Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
Showing posts with label What We Believe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label What We Believe. Show all posts
I have a theory that the Democrats don't really want comprehensive immigration reform (which is basically code for amnesty). They would prefer to have the issue and use it as a continual bludgeon against the GOP. Why actually solve a long-standing problem when you can merely pretend to solve it, undermine it every step of the way and then blame your political opponents for its ultimate failure?
Black Democrats don'twant it. Even some labor unions are skeptical. But these groups are happy to let Republicans get all the blame and thus hamper efforts to woo more Latinos into the GOP. Harry Reid's latest move is simply further evidence that the Democrats are not really interested in legitimate reform. He's just guaranteed that no legislation will be passed. Even if the Gang of Ocho gets something through the Senate it won't stand a chance in the House...because it won't be a serious bill. It will be a bad joke.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated on Wednesday that he will not allow the Gang of Eight immigration bill to require stricter border security measures merely in order to attract Republican votes.
"Our goal now is to pass the strongest legislation possible with as many votes as possible while staying true to our principles," Reid said.
A number of Republicans, led by Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), have said they may be able to support the bill if it includes a hard "trigger" of ensuring stronger border security metrics are in place before allowing undocumented immigrants to pursue a path to citizenship.
The Senate voted 57-43 on Thursday to table an amendment to the immigration reform bill that would have required increased border security before providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
The amendment from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) would have prevented the government from granting provisional immigrant status until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary has maintained effective control of the borders for six months.
Grassley blasted Democrats for burying his proposal, which was the first change to the Gang of Eight's immigration bill to be considered on the Senate floor.
"This vote proves this 'open and fair process’ is a farce," Grassley said. "The majority is afraid of having a true vote on my amendment. This is not the right way to start off on a very important bill."
Grassley said the immigration bill repeats the mistakes made in the 1986 overhaul by "legalizing first and securing the border later, if ever."
. . . Here it is. The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That's treason, and it's worthy of the firing squad. The B.S. needs a serious gut check. We are not a tin pot banana republic where machine gun toting rebel groups storm the palace and depose the dictator.
We put the president in the White House. To support the new NRA president's agenda of arming the populace for confrontation with the government is bloody treason. And many invite it gladly as if the African-American president we voted for is somehow infringing on their Constitutional rights.
Normally, I am a peaceable man, but in this case, I am willing to answer the call to defend the country. From them.
To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, "We'll put a boot in your —, it's the American way."
Except it won’t be a boot. It'll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won't do them any good.
Keep in mind that this violent rant was written by a man who describes himself as being "hardly out of the mainstream." If this kind of attitude represents the mainstream of gun control advocates then here is a good example of why gun control advocates cannot be trusted. Let's say that the Toomey-Manchin legislation had passed into law. When the next mass shooting occurs (and it will, because insane people, like criminals, don't respect or obey the law) what will be the response of anti-gun fanatics? Will they admit that their idiotic strategies have failed? Of course not. They will simply use the failure as an excuse to agitate for even more restrictions on gun rights.
Keep in mind that Toomey-Manchin was merely a pathetic last ditch effort to get some form of anti-gun legislation on the books because the "assault weapons" ban the progs really wanted was not supported by a sufficient number of Democrats, let alone Republicans. As it turns out, universal background checks aren't supported, either. But that hardly matters to the fanatics who insist that the government have a monopoly on force.
As Jeffrey Miron wrote shortly after the 2011 Tucson shooting, "mild controls don't always stay mild."
Gun controls like those being proposed may, on occasion, prevent horrific events like the Tucson shooting or at least reduce their harm, but in all likelihood only rarely. Avoiding a few such incidents is surely better than avoiding none, so these controls would make sense if they had no negatives of their own.
But gun controls, even mild ones, do have adverse consequences.
At a minimum, these laws impose costs on people who own and use guns without harming others, whether for hunting, collecting, target practice, self-defense, or just peace of mind. The inconvenience imposed by bans on extended-ammunition clips or waiting periods to buy a gun might seem trivial compared with the deaths and injuries that occur when someone like Loughner goes on a rampage. And if the only negative from these controls were such inconveniences, society might reasonably accept that cost, assuming these controls prevent some acts of violence.
But mild controls don’t always stay mild; more often, they evolve into strict limits on guns, bordering on outright prohibition. And this isn't just slippery-slope speculation; a century ago most countries had few gun controls, yet today many have virtual bans on private ownership. Some of these countries (the U.K. and Japan) have low violence rates that might seem to justify strict controls, yet others experience substantial or extreme violence (Brazil and Mexico).
More broadly, comparisons between states and countries - as well as social-science research - provide no consistent support for the claim that gun controls lower violence.
Strict controls and prohibition, moreover, don't eliminate guns any more than drug prohibition stops drug trafficking and use. Prohibition might deter some potential gun owners, but mainly those who would own and use guns responsibly.
The answer is, the argument Obama lost was not over limited background checks but on the role of the federal government when it comes to regulating guns. There's a good reason for this: Obama originally and publicly pushed for a so-called assault weapons ban, but the votes for it weren't there - not even close. The White House's response to the failure of the gun ban was not to accept public opinion on it but rather to promise (threaten?) they would be back later for the gun ban, and would not back down. Thus Obama communicated quite clearly to the public that the background checks were, if the president got his way, only the beginning of the administration’s renewed efforts to chip away at gun ownership.
The Post report concludes:
To their credit, the president and his White House tried like hell to emphasize that the proposals in the bill were ones that drew support across party lines. But, their failure to make that case effectively speaks to the entrenched views much of the country holds on guns. The conclusion? Most people simply weren’t really listening to the argument President Obama was trying to make.
That's only partly true. They were listening to the argument Obama was trying to make in the context of the wider argument he has been making all along. The public and their representatives didn’t ignore the president. On the contrary, they listened carefully, and voted accordingly.
That would be the same UAW who gained majority control of GM itself when the Obama administration trampled established bankruptcy law. And it would be the same General Motors the administration touts as a "success story" on the campaign trail.
Yet more than 20,000 Delphi workers face an uncertain future, and GM's success story is nothing of the sort: of the $50.7 billion taxpayers shelled out to save the company, $27.2 has yet to be paid back - and likely never will be. The much-touted production of the eco-minded Chevy Volt has been suspended due to anemic sales–and GM's 2011 annual report reveals that two-thirds of GM's jobs are located in foreign countries.
Contempt for the law, and the ongoing efforts to stonewall that contempt, form the core of this administration. It is a "template" that can be plugged into any one of numerous scandals this administration has inflicted upon the nation, from the expenditure of treasure, represented by a string of green company bankruptcies and the GM bailout, to the expenditure of blood, represented by the death of American heroes in both Fast and Furious and Benghazi. 20,000 Delphi workers are now well aware that, with respect to an administration that has spent four years picking America's "winners and losers" - based on nothing more than crass political calculations - they belong to the latter group.
Private charity is unquestioningly better than government efforts to help people. Government squanders money. Charities sometime squander money, too, but they usually don't.
Proof of the superiority of private over government efforts is everywhere. Catholic charities do a better job educating children than government - for much less money. New York City's government left Central Park a dangerous mess. Then a private charity rescued it. But while charity is important, let's not overlook something more important: Before we can help anyone, we first need something to give. Production precedes donation. Advocates of big government forget this.
We can't give unless we (or someone) first creates. Yet wealth creators are encouraged to feel guilt. "Bill Gates, or any billionaire, for that matter," Yaron Brook, author of Free Market Revolution and president of the Ayn Rand Institute, said on my TV show, "how did they become a billionaire? By creating a product or great service that benefits everybody. And we know it benefits us because we pay for it. We pay less than what it's worth to us. That's why we trade—we get more value than what we give up. So, our lives are better off. Bill Gates improved hundreds of millions of lives around the world. That's how he became a billionaire."
Remember back in March when John McCain and Lindsey Graham crapped all over Rand Paul's epic 13-hour filibuster against John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director? McCain called Rand and those who stood with him "wacko birds." Graham actually switched from opposing Brennan to voting for him, admittedly to spite Rand Paul.
"I was going to vote against him until the filibuster, so he picked
up one vote," Graham said, laughing to reporters in the Capitol.
"I thought Brennan was arrogant, a bit shifty," he said, but added
that he was going to vote for Brennan because the vote had become a
"referendum on the drone program."
So it comes as no big surprise to read this from Politico:
Yet during one of Obama's toughest times as president, there was McCain, sitting down last week with him in the Oval Office for a private strategy session. At the urging of new White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, who has sought better ties with Republicans, Obama has had more substantive discussions with McCain in the past five months than he did in his first four years in office, according to associates of both men. Suddenly, the two are working together on issues ranging from immigration to the deficit.
"I'm getting nervous," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), McCain's closest friend in the Senate. "I told Denis McDonough, 'I don't know what you've done: You've hijacked him.'"
"Ever since the election, we've had conversations and phone calls," McCain told POLITICO in an interview. "And I think we share many agenda items that we can work on together, ranging from immigration reform, the prison in Guantánamo, to working perhaps on a grand bargain, security of our embassies and consulates. There are a bunch of issues that we share."
Last month, McCain was one of just four Republicans to vote for the failed bill to expand gun background checks, a centerpiece of Obama's agenda. McCain is a chief architect of the Senate immigration bill supported strongly by the White House. He's expressed deep reservations about GOP threats to filibuster Obama’s Cabinet-level nominees. He's slammed his fellow Republican senators for blocking Senate Democratic efforts to begin bicameral budget negotiations with the House. And he’s even suggested new tax revenues could be part of a grand bargain.
Lindsey Graham isn't getting nervous...he's getting jealous.
Click here to read Michael Walsh's comprehensive demolition of Maverick's legacy. Awesome.
We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.
Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed.
As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department?
