Tag Archives: crime

How Government Really Works (For the Rich and Powerful)

06 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on How Government Really Works (For the Rich and Powerful)

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Many, many people are upset by Hillary’s most recent escape from justice. I’m not sure why they’re surprised. Injustice and a legal double standard are nothing new in post-American America.

Today John V. Walsh has some terrific satire on the matter, fictional (likely) but very close to the actual mark of corruption.

Bill (whispering): Loretta, they may have bugged your plane. Let’s use a simple code. I will call the FBI team working on the indictment, “your grandchildren.” And I will call Hill’s campaign “my second grandchild.”

Loretta nods in agreement and gives him a wink. They enter Lynch’s plane and sit down.

Bill: Nice to see you, Loretta.

You certainly have come a long way since I appointed you as a Federal Attorney way back in 1999. You deserve everything you have come by. I do not ever want you to feel indebted to me. And I am delighted that nothing embarrassing came up when you were confirmed as US Attorney General.

Loretta: Bill, you have not changed a bit.

Bill: I understand your grandchildren have been running wild these days. Are you still having trouble reining them in?

That is the way it is.

“W, the … the little people … still, … still believe in … justice! Ha, ha, ha, ha…”

There is a solution to this corruption. It’s a long process but the starting point is pretty easy. Just elect Ron Paul president in 2008. Oh, too late for that. Didn’t want to “throw away” the votes. Ah, then, just get used to it.

*Note: this is post 204 for the year, which surpasses all of 2015.*

Laws Are Like Spiders’ Webs

05 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“These decrees of yours are no different from spiders’ webs. They’ll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they’ll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth.” – Anacharsis the Scythian (speaking with Solon).

So it is as it has always been. Today a woman with power and wealth once against tore to shreds American law. Hillary Clinton may have broken the law but she won’t be prosecuted according to the FBI’s recommendation issued today. The federal government has a law for everyone and everything – part of its scheme to maintain total control of the population, nothing more. People in charge of sensitive, classified information, like a Secretary of State, are expected to go above and beyond to maintain the integrity of the information entrusted to them.

Accordingly, the law places on such special people a higher standard of what is criminal misconduct. Congress eliminated the intent element regarding data transfers and breaches so that even incidents of negligence will qualify as offensive. In most circumstances a person accused of a crime must be proven to have intended to break a law or cause harm. They cannot or should not be charged if they did something accidental that resulted in a technical violation. In these special cases though the law is much more demanding. The information trustee is presumed to have the need and ability to protect the data even against foreseeable instances of negligence or even accidental unauthorized dissemination.

Hillary laughs at the weak and insignificant. Pinterest.

Today the FBI rewrote the law in order to avoid charging Hillary.

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

  • National Review.

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is information that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” [FBI Director] Comey told reporters in Washington, D.C., noting that the probe has found that the former secretary of state used several different email servers and numerous devices during her time in office.

  •  Politico.

The final say rests with the Department of Justice [SIC], parent of the FBI, which is under the control of Loretta Lynch (talk’n golf with President Clinton) and President Obama (Hillary’s boss and friend). Nothing will happen; case closed. On with the Democrat Party selection process and the general election. Even without criminal charges, do you want a President with a history of being “extremely careless” with classified information?

In any other investigation, right now an FBI agent would be applying before a judge for an arrest warrant. Anyone else would go to jail, go to trial, almost certainly be convicted of this crime, and probably do prison time. Well, anyone weak and insignificant would. Hillary is powerful, wealthy, special. Yesterday I put up a WSJ chart that shows (what I’ve talked about for years) that most people charged in federal court, who do not take a plea deal, end up convicted. And, almost all – the chart did not show this – almost all such persons enter into an agreement and plead guilty to something. Thus, those ensnared in federal prosecution (mostly for crimes the feds have no business prosecuting) are about 97-99% likely to be sentenced as guilty.

This is what we call a double standard. That’s what Anacharsis said to Solon 2,500+ years ago. It isn’t right. It isn’t justice. It is a clear sign that the real criminals are the agents of the state itself.

Armed Citizens Are The Only Viable Answer

01 Friday Jul 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Armed Citizens Are The Only Viable Answer

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Three years ago, then Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said armed citizens may the only solution to fight terrorist attacks.

Speaking in the wake of the Westgate Mall massacre in Kenya, Secretary Noble said:

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

Interpol means “International Criminal Police Organization” for those of you recently divorced from the X-box. Think of it as the world’s police agencies cooperating to fight crime across borders. Think of the Secretary General as the world’s police chief. Ron Noble is now the immediate past leader of the group. Here’s part of what he told ABC News in 2013:

Citing a recent call for al Qaeda “brothers to strike soft targets, to do it in small groups,” Noble said law enforcement is now facing a daunting task.

“How do you protect soft targets? That’s really the challenge. You can’t have armed police forces everywhere,” he told reporters. “It’s Interpol’s view that one way you protect soft targets is you make it more difficult for terrorist to move internationally. So what we’re trying to do is to establish a way for countries … to screen passports, which are a terrorist’s best friend, try to limit terrorists moving from country to country. And also, that we’re able to share more info about suspected terrorists.”

In the interview with ABC News, Noble was more blunt and directed his comments to his home country.

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’ This is something that has to be discussed.”

“For me it’s a profound question,” he continued. “People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn’t be armed,’ etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you’re in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'”

Three years have given us plenty more examples similar to Westgate – Paris, Paris again, Brussels, Orlando, Istanbul, etc.

During that last three years Western governments have done nothing to stem the flow of terrorists across borders. If anything, they’re increased the flow. At the same time they continue to generate additional irritation in terror-prone regions. This vicious and near-suicidal scheme proves definitely that the governments cannot be trusted to protect their people – which is really the only valid reason to have governments.

Noble’s alternative idea, of extraordinary security over soft targets will not work. Virtually all places where ordinary people go on a daily basis are soft targets. There are simply too many of them and too few resources to guard them officially. That, and the terrorists are finding new and innovative ways around heightened security even at “hard” targets – places like the Istanbul airport. They only way extraordinary security everywhere would work would be to have everyone (or most everyone) become security officers.

Everyone being security would mean an armed and vigilant citizenry. Thus, that is the only viable solution to stemming the tide of terror. It rarely makes local news and never appears nationally, but every day armed citizens in places like Colorado and Texas shoot or subdue armed attackers. How many of these vigilante actions have prevented Paris, Orlando, or Westgate-style terror incidents?

In Israel, where most people are armed everywhere and all the time, terrorists do not attempt mass shootings. It’s one thing to strike and then wait for or escape from the police. It’s another to open fire and immediately have all surrounding people return fire. In Israel the terrorists long ago switched to suicide bombings. This practice is growing throughout the West – usually performed in conjunction with shootings.

It’s very hard to defend against bombs. Gun attacks, however, are deterred by the threat of immediate gun responses. An armed and active citizenry would put a dent in the accomplishments of jihad.

Ultimately it will be impossible to stop all attacks – especially those utilizing explosives. To stop those the people must demand governments either do their job – and get the terrorist elements out – or get out-of-the-way so the people can do it themselves.

None of this is appealing to the state. Having proved itself useless, dangerous even, the government will rightly fear an armed populace, especially if the people manage to connect the dots between the state and the terrorists. The term “revolution” comes to mind. Thomas Jefferson blessed this concept. As Nathan Bedford Forrest said, “A government that fears arms in the hands of its people should also fear rope!”

The state, evil but not completely stupid, is beginning to take measures to counter the threat of the righteously indignant and armed people. They still do nothing about the terrorists. They are against us as much as the terrorists are, maybe more so.

An armed populace is the only answer. Guns up!

Liberty Alliance.

*****

On a related note, here’s today’s Viernheim update. Nothing. I don’t think they’re coming clean; they’re counting on the goldfish-like memories of the masses. So, here’s what I think happened.

I think the shooting incident at the Kinopolis was a failed false flag event. (Chuck Baldwin explains how to spot one – a real one.) I cannot speculate on the intention of the flag – heck, this is all speculation anyway. The shooter was a German national and mentally ill. He was likely as not the son of immigrants. He was probably recruited by some German agency in the same way the FBI and CIA use patsies to further terrorist schemes, real and fake, in the U.S.

What was the nature of the recruiting? Who knows. Ferreting out real terrorists? Maybe. Building sympathy for immigrant “refugees”? Maybe. Pushing more gun control? Possibly. A blow to Brexit or support for the EU Reich? Perhaps. Something. The nut probably went off the reservation – out of direct control of his handlers – and then went rogue. Having some new ideas in his already scrambled mind, he likely decided to act on his own – in about as a pathetic a manner as possible. That would explain his rambling, excited demeanor and his use of fake weapons.

The SEK quickly gassed and gunned him down and is now silent in a cover-up. ISIS and other terror groups would never claim responsibility or even association with such a failure. They like successes – like Paris and Istanbul and Orlando.

Time may tell if some eye-witnesses come forth with information, if the police leak the truth, or if some investigative journalist in Europe runs with my ideas. I’m done with the story until I hear something concrete.

 

The Collins Amendment: I Don’t Buy The Gun-Fly Lie

30 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on The Collins Amendment: I Don’t Buy The Gun-Fly Lie

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has proposed the Terrorist Firearms Prevention Act of 2016, popularly known as the Collins Amendment. Who could possibly be against such a thing? I am, for one. Her proposal is similar to Diane Feinstein’s S.551 and several other meaningless measures floating around the septic tank of Congress. Her’s is the one in the news today having passed a procedural vote 52-46. Here’s the majority of the Amendment (click the picture for the whole thing):

nimbus-image-1467305366319.png

Collins Amendment. Senate.gov.

The vote had to be of the unrecorded, oral variety as I can’t find reference to it. Congress frequently avoids such disclosure. Why would anyone want to readily know how his Senator voted on something anyway? There are reasons a rational man would oppose such a “common sense” law. Anyway, support for this version of gun control is being hailed as some sort of crack in the GOP/NRA wall against a safer America.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is a co-sponsor of the Act so we can assume he was among the 52. His explanation of its provisions highlight the problems with the Amendment and various other government projects. Per the Times story:

Republicans find it much easier to explain enacting gun restrictions to constituents devoted to the Second Amendment if they can frame their position as an act against terrorism.

“The Constitution’s a sacred document, but it is not a suicide pact,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a gun owner. “This is not hard for me. Due process is important, but at the end of the day, we are at war.”

Graham clarified in a press release:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement after voting in support of the Collins amendment to prevent terrorists from buying guns.

The amendment survived a procedural vote, 52-46, and remains eligible for a final vote.

Graham said:

“At the end of the day this really is about counter-terrorism, not gun control. We are a nation at war against radical Islam and under increasing threats both here at home and abroad.

“President Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure and helped give rise to the very threats we face. I have long argued we must do more to counter the threat abroad. However, it is also important we take steps here at home to protect ourselves as well. It’s why I supported the Collins Amendment.

“Simply put — I don’t want anyone who is too dangerous to fly on a plane to buy a gun.

“To be on these lists today means there is reasonable suspicion and credible evidence that the individual in question is involved with or in support of terrorist activities. There are about 109,000 people on these lists and 99% of them are foreign nationals, not U.S. citizens. There are only about 2,700 Americans who could be impacted by this measure.

“I believe in due process and I was insistent the amendment contain provisions to ensure those who should not be on these lists can clear their name. We put the burden of proof on the government to show the individual is a danger and should not be allowed to purchase a gun. If the government fails, the individual’s rights are upheld and the government will pay their legal tab.

“This debate will continue and I will continue to work to find common ground that both protects the rights of law-abiding citizens and prevents terror suspects from purchasing guns. The differences between the competing approaches are narrowing.

“I will continue to strive to be a senator that can bring us together and find common ground in times of great threat.
####

He’s right about continuing to strive to be a senator but all wrong beyond that.

The Act isn’t about counter-terrorism or about gun control. It’s just another law and another burden on the people.

Graham is correct that Hussein Obama’s policies have only made the threat of terrorism worse. To be fair though, Hussein Obama has only continued the disaster of a policy put in place by Bush 43. And Graham’s proposals on the subject, whenever he spouts off, are always of the kind which would make things EVEN WORSE.

At home he says there are 109,000 people on the watch lists. Of those only 1% or 2,700 are U.S. Citizens (closer to 2.5% by my math). If 106,300 foreign nationals are on the lists of suspected terrorists, why the hell are they not rounded up and deported immediately?

Neither Graham nor any other Senator really cares about Due Process. This proposal, like S.551, has a huge loophole to allow the Attorney General carte blanche authority over who goes on the list and allows the government to ultimately assert national security as an end-around to avoid due process in court. By Graham’s math that means 2,700 Americans right now could be out of luck; the list would surely grow if the Act passes into law. Don’t look for any of the foreigners to go home; in fact, more and more will just keep coming.

Graham’s position may be summed up as: “We’re at war (with an enemy we created and brought home). Therefore the Second Amendment and due process of law can go out the window.”

The saddest part of all this (as if it isn’t sad enough) is that the whole thing is pointless. Gun control does not work to stop gun violence. Period. None of the criminals and terrorists Collins and Graham feign interest in stopping would be subjected to any provisions of the Act. The University of Chicago “just discovered” that criminals don’t buy guns the legal way (surprise, surprise!). So much for soft gun control controlling crime. Even hardened European gun control does next to nothing to stop gun violence. When it comes to government gun control it’s all about the state controlling citizens and about perception (image over substance).

Then there’s the issue of bombs…

All this shows again and again you cannot trust the people who created the problem to know how to solve it. Don’t buy the gun-fly lie.

Senators propose more burdens on the People. NY Times.

What is Gun Control?

27 Monday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on What is Gun Control?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gun control…

For some it’s about taking advantage of tragedy and belittling those they hate. I almost didn’t include this first story due to the inherently bigotry and low-brow “journalism” behind it. Still, here it is. A woman in Texas, a self-described Second Amendment proponent and gun owner, committed an atrocious crime (the facts of which I don’t have and don’t want) – she apparently murdered her own daughters after an argument. The woman was also shot and killed by the police. Three women dead for no good reason – terrible.

Enter Helen Thompson writing on American News X. Thompson offered up an assessment of the crime in terms both racist and anti-Christian.

Too bad for Christian Christy Byrd Sheats two daughter’s, 17 and 22, Sheats had a gun with which to “protect her family.” That gun was used to gun down both girls in the street after a family argument.

Sheats was then killed by police after refusing to drop her weapon, literally bringing home the insanity of the famed phrase “from my cold, dead, hands.”

Note the immediate description of the shooter as a Christian. Would Thompson dare describe a Muslim terrorist as a Muslim terrorist? I think not. I did a quick Googling of “Helen Thompson” and “Muslim” and the first thing I saw was Thompson berating Donald Trump for trying to “initiate a Muslim witch hunt”. I guess witch hunts aren’t even for witches anymore – just Christians.

Thompson continues:

This woman appears to be the poster child of white, GOP America. She praised her religion, loved veterans and country music, praised Ronnie Reagan and George W., and loved her guns. She was a Texas resident, originally from Alabama. This woman literally reeked of right wing Americana — of normal, gun-loving life. She loved her grandmother, had been bitten by a black widow, and basically, seemed to love life and her children.

The white America. Would Thompson ever write about one of the thousands of murders committed by blacks each year (47% of total murders vs. 10% of the population)? No. It’s just a white, Christian, all-American kind of thing. Y’all wouldn’t understand.

Thompson didn’t even call for more gun control beyond her ridicule. “No good guy with a gun stopped this senseless murder by a ‘good guy’ with a gun,” she ranted – what a tired, worn, anecdotal, and worthless “argument”. If not even true in this case – the police officer “good guy” used a gun to stop the white, Christian bad gal.

Maybe some of the problems the left has with guns in America comes more from a hatred of America and its people than from a hatred of guns. These cretins, seething in their hatred, want the government to disarm all the white Christians – and everyone else of decent persuasion.

I have no use for the government at all. Some people on “my side” do. Droves of my friends boast about obtaining their concealed carry permits. Actress Kelly McGillis just joined the ranks of the permitted carriers following an attack at her North Carolina home.

I like that they have armed themselves in a world seemingly gone mad but I do not like the way they have done it. Why a permit from the state? I know it’s the law in most places. I understand that. Most people who get the permits are law-abiding. It’s a law that shouldn’t be abided by – or exist. Why should there be permits for the exercise of the right to carry anyway? Rights do not require permission slips.

I sympathize with and applaud Mrs. McGillis’s decision to arm and defend herself. I found it odd though that she took the measure following a home invasion. North Carolina does not require a permit of any kind to defend oneself at one’s home. I realize she obviously wants protection outside her house too. Thus the permit. And, thus, my problem.

Running to the government for permission to protect one’s life is little different in my mind to running to the government to prohibit others from protecting themselves. Either way, the government is not the answer. Usually, it’s the problem.

In a sense everyone wants reasonable “gun control”. Some, like Thompson, would have the state “control” guns by banning them from white, Christian hands at least. Gun owners generally favor the responsible, personal “control” of the individual firearm. If, to them, that means acquiescing to a state law, then they do it. Either way it’s the state, the state, the state. How about some gun control for the state itself?

In addition to regulating firearms, the government has a long history of widely distributing them, usually with terrible consequences. Most of government works like that – they find a small problem and come up with a solution that creates a bigger problem. I suppose it justifies their existence. I don’t see the need.

A few years ago the ATF was caught red-handed selling and then giving guns to Mexican drug cartels and to criminals. Some of those guns came back, fast and furious, and were used to kill Americans. The ATF isn’t alone. They are novices compared to the CIA. The “intelligence” agency has taken to giving arms to Syrian “rebels”. Many of those weapons were stolen and ended up on the black market – gun show of choice for terrorists. And, you guessed it, some of those arms have killed Americans. By arming one side (maybe more) of this conflict which does not concern the U.S. the government helps generate more angry “refugees” who then migrate to the West for various purposes – some for aid and reflief, others for revenge and crime. Little problem, “solution”, bigger problems.

Government agent Joe Biden oversees “gun control” while exploiting “loopholes” at a Jordanian gun show. NYT.

The left tries to scare people with stories of white, Christian Americans wielding automatic assault rifles and rocket launchers. They want the government to do something about it despite the fact it isn’t a problem. The government does do something! It supplies “Kalashnikov assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades” to rebels and then to the black market and to terrorists. Nice, huh?

Another of the left’s arguments for more government control is that the firearms available when the Second Amendment was ratified were flintlocks and thus those are the only ones the people are entitled to keep and bear. By that logic, shouldn’t the CIA be running muskets and not rocket launchers? Maybe people like Thompson should limit their writing to quill pens. All beside the point.

How about less government for a change? How about limiting or banning the state’s use of firearms (and rockets and grenades)? Might that make for a safer society? As is, they give us freedom control, crime, war, mindless intervention, black markets, and terrorism; all that in addition to rules, regulations, taxes, inflation, oppression, etc. More government, more crime. Why have it or its controls?

False Information: Ours and Theirs

26 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on False Information: Ours and Theirs

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Nowhere are double standards more noticeable than in the political realm. Two stark examples came out last week and are still developing.

In Idaho three juvenile “refugees” kidnapped and raped a five-year-old girl in a laundry room of an apartment complex. “Refugees” and rape go together so well they’re often conjoined – “rapefugees”. Just part of the enrichment process say the elite. The cowboys in Idaho ain’t having it. They’re mad as hell but are behaving rather tamely. 100 years ago the suspects would already be swinging in the wind.

In Germany last week an armed man took hostages at a movie theater. According to police he was armed with fake weapons but they shot him down anyway – a reasonable response to a hostage situation.

Here’s the rub:

The German incident happened four days ago and still we know nothing of the identity of the suspect nor his motives. In most cases like this (Paris, Orlando, etc.) the police release this information even as the attacks unfold. Why the silence here? What are they hiding? This case is beyond strange. The police must at least know the suspect’s identity. The only conclusion I can draw is that they are hiding something – withholding information. Are not the people entitled to know what is happening?

In Idaho the facts are there for all to see and all (almost all) are mad as hell about what happened. Enter the federal government. The U.S. Attorney for Idaho has stepped into what is a purely local, state-law case. She’s not in this to help with the prosecution of the criminals – she’s just threatening the good people of Idaho into silence.

“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities. I urge all citizens and residents to allow Mr. Loebs and Chief Kingsbury and their teams to do their jobs.”

Why threaten victims and their supporters into silence? What is the Department of Justice [SIC] trying to hide here? This threat comes from the same criminal government that simply can’t import criminal “refugees” fast enough. The answer is obvious.

“The spread of false information … may violate federal law.” I thought that was a federal standard operating procedure. Mr. Powell told the U.N. Saddam was building WMDs. False information. They say a small office fire that burned itself out collapsed a 40-story skyscraper. False information. The VC attacked the Maddox. False information. Israel did not attack the Liberty. False information. Income tax withholding is temporary, to defeat Hitler only. False information. The Viernheim shooting was not terrorism. Your children are safe around rapefugees. And on and on and on…

How anyone can possibly trust this gang of murders, thieves, and liars is beyond me. The government needs, in any case, to either come clean or shut up and go away. In fact, they should just please go away.

buelahman.wordpress.com

Ronald Reagan and FOPA: Myth vs. Reality

25 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Conservatives tend to lionize anyone associated with their ideology. Fewer politicians have been more ingrained in conservative mythology than Ronald Wilson Reagan. Rush Limbaugh explained:

He was optimistic and happy. He was infectious. He dared to embrace big ideas. He dared to do big things to overcome huge obstacles in the midst of all kinds of experts telling him it couldn’t be done, in the midst of all kinds of criticism, in the midst of all kinds of personal insults.

…

He rejected Washington elitism and connected directly with the American people who adored him. He didn’t need the press. He didn’t need the press to spin what he was or what he said. He had the ability to connect individually with each American who saw him. That is an incredible — I don’t even want to say “talent.” It’s a characteristic that so few Americans have, so few people have, but he was able to do it. He brought confidence; he brought vigor, and he brought humility to the presidency, which had been missing for years, and this profoundly upset his political and media adversaries to no end, and Reagan enjoyed that. Ronald Reagan rejected socialism; he rejected big government. He insisted on returning as much government back to the people as was possible.

Some of this is certainly true. On the surface Reagan seemed like a true American President in the most realistic and patriotic ways. Compared to his two immediate predecessors he seemed like one of the Founders returned to save the day. Compared to the last two occupiers of the Whitehouse it would almost seem that Reagan came down from Olympus. It is understandable why so many cite him their favorite president of all time or call him the greatest conservative. However, as sometimes happens, the facts get in the way.

Reagan cut tax rates but he also increased taxes – 11 times during his Presidency. On his watch the federal debt tripled. Bush (43) was only able to double the debt, Obama being on a similar trajectory. Amateurs. Reagan grew the government, both in terms of spending and in overall scope. Reagan, while opposing Soviet intervention throughout the world, engaged in extreme levels of foreign meddling, some (like the Taliban) with lasting consequences.

Reagan also gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. His law was sold to the public as a crackdown on immigration but only deepened the problem for future generations. He also successfully sold gun control under the guise of firearms protection. Reagan was a gun grabber.

I was reminded of this when I saw a pro-Reagan/pro-gun, “conservative ” meme posted on Facebook:

Conservatives Today

On March 30, 1981 John Hinkley Jr. shot Reagan outside the Washington Hilton with a .22LR revolver. The President made a full recovery. Press Secretary James Brady was not as lucky, being paralyzed by a head shot. Brady and his wife Sarah founded the Brady Campaign against guns. As Reagan did not immediately react by joining with the Bradys many believe him a full proponent of gun rights – thus, the above meme.

Conservative forget that after leaving office Reagan supported the Brady Bill: “Still, four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special — a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol — purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981.” Ronald Reagan, Why I’m For the Brady Bill, New York Times, March 29, 1991.

The now-expired/obsolete Bill did little to nothing to stop violent crime. Had it been law in 1981 it might have saved Brady and Reagan and two others from being shot. It was law in 1999 and did nothing to prevent the Columbine tragedy.

Reagan never had a chance to support or sign the Bill while in office. He did, however, sign the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act (FOPA) into law in 1986. Like Reagan’s immigration “crackdown”, the Act’s name is a misnomer. FOPA, 100 Stat. 499, amended 18 U.S.C. § 921, et seq. (and related laws) in an overhaul of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), 82 Stat. 1213-2.

Had Reagan been a friend of the Second Amendment he would have attempted to repeal the GCA and the National Firearms Act (NFA). He did not; he added more controls. FOPA had two effects. One, it shuffled around ATF regulations and procedures in response to complaints of arbitrary and redundant policies. However, the “loosening” of some regulations came with a steep price. The second part of FOPA essentially banned the sale to and possession of machine guns by civilians.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

The machine gun “ban” was not actually a total bar. In reality did two things: it created onerous requirements for ownership, and; it limited the supply of available guns. Current estimates of the number of fully automatic weapons available to the public are somewhere around 180,000 units. This limitation caused the price of the guns (not including the taxes and procedural costs of ownership) to skyrocket.

The military or a police agency can purchase a new Heckler and Koch MP5 9mm sub-machine gun for somewhere south of $3,000 (well equipped). A citizen can buy the same thing for north of $30,000 before taxes. And, the citizen gets a reconditioned pre-1986 model. It’s like the government’s stupid “cash for clunkers” program that dried up the supply of used cars and forced more people into buying more expensive newer cars; except, here, the people are left with only a supply of outrageously overpriced used vehicles.

Now, many folks do not like the idea of any automatic weapons in the hands of the commoners. Liberals use “machine guns” as a rallying cry to describe just about any gun – from a Daisy BB rifle to a single-shot 12 gauge. Even people on the right are often opposed to the concept. I’ve been at several NRA functions and similar events where gun lovers would tell me, when prompted or on their own, that “no one needs a machine gun”.

Really? Then just how did the nation survive from the invention of the machine gun (call it Maxim in 1883) until 1986 without total calamity? It’s the same reason “assault rifles” pose no danger – criminals don’t use them. Criminals prefer handguns like Hinkley’s .22 plinker. Of the 8,124 murders committed in 2014 with firearms, only 248 were committed with any kind of rifle. In the same year 435 people were murdered by baseball bats and hammers while 660 were killed by punches and kicks. Automatic weapons appear nowhere in the statistics even though there are about 180,000 of them out there.

This is the way it’s always been. In years past and in a freer America anyone could purchase any type of weapon with no government interference at all. This included machine guns. Then, as now, there was no problem or epidemic associated with these dread devices. That’s because they are really only good for engaging large numbers of hostiles at once. Even combat soldiers rarely resort to fully automatic firing. In war machine guns are usually used in concentration against hardened positions, armor, or against massed enemy troops. Before 1898 and the Spanish-American War the American military had almost no machine guns at all. The Rough Riders had to rely on civilian-donated guns to attack San Juan Hill. That means for about 15 years machine guns were only in private hands – with no reported problems.

Well, we had it…. izquotes.com

Now, you might be thinking, “if machine guns are only useful in extreme circumstances in war, why bother having them?” The truth is most people would not own them even if they were completely unregulated. It’s the freedom, the option to have them that matters. Given that we have a government which raises taxes, increases the debt and burden on the people, stirs up terrorists, and imports aliens (including terrorists) – often while lying about it all – perhaps this is an option the people need.

Like them or not, these weapons are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment and by the Natural Law theory of self-preservation. These are part of the citizen gun rights in need of protection. Ronald Reagan didn’t do it regardless of what the Facebook conservatives think.

Wands and Guns: Fallout From BREXIT

25 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Wands and Guns: Fallout From BREXIT

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fifty-two percent of the British people favored leaving the EU on Thursday. That leaves forty-eight percent on the losing end – and more than a few are vocalizing their dismay.

One of the “remain” losers left furious by the will of the people is J.K. Rowling of Harry Potter fame. Mrs. Rowling has earned over $1 Billion dollars from her popular series about adolescent wizards. I’ve never read any of the books though my daughter is a big fan, she attended a pre-release party last night for the next Potter tome. I generally don’t like or read fantasy beyond Tolkien though I am considering A Throne of Bones by Vox Day. Anywho…

Rowling lashed out at voters with the worst she could muster – calling them “a bunch of mini-Trumps”. I fail to see how a sovereign and independent England will affect her book sales. She is likely more concerned about her portfolio at present – British billionaires lost a combined $5 Billion on Friday. They bet big but wrong.

Some have seen the young wizard Potter as an opponent of gun control or, at least, wand control, due to a self-defense incident he encountered in one of the books. “Rowling thus appears to embrace the most extreme argument for an individual right to possess weapons- that those weapons may be required in defense against one’s own government.” Again, I have not read any of the books and know nothing about Rowling’s personal stance on such issues. If the above quote is accurate, then it is a wonderful thing, BREXIT views aside.

BREXIT has unleashed other pro-gun sentiments within the UK. Nigel Farage, naturally, is one:

Nigel Farage has called for firearm laws to be relaxed, calling the current ban on handguns “ludicrous”.

The Ukip leader criticised the “kneejerk” restrictions on handguns imposed after the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which Thomas Hamilton killed 16 schoolchildren and a teacher before shooting himself.

The laws were brought in by Sir John Major, the then Tory prime minister, and extended to a total ban by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 1997.

Asked about gun controls, Farage said: “I think proper gun licensing is something we’ve done in this country responsibly and well for a long time, and I think the kneejerk legislation that Blair brought in that meant that the British Olympic pistol team have to go to France to even practise was just crackers.

“If you criminalise handguns then only the criminals carry the guns. It’s really interesting that since Blair brought that piece of law in, gun crime doubled in the next five years in this country.”

If BREXIT does nothing more than weaken gun control, it is worth the effort. Farage is dead on with his assessment of crime rising in the absence of firearms – a universally documented experience. Britain and other EU countries have the kind of gun laws American liberals salivate over. Those countries also import a high number of non-Western types who, as a group, have a higher penchant for criminal activity than the natives. This is not a good combination. It echoes the thoughts of Scott Adams on Why Gun Control Can’t Work:

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

…

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

Still, gun grabbers in America are hard at work to disarm the would-be victims of crime, personal or governmental. Hawaii is now the first state to place it’s registered gun owners into an FBI database for the monitoring of criminal activity – the first step towards confiscation. That’s the only reason for such a program. The kind of people who would register and submit to such a system are the types Farage and Adams describe – those who would defend themselves against criminals. Criminals don’t care and won’t comply – something about being a criminal.

Currently the FBI program “Rap Back”is only used to monitor people under criminal investigation, like Hillary Clinton, or those in sensitive positions of trust, like Hillary Clinton. Now, the innocent people in Hawaii who are not criminal suspects will be treated like they are. The grabbers would love to expand this program nationwide.

I say Hawaii should use BREXIT as a model and rap themselves back to being an independent island kingdom. Then, they could have all the gun control they can handle. They’ll experience an increase in violent crime but that’s their business. Leave the rest of us alone.

Dirty Harry. Google/Youtube.

Viernheim: Another Lesson on Gun Control

23 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Today, while people in Britain pondered BREXIT, people in Viernheim, Germany tried to take in The Jungle Book at the local cinema. Their plans were interrupted.

A gunman was shot dead by police in Germany on Thursday after he attempted to take several people hostage in a cinema.

In what appeared to be a remarkable police operation, none of the hostages were injured.

The German authorities said the gunman, who has not been identified, was “disturbed” and there was no initial evidence of a link to terrorism.

But police were reportedly investigating an explosive vest and a hand grenade found on his body to see if they were genuine.

There was no word on the hostage-taker’s ethnicity or background. Witnesses described him as being between 18 and 25 years old.

He was armed with a “rifle or long gun” and reportedly fired four shots in the air as he entered the cinema in Viernheim, a small town south of Frankfurt.

The good news is twofold: no innocents were killed; the shooter was. Multiple media sources (not many in the U.S. though) were adamant the shooter, while not yet identified, had no initial ties to terrorist organizations. Just a man with a suicide vest, a grenade, and a rifle. Just a disturbed man of unknown origins on a shooting spree.

Someone should relay this story to John Lewis and his idiot friends currently occupying the House floor in support of gun control. That way they can urge the Germans to adopt “common sense” gun control. There obviously isn’t any restriction on firearms in Jerry-Land or else this incident could not have happened.

Some good guys with guns who stopped a bad guy with a gun. Telegraph/Facebook.

Oh wait… Germany has some of the strictest gun control measures in the world. Modern efforts to disarm citizens dates to 1919 and the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was a huge proponent of gun control – for certain people. Post-WWII, the East Germans found themselves under Stalinesque tyranny, including more gun controls. The current German Weapons Act came into effect in the 1970s and has been getting more restrictive as time goes by. Germany is also the only place in the world where those seeking a (hard-to-get) firearms permit must undergo psychiatric examination. That’s one of the insane ideas the American left has thrown around at their child-like sit-ins. None of it worked today.

Germany has also recently welcomed over 1 Million third-world “refugees”. The country is a hot-bed of terrorist ideology and action. The way I see this attack: it was either an ISIS hit gone awry, and/or: it was a failure of German gun control. Either way it won’t help the intellectual descendants of Hitler and Stalin in their attempt to create unarmed subjects out of armed, law-abiding citizens.

 

 

 

Designated Shooters Maybe?

22 Wednesday Jun 2016

Posted by in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Designated Shooters Maybe?

Tags

, , , , , ,

The gun grabbers are still in a tizzy. They always are. A cartoon dissected:

Nick Anderson/Tampa Bay Times

Frame 1: True, shooters almost always pick gun-free zones – so they won’t be shot at themselves as they “work”.

Frame 2: A good guy with a gun can and usually does stop a bad guy. This is how many if not most gun-related criminal encounters end and usually with no harm to anyone except perhaps the criminal. The media rarely reports these instances as they don’t help the narrative of a wild west, crazy gun culture out of control. Mass shooting criminals don’t stop until they are shot by other men with guns – either by the police or by armed citizens. Omar Mateen killed away in a gun free zone until terminated by armed police. The cops took 3 hours to do it – citizens usually take a minute or less.

Frame 3: How about a nightclub full of drunks and a couple of sober, armed people.

Frame 4: Couldn’t get much worse than 49 dead, huh?

Under existing Florida law patrons, even with a CCW license, could not legally carry at Pulse, a place that serves alcohol. “A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into … Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose…” Fl. Stat. § 790.06(12)(a)(12)(2016).

Georgia recently amended its corollary law, becoming one of 13 states that allows for firearms carry in bars and places that serve alcohol. HB 60 (2013-14) amended O.C.G.A. § 16-11-127 (2015) so as to remove the prohibition against carrying into bars. However, it is still illegal to discharge a firearm while under the influence except in cases of a valid emergency.

It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm while: (1) Under the influence of alcohol or any drug or any combination of alcohol and any drug to the extent that it is unsafe for the person to discharge such firearm except in the defense of life, health, and property; (2) The person’s alcohol concentration is 0.08 grams or more at any time while discharging such firearm or within three hours after such discharge of such firearm from alcohol consumed before such discharge ended…

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-134(a) (2015)

Out of these 13 states I am not aware of any abuse committed by any carrier in a bar. In these jurisdictions bar owners still have the right to refuse entry and service to anyone carrying a gun.

If one applied the cartoonist’s ridicule to alcohol consumption itself, rather than to guns, the result would be prohibition. That has been tried and did not work out so well for us, being the only Constitutional Amendment ever repealed after ratification. Still, there is a “common sense” parallel to be drawn between guns and alcohol, and concerning guns and alcohol. It’s Georgia’s approach. As we have promoted designated drivers, so we should promote designated shooters.

Yes, good guys with guns do stop bad guys with guns – even in bars.