Morgan down a notch on the issue of what should be done after the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut. Shapiro accused Piers Morgan of being a “bully” who was “standing on the graves” of Sandy Hook shooting victims while characterizing gun control opponents as ‘unfeeling.’

Shapiro makes the important point about how the left mistakes passion for reason when it comes to policy. Those on the left mistakenly believe that because they feel more, and that means they are inherently on the side of right, meanwhile those who disagree with them are wrong. Rationality and evidence don’t enter into the equation.

And as Shapiro drove home, neither does history — the left dismisses the entire notion that citizens should have guns to defend themselves from tyranny. As Judge Napolitano echoed in his Washington Times article, the Second Amendment acknowledges that citizens’ have “the right to shoot tyrants, not deer.”

At one point, Shapiro pulls out a Constitution, which Piers once refers to as “your little book,” and makes the salient argument that the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution not for purposes of protecting hunting and game shooting, but so citizens are legally allowed to defend themselves from government tyranny. He then made the haunting remark that “the fact that my grandparents in Europe didn’t fear (tyranny) is why they’re ashes.”

Cross-posted at Independent Journal Review

Kabuki Theater: Is the GOP “Controlled Opposition”?

kabuki

kabuki

During the entire torturous game of shadow puppets that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party played in the run-up to the disastrous fiscal cliff deal, every single conservative knew how it would play out. The president would make some outrageous demands, pretend to compromise, and get basically everything he wanted from an effectively complicit Republican Party.

This play has been run so many times in Washington the last few decades, from George H.W. Bush onward, that one has to wonder if there is any actual opposition in either party or in the mainstream media to America’s obvious lurch towards a socialist police state.

It begs the question: Is the Republican Party a legitimate opposition party? Or has the GOP been captured by socialists and is being used to promote their agenda? Seems like a bit too Robert Zemeckis for most Americans to buy, unless one can get past the slick interchange of left-wing terms like “socialism,” “progressivism,” and “liberalism.”

But why can’t it happen here? Nations all over the world have been captured by socialists: Russia, Serbia, Poland, Hungary, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Cuba, Greece, Spain, Britain, and France — that’s just to name a few of the more obvious examples. It’s not to say the severity of socialism is the same: just like with diseases, peoples have varying immune responses, resistance, and coping mechanisms for dealing with the communist disorder.

America is pretty far along in its descent into collectivism. Thirty years ago, one could have said the same thing. But the Cold War kept Americans’ resistance high. Perhaps when the U.S.S.R. formally disbanded, leaving in place many of the same faces from its KGB apparatus, and the cause of radical environmentalism mysteriously appeared from out of nowhere on the UN stage, people began to lower their defenses.

The proof of the left’s effectiveness can be shown by the last few elections. President Obama has a well-explored socialist past, including but not limited to proven affiliation with the socialist New Party in Illinois. The president never had a noticeable public “coming out party,” when he rejected socialism and embraced the U.S.’ system of Constitutional government (on the contrary). Occasionally, President Obama mouths the words ‘free enterprise,’ but these empty words have no bearing whatsoever on his actions.

Yet the mainstream media, let alone the Republican Party, rarely if ever mention the president’s radical leftist associations and tendencies. Speculatively, one must consider the possibility that the GOP is being used as a willing scapegoat in a socialist ruse called “controlled opposition.”

Alternatively, another way of putting it is that there are a significant number of members of the Republican Party who pretend to be on board with Constitutional government and free economy, but who are actually leftists or so-called “progressives.” They knowingly lie about their ideological loyalties, and then vote against liberty on key issues — whether on national security items or social welfare spending. From a theoretical standpoint, the problem is thus both ideological and practical.

In order to understand the argument that the Republican Party could essentially be “captured” by socialists (whether through ideological or operative influence), a bit of background information is needed. Below is an excerpt from Theodore Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” The entry of 45 Current Communist Goals into the 1963 Congressional record by Representative Herlong, Jr. of Florida can be found here.

Below lists some of the major entries:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. (See recent article, “Professor calls for abolition of Constitution.”)

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture — education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“united force”] to solve economic, political or social problems.

If the Congressional record isn’t enough of a trustworthy source, one could go right to a primary document — the Communist Manifesto. Anyone with a critical mind can see most of the planks from the manifesto have been implemented with a stunning degree of success. But let’s address specifically the socialist tactic of “controlled opposition.”

Socialist regimes struggling to maintain legitimacy sometimes use the fake appearance of democracy and choice, as KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn explains in New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception. This theory actually explains the behavior of Republicans much better than the alternative hypothesis that the GOP actually cares about this country and its Constitution or the null hypothesis that the Republican Party is not controlled by socialists.

When Republican politicians like Governor Chris Christie hyperventilate about a bloated Superstorm Sandy relief bill, bemoaning that Republicans don’t care about those suffering in his state, that is a perfectly socialist thing to say. When Peter King goes on CNN and sobs about this porked-up $60 billion spending bill being held up by House Republicans, and he argues like it is assumed that politicians should be visiting states like New York to buy off voters, that is also a perfectly socialist thing to say. When King slams the GOP, sabotaging its role as an opposition party from within, one that presumably disagrees with runaway spending of taxpayers’ money, again — this is all too predictable from a socialist orchestration standpoint.

The question becomes: How would lying socialists act any different?

There is the alternative explanation that these politicians are ideologically subverted and are simply unable to understand what role they are playing in this left-wing charade. Personally, this is hard to believe, because it’s all so obvious and calculated for those who know anything about socialism and communism. Witness the thousands of East European, Russian, and Cuban emigres screaming about the socialist tendencies of the Democrat Party and the new tone of American politics.

Unfortunately, there are really hardly any contradictions to the theory that the Republicans are unopposed to socialism. What would it really take for a majority of representatives in the Congress to oppose the obvious maneuver to bankrupt the country and put the infrastructure in place for a communist police state? All it takes are votes, and yet we all wring our hands as if it would be an act of bravado akin to Mission Impossible.

Government never gets reduced in size, and the budget hardly ever get seriously cut, regardless of the public outcry or danger to the public finances. Yes, politicians may be cowards, but they are also not idiots. They have children and grandchildren too, and they must assume that it is better to be in the government, than out of it.

Thus, several prominent Republicans revolting would be consistent at this Destabilization stage in what KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov called the Demoralization-Destabilization-Crisis-Normalization paradigm of communist subversion. It would be textbook salami tactics from the party infiltrators.

Those who observe Russian politics understand that there are foil parties — ultra-nationalist and communist parties that play a role in making the regime seem reasonable —  as well as fake political opposition candidates who are actually lapdogs of the Kremlin. The last election that brought back former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin into formal power from his position of de facto power is an excellent case-in-point. Billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov appeared out of nowhere to run against Putin, right in the midst or roiling protests precisely against the stage-managed farce of Russian “democracy.” (Interestingly enough, it appears that the Obama campaign even borrowed its ‘first vote’ deflower power idea from some of Putin’s more amorous ads.)

On the ideological side of the equation, the left-right dichotomy is thoroughly corrupt, as it is framed and reinforced by corporate-run mainstream media. Corporations, for the record, are not necessarily supporters of “capitalism,” as demonstrated by the bailout and stimulus spending debacles. But no longer is the fight in the main public forum between left-wing statists and Constitution-supporting freedom fighters; but rather it is between fighters for the police state on one hand, and fighters for the welfare state on the other.

It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that this deadly dance ultimately leads to a totalitarian basketcase; after both parties get through trading quid pro quo votes in fake opposition kabuki theater, the result is a massive Department of Homeland Security under the sole authority of the executive branch and a media clamoring for gun confiscation at the first sight of any inevitable mass murder or other horrific gun crime.

The two parties are blending together in an act the communists called “convergence” — which is a mind-trick that normalizes the psychological perception of behavior through false dichotomies and calculated dialectics. This incremental tactic pushes the hard left narrative ever more into the mainstream of political awareness, due to the exclusion of rational, conservative alternatives.

The university education system, for example, plays a role in this process by censoring pro-market or pro-Constitutional materials out of syllabi and class discussions. The debate is framed between the hard left and the soft left, as if those perspectives are the only two alternatives. Political correctness and intimidation guides the conversation ever more to the hard left, specifically through the use of rhetorical tactics like the Delphi Technique.

This “convergence” is also the grand strategy for (former) communist states like China and former avowedly communist states like present day former KGB-run Russia. While these states introduce cosmetic market and democratic reforms, they remove the perception of threat that comes from communist infiltration and subversion (not that these states have to do much of anything nowadays to feed this — their guy is already in place). Communism becomes an archaic concern; it is removed from visibility, and repackaged under the guise of UN-led initiatives like radical environmentalism. Pivoting from staunch Cold War foe to mutual allies in forming an unaccountable world government takes “flexibility,” which could only come from a “reset” of relations.

When one examines the United Nations, and researches who formed the body, one finds that known socialists like Lauchlin Currie, Edouard Daladier, and Vyacheslav Molotov were instrumental in the mission. With Keynesianism being institutionalized at Bretton Woods, a slow war of attrition against capitalism was ensured, using the Federal Reserve (a plank right out of the Communist Manifesto) as a transmission belt to stretch the dollar to its breaking point, meanwhile eroding property rights and other aspects of free economy.

It is such the case that the federal government effectively owns the monetary system, owns “capital,” and thus, owns “capitalism.” We are all basically slaves to this ignoble machine. The government is micro-managing the economy into foreseeable and avoidable disaster.

Conclusively, numerous politicians in both parties are pushing America towards socialism on purpose. Where is the outcry from the Republican Party? Where is the outrage at the spending? What about the police state and our rights? If these politicians actually felt something must be said or done, they would find a way to make it happen. Instead, most Republicans are silent as church mouses, folding their hands or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

One has to hand it to the leftists — their sick, twisted plan has come off brilliantly. There are so many ignoramuses and “half-baked intellectuals” out there who are unmoved by any appeal to rational self-interest, that it doesn’t matter what kind of arguments you hit them with, they won’t ‘get it’ until a black boot kicks them in their fat bottoms.

Gun Control Statistics That Reasonable People Should Know

firearmsfacts

firearmsfacts

What would a reasonable person do if he actually wanted to know the truth about gun control? Put aside emotions for a second, and really think about setting out to save as many precious individual human lives as possible . Wouldn’t you want to look at national, international, time-series and historical stats to find out if your opinion is, you know, true?

Anyone can have an opinion based on wishes; it just behooves us to know what’s going on in that place called “reality” before we set off on some self-defeating, quixotic crusade. And “crusades” often get people killed. Lots and lots of people killed. (See DDT and malaria; or consider that the ‘long peace’ since the end of World War II is almost entirely due to nuclear arms proliferation to great powers).

With an open mind and a heavy heart, let’s take a look at 11 contextual and specific facts about mass murder, gun violence, and violence trends in the United States, and compare the U.S. to countries abroad:

  1. Mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, and dropped in the 2000s. Mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929. (According to Grant Duwe, criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections.)
  2. “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.” John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes, “More Guns, Less Crime.”
  3. “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”– John Lott, Jr. Co-author with Bill Landes of “More Guns, Less Crime.”
  4. “Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.” [John Fund, NRO. “The Facts About Mass Shootings.”]
  5. Total violent crime from 1973 to 2009 decreased 65%, or is about one-third as high. (Bureau of Justice Statistics)
  6. The U.S. murder rate decreased 8.1% between 2008 and 2009, and has fallen every year since 2006. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, based on FBI data).
  7. The United States ranks 24th in the world in terms of its murder rate. It also has the most highly armed civilian population.
  8. “International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.” (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)
  9. “The political causation is that nations which have violence problems tend to adopt severe gun controls, but these do not reduce violence, which is determined by basic sociocultural and economic factors.” [Then why does Luxemburg have nine times the murder rate of Germany?] (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)
  10. “The Middle Ages were a time of notoriously brutal and endemic warfare. They also experienced rates of ordinary murder almost double the highest recorded U.S. murder rate. But Middle Age homicide “cannot be explained in terms of the availability of firearms, which had not yet been invented.” (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)
  11. The odds of being in a victim of a mass shooting are far less than that of being struck by lightning.

Only when one gets the big picture view, then can we see the intra-national view: heavily urbanized gun control states tend to have gun murders that are just as high or higher on average than states that are rural or urbanized with concealed carry laws or relaxed gun permit laws. Beyond the timid phrase ‘gun control doesn’t work,’ which would imply we might as well implement them anyway just to make us feel good, they actually put Americans in more danger. This is not to say we shouldn’t do anything policywise to prevent as many rampage killings as feasible. We should do something — both personally and policywise.

Ultimately, why do spree killers go on their inhuman rampages? There are many different reasons, and a common causal factor is hard to say for certain. There are millions of people who are picked on, are lonely, or have bad families who don’t snap and kill others.  But simply looking at commonalities among spree killers is not sufficient; it’s an error in political science called “sampling on the dependent variable.” One has to look at the entire universe of individuals in a society more broadly and find the causal factors or cluster of factors that are significant and unique to the qualified cases at hand. What we can do is exclude the reasons spree killers don’t go on their murderous rampages.

The largest scientific study ever conducted at the time was published in 2000 at the NY Times, of all places. What was published is definitive and follows logically and empirically: rampage killers “are not drunk or high on drugs. They are not racists or Satanists,or addicted to violent video games, movies or music.”

The study examined 100 cases, including the Columbine massacre.  Among the findings: “While the killings have caused many people to point to the violent aspects of the culture, a closer look shows little evidence that video games, movies or television encouraged many of the attacks. In only 6 of the 100 cases did the killers have a known interest in violent video games. Seven other killers showed an interest in violent movies.”

It is irresponsible and self-defeating to rush to adopt public policies just because they make us feel better or well-intentioned or because we think we should do something. The history of humankind shows: understand first, then act.

Editor’s note: This article was edited to streamline the argument.

What Makes Free Birth Control Expensive

Michelle Stansbury

Michelle Stansbury

Initially, when my local pharmacy informed me that the nine dollar co-pay on my birth control was now waived, I was surprised. When they went on to ask for my grocery card to give me gas points on the birth control I didn’t pay for, I was appalled. Free birth control and gas points sound picture-perfect, if you ignore the long term ripple effect.

Memorably, Milton Friedman said it best, “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”  If insurance companies are mandated to provide free services at the pharmacy or doctor’s office, they have to bill the recipient later through higher premiums to compensate for the added expense. Sky-high premiums are already expected to take effect for many starting next year; the plan my family and I are on will see a dismal increase of 27 percent.

If you aren’t already seeing a frustrating shade of blue, there are also twenty new tax hikes on families and small businesses scheduled in 2013 and onward courtesy of Obamacare.

Simply put, through increased insurance premiums and taxes, I’ll be paying for my birth control and for those around me several times over when I could have paid a measly nine dollars a month. My budget will tighten because our government and the Sandra Flukes of the world refuse to heed a basic life principal: Nothing is free; no matter how many times the government mandates otherwise.

Michelle Stansbury is a political consultant, paid speaker, and Fox Radio Political Commentator. You can follow her on Twitter: @MBStansbury and Subscribe on Facebook here.

Justice Scalia: Guns Can Be “Regulated”

Scalia-Fox-News-Sunday-300x210

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sent a chill through the spines of conservatives with a foreboding warning about the government’s power to “regulate” what he referred to as “menacing” hand-held weapons.

Scalia’s comments elicited a furor at the website National Journal, where many weighed in to register their disgust at the possibility of another “conservative” justice betrayal. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts  appeared poised to strike down the individual mandate of the Obamacare legislation in late June 2012, but apparently sided with the liberal wing at the last moment.

Appearing in an interview given by Mike Wallace that is to be aired on Fox News Sunday, the originalist stalwart had the following comments:

[Whether or not government can ban high volume magazines and “assault” weapons] will have to be decided in future cases… But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried.

Several commenters at National Journal rightly rebutted Scalia’s opinion by pointing out the subjective nature of basing law on what liberals perceive as “frightening” or “menacing,” including hand-held weapons. There were other causes for concern with Justice Scalia’s comments.

Instead of basing his reasoning on inalienable individual rights, such as the rights to private property and self-defense, Scalia expounded on particular 18th century gun practices that preceded the ratification of The Constitution. From this exercise in historical exegesis, he leapt to the conclusion that the several states had the authority to “regulate” the citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

Scalia thus hedges the recent case record that the Second Amendment is incorporated and binding on the states, which was established in the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald vs. Chicago that struck down local gun control laws. That followed upon the related gun control case District of Columbia vs. Heller, which also struck down gun regulations.

The record of the Roberts’ course had seemed to be strong on both gun control and free speech issues before the Obamacare case debacle. Roberts’ capricious minimalism (the tendency to yield to the legislature on Constitutional interpretation)  and Scalia’s inconsistency in defending individual rights have many attentive citizens alarmed that gun “regulation” could go the deleterious way of Commerce “regulation.”

Whether or not one agrees with the Constitutional amendment stating that citizens have the right to bear arms, it is empirically rock-solid that citizens’ ability to lawfully carry concealed firearms leads to a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack among the several states.

Nonetheless, the massacre at an Aurora, Colorado theater, a gun-free zone, has given rise to increasingly vocal calls for gun regulations by the Democrat Party. The party even had the audacity to try to slip assault weapons-related gun regulations into an upcoming “cybersecurity” bill, probably after recognizing that the U.S. would not become a party to the UN’s small arms treaty.

Please share this article if you want to alert your fellow citizens about the assaults being made on the Second Amendment!