If you are 40 years old or younger, you will never collect a dime from Social Security. Odds are that you will not receive any benefits from Medicare, or Medicaid, either. All three entitlement programs will have collapsed into nothingness.
This is a mathematical certainty that neither the Democratic nor Republican speakers would address last night. President Barack Obama incredibly called for more spending in his second State of the Union Address, apparently learning nothing of the abject failure of his policies issued since his first SOTU.
Wonkish Paul Ryan could not bring himself to address the proximate pachyderms either in his Republican response to the President's address.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are dead men walking. They cannot be saved. Pretending otherwise, and letting the American people believe that entitlements go on forever is the greatest of disservices. It is poor consolation that neither party with survive the inevitable collapse.
Update: Social Security is officially broke. That took even less time than I thought!
1
I do not disagree with your premise, but your conclusion is not supported.
There are several half-measures that could save SS/med/Med. They all involve some measure of paying out less than current benefit levels. Once you move the bar, moving it again becomes easier. No doubt, the programs as we have known them will not survive, but something smaller witht eh same names and tax structure will.
As long as people work, there is a revenue stream through payroll taxes to pay some level of benefits.
1. As always, they will start with the rich, because they will squeal the least when stuck. Anyone with independent means will be excluded from collecting benefits. Middle class will collect smaller benefits and the bulk of the payments will be reserved for the indigent.
2. Changes to kick ne'er-do'wells from the rolls of SSS. Stop making disability payments to drunks and addicts.
3. Changes to med/Med to cover fewer things and for fewer people.
The math is not impossible.
Posted by: Professor Hale at January 26, 2011 01:23 PM (m7EhJ)
2
The problem with math based solutions is political. To start means testing is to admit that it's welfare and not some sort of pay in pay out pension program.
I fully believe that it will collapse, and I think it will happen before the actual financial collapse. Gen X (my generation) has never believed that SS will pay us a dime. We realized this long ago, and our actions show it:
The butthurt is going to come when Gen X has more political clout than the boomers, who are likely to be living on SS when it happens. That's when Gen X is going to just close the tap and scrap the whole thing. Why would we continue to pay into a system that won't be there for us when it's our turn? Means testing will absolutely come then, because the boomers will have to make do or go to traditional welfare.
Posted by: Phelps at January 26, 2011 02:20 PM (50ajE)
3
I am 59. I doubt that I will ever see a dime of SS. I have a small municipal gov't pension. SS will cut my SS because of it even though I payed in for years. It has been a ponzi scheme from day one.I say phase it out.
In 1965 LBJ and the Democrats started taking the SS tax and using it to pay the regular budget. When the Republicrats were in power they could not resist either. Now the chickens are coming home.
Posted by: harp1034 at January 26, 2011 03:55 PM (69SRF)
There is a culture of murderous violence in this nation that is directly responsible for one of the most prolific serial killers in this nation's history. You won't be bombarded with wall-to-wall coverage, allegations, and idle speculation about the perpetrator and his numerous accomplices on MSNBC, CNN, the network news or among the heavyweights of the newspaper op-ed pages.
Mr. Obama’s hair is back to dignified, adult gray, not quite as gray as at the Tucson Memorial, but it now appears that he’ll change his hair--as well as his rhetoric--to suit the occasion. Bets on Vegas betting lines on the issue?
He has invoked Tucson/Rep. Giffords twice within the first few minutes. He wouldn’t be using a tragedy to score cheap political points, would he? Well, he did simultaneously invoke the “dreams” of the 9 year old girl who was killed, but that’s not cynical or anything. I wonder if they handed out t-shirts tonight too?
He’s observing that “...the public have determined that both parties will NOW work together.” Hmm. I think they “determined” that a long time ago, but Mr Obama and the Dems told them “I won,” and “elections have consequences,” didn’t they?
Ah! It’s not about the next election, but jobs! That must be why official unemployment is about 9.8% (certainly higher in reality). Mr. Obama, who is in perpetual campaign mode, would certainly never even think, let alone pursue, anything else when jobs hang in the balance.
He keeps harping on “together.” “...thanks to the tax cuts WE passed in December...” WE passed tax cuts? I thought that fell into the category of the Dems and Mr. Obama grudgingly agreeing not to RAISE taxes, not to allow the single largest tax increase in American history to automatically occur, only because the public was holding an electoral gun to their heads (it’s a metaphor! I’m not encouraging holding an electoral gun--whatever that is--to anyone’s head, let alone shooting them with it, which might get them elected to an office they didn’t want, or something) and it would plunge America into bankruptcy so fast that Obama wouldn’t have a chance at reelection. It didn’t have anything to do with actually cutting taxes, did it?
You have outlived your usefulness to the One, eco-drone. Be gone!
Carol Browner is leaving her position as White House "energy czar," and a staff shake-up is likely to eliminate her post altogether, according to Democrats familiar with events.
The czar position, and Ms. Browner herself, have been lightning rods for critics of the president's environmental-policy agenda and a reassurance to its supporters, who liked having a top official in the White House devoted to their priorities.
Of course, Browner isn't really gone, she's just playing a bit part in Obama's little passion play. She'll be back wrecking the economy in short order, as she's tied her self worth (and her financial portfolio) to the pursuit of the Green agenda.
Reality Check For the NY Times: Piven's Strategy Inherently Calls for Violence
The New York Times long ago ceased being a news organization, and now exists primarily as a propaganda organ for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It is no surprise that they no only ignore the violence being called for by leading leftist ideologues, they also try to spin the aggressors into being the victims.
The thing is, the left is calling for socialism, and calling for it via violent action.
Calls for the escalation and manipulation of violent rioting have long been central to Piven's strategy. Her 1977 book with Cloward, Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, detailed the rationale behind the infamous crisis strategy of a decade before. The core argument is that the poor and unemployed are so isolated from the levers of power in America that their greatest potential impact is to withhold "quiescence in civil life: they can riot."
At the heart of the book, Cloward and Piven luxuriously describe instances of "mob looting," "rent riots," and similar disruptions, egged on especially by Communist-party organizers in the 1930s. Many of those violent protests resulted in injuries. A few led to deaths. The central argument of Poor People's Movements is that it was not formal democratic activity but violent disruptions inspired by leftist organizers that forced the first great expansion of the welfare state.
Piven has called for violence her entire career, and did so recently in The Nation.
The socialist Left can lie about the Tea Party being violent and themselves being the victims all the want. That's bull, and we have the truth, spilling from the mouths of their philosophical and "moral" leaders.
1
It does cause one to wonder if American exceptionalism can prevail in the face of such a concerted effort to bring out the worst in us. There is obviously already a large minority that lives close to the edge of violence and hops over it on the slightest of pretexts. But the vast majority of Americans has nothing in common with those. If anything, the greater majority of Americans can be depended on to act to suppress those in the violent minority and the "wioting wabble" wanting the redistribution of other people's wealth.
The core argument is that the poor and unemployed are so isolated from the levers of power in America...
That core argument may not be supportable. Even as most of America feels that our government is out of control, we see the solution as to vote out those who have proven to be untrustworthy, not to bring down the govenment altogether. It will take much more than a few cycles of futile voting to get the greater majority to launch into violence against the government.
Posted by: Professor Hale at January 24, 2011 12:56 PM (m7EhJ)
I’ve been following your campaign for awhile, and I might be willing to cast a vote for you. Over the last several decades, I’ve had the chance to live with presidents of both parties, and I’ve a learned a few things, particularly in the last two years. So I have some advice; I hope you’ll listen.
Remember when Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped that Mr. Obama failed? Remember how Progressives went berserk? “How dare he!” They cried. “He wants America to fail!” That situation clearly illustrates our current national dilemma. You see, Progressives equate Mr. Obama and America. They think he is our voice, our face. Some of them even think he’s some kind of a deity, a god who transcends such a petty office as the Presidency of the United States and whose destiny is to remake America in his image. They’re wrong, badly wrong. It's not about the man; it's about his policies.
Mr. Candidate, the President of the United States is nothing more than a man, and someday I have no doubt, a woman. He’s a man hired by We The People, to serve as America’s chief executive. He is not great. He is never worthy of worship. Any greatness that attaches to him is the greatness of the office. He wears it as a fine garment, a garment worn only as long as he holds the office. It, like every other trapping of the office, is something for which he has been allowed, by the people, to temporarily care. The office is great because of the greatness of America and her people, particularly those who have, for more than two centuries, sacrificed so much to build, secure and maintain that greatness.
So while you’re running, and particularly if you are fortunate enough to be trusted to be America’s temporary chief executive, there are some important things you ought to know, and more importantly, believe. I know that some of them will seem, well, elementary, but my experience of the last few years has taught me that some things likely need to be said.
* You must be personally humble. “I” should be a tiny part of your private vocabulary and an even smaller part of your public vocabulary. But in your representation of America’s values and interests, you must be proud, fierce, resolute and honorable, for the people you represent are all of those things and more. Those who are full of hubris never end well, nor does their nation.
Posted by: Trotter at January 24, 2011 12:53 PM (O0jsA)
3
Yup, she's the only one who has shown any respect for these principles in the field.
Posted by: Phelps at January 24, 2011 01:58 PM (50ajE)
4
I agree Phelps. She is the only one in the pack that has the stones to stand up for her principles. Maby it could be that she is the only one to HAVE priciples - the rest are professional politicians - who tend to shed their principles with every election won or lost!!
One can always spot who the libs/democrats/progressives fear the MOST - it becomes obvious rather quickly.
Posted by: mixitup at January 24, 2011 09:25 PM (Z21cb)
5
I had to look up the numbers, so this is an addendum to my previous post on "how to spot the real threat to libs." Data is from Google search results/hits:
I guess we can tell which potential candidate really scares the crap out of the democrats and their sycophant MSM.
Posted by: mixitup at January 24, 2011 09:41 PM (Z21cb)
6
* You must be personally humble. “I” should be a tiny part of your private vocabulary and an even smaller part of your public vocabulary. But in your representation of America’s values and interests, you must be proud, fierce, resolute and honorable, for the people you represent are all of those things and more. Those who are full of hubris never end well, nor does their nation.
* You must believe that America is the greatest, kindest, most free, just and generous nation ever to exist in the tide of time, because, well, because it is.
~snip~
* The POTUS bows to no man, figuratively and literally. This too, is part of our national tradition and faith.
Wait, what? Two of those things are not like the other. Don't the last two require some significant measure of hubris to accomplish?
Posted by: SkeeredLibrul at January 26, 2011 06:59 PM (WvzLu)
Hubris? Not at all. Hubris is excessive pride. And while the term "greatest" and "kindest" must be assessed with some degree of subjectivity, American is certainly all that I asserted and by any measure and comparison with all other nations, past or present. All of this can be confirmed objectively should you care to do the research.
The President does not bow because he thinks highly of himself, but because of our Constitution and democratic traditions and because he represents and is responsible for upholding them. The Founders wanted no marks and titles of royalty and no symbols or traditions of submission to the same. For that reason, American presidents have never bowed to foreign kings. This has nothing to do with hubris and everything to do with equality and the common dignity of all men.
Consider too that every act of our President abroad is representative of America and Americans. This is particularly true in nations that do not have our classless society and our traditions of the equal value and dignity of all men. The citizens of those lands are very sensitive to such behaviors and protocols. When Mr. Obama bowed deeply to Hu Jintao, the Chinese Premier on their first meeting, it was not interpreted in China, by the Chinese, as being polite, but as subservience and weakness, of the weaker man and nation showing proper respect to the stronger man and nation. This is not what any rational American would desire, and again, does not involve hubris or anything like it.
That said, thanks for taking the time to read and comment! It's much appreciated.
Posted by: mikemc at January 26, 2011 07:28 PM (cIDbQ)
8
"Global Warming is the biggest scientific hoax of all time."
Virtually every single reputable scientist in the field says otherwise - as do all those lying socialist weather satellites & thermometers around the globe, & the crypto-Marxist disappearing glaciers & icecaps. Go tell the Inuit or the Pacific Islanders or the Bangladeshis about what a "hoax" AGW is - what with their homelands literally disintegrating before their eyes, I'm guessing they could use a good laugh right about now.
"terrorism is warfare, not crime"
No, terrorism is a tactic. The Muslim world spent years treating Al-Qaeda as warriors while their numbers swelled & the body-count rose. Once they started treating them as criminals, their influence waned & attacks dropped off. Bin Laden wasn't hiding in Afghanistan in 2001 because he liked the scenery - he was driven there by the desire to avoid arrest. In Islam, a just Holy War is noble but crime is offensive to Allah. Martyrs go to Paradise, murderers go to hell. Defeating a determined enemy requires understanding how they think, why they think the way they do, & anticipating their next move.
Posted by: jim at January 26, 2011 09:45 PM (HLoR7)
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment. We do appreciate our readers very much here. Please keep in mind the purpose of my letter. I certainly wasn't producing a peer-reviewed article with appropriate citations on each of the issues I raised, so of necessity, generalization was required.
However, if I was to cite some significant issues, among them would be the fact that the UN's IPPC report has been substantially discredited, as have many of its co-authors. They've had to strike entire sections that were so obviously wildly false, for so many reasons, such as the claim that entire glaciers were going to melt. Skeptics discovered that some of their "research" was nothing more than supposition from articles in popular magazines. And even the IPCC has had to admit that if every nation in the world spent untold trillions and did exactly what the UN wants, it would lower the global temperature a bit less than one degree--maybe--in a decade or more. Add the Climategate scandal where the main climate research institutions in the world had to admit that they lost entire data sets, that others never really, you know, existed, that the Medieval Warm Period, which was far warmer than our current temperatures, was covered up (see the infamous "hockey stick" graph), skeptical scientists were harassed and intimidated, the global warming advocate scientists refused to share their data sets (which apparently, for the most part, never existed anyway) or methodology with others, and the case for global warming is, rather than being proved, in disarray at best. Even Al Gore is laying low. Besides, even if we acknowledge that some degree of warming is occurring--much less than has been the case in the past--warmer temps. are far better than colder temps. around the world, and the question of what-if anything we can do to affect it and at what cost, is another matter entirely. My comment was aimed at those who accept as a matter of faith that AGW will, in 5, 10, 30 years doom the planet, so any measure and any cost must be immediately employed to stave off doomsday. The situation isn't anything like that. I'm old enough to have read about the Ice Age that was going to doom us all in the media of the 70's. In thirty years, people will likely be reading about AGW that didn't happen either.
And I hate to quibble, but terrorism--as it is currently practiced as opposed to the way it was practiced in the 70's, for example--is a form of warfare. Among the tactics employed to further that form of warfare are IED's, suicide bombing, attacks with firearms and hand grenades, truck bombs, and the tactics employed on 9-11. Jim, you do know that the Muslim terrorists engaged in a global jihad against us (they certainly believe they're doing that and often speak of it) commit all manner of offenses against Islam, including killing other Muslims, yet there are more than sufficient fatwas that not only support, but encourage that kind of warfare, including one recently issued by a very influential Egyptian Mullah supporting jihad outside Muslim lands. Indeed, it's essential to know one's enemy.
Thanks again!
Posted by: mikemc at January 26, 2011 11:55 PM (cIDbQ)
10
Have you seen the DOW lately? It;s going to kiss 12,000 next week. Two years ago it was 8,800.
So I hope your future, presumably anti-science, anti-abortion, anti-intellectual candidate is as nice to Wall Street as much as this president has been. In a future economic meltdown, you might wish you had Barry in charge.
Posted by: Dhalgren at January 27, 2011 01:32 AM (hn0mv)
11
this letter is so well written. its a very good example to follow. thanks for posting it!
Posted by: ernie at January 27, 2011 08:11 AM (xYuGZ)
12
MikeMC: Certainly you are free to criticize climate change theory, and even disagree with scientific findings. But the UN's IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) was never discredited. The scientific community agrees with nearly all of its findings and conclusions. Was there internal dissent and disagreement? Sure, It was a big, multinational study. But the study is anchored by this rather generalist, almost no-brainer conclusion:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
The scientific community knew this back in 1990. So blemishes on the IPCC don't do a thing to change the scientific consensus that has been in place for at least 20 years.
I'm not saying you must acknowledge the report's findings. But to say that the report has been 'discredited' is more like wishful thinking or embellishment.
Posted by: Dhalgren at January 27, 2011 09:06 AM (hn0mv)
13
Virtually every single reputable scientist in the field says otherwise
whoop whoop whoop TAUTOLOGY ALERT
Every reputable scientist says A.
Some scientists say B.
Scientists who say B are no longer reputable.
Every reputable scientist says A.
Here's a hint: When your confirmation is based on lots of people thinking it is a good idea and not on falsifiable hypotheses and predictions, you're not doing science.
Posted by: Phelps at January 28, 2011 04:12 PM (50ajE)
I'm afraid I must disagree with you about the IPCC report. As I pointed out to Jim, substantial portions of that report have, in fact, been discredited and the authors have had to remove and/or retract large portions of the report. For example, see this article regarding their problem with glacier melting predictions: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html. This is only one of the serious problems that particular wish list has experienced and all of them go directly to the heart of the "science" used to reach its conclusions. These problems are surely not blemishes, wishful thinking or embellishment.
Please remember that virtually the entire AGW case rests on computer models, models built using three databases. Those using these data bases have admitted that they lost one, that one probably never existed, and they have steadfastly refused to produce the third, or their methodology, for other scientists to replicate. This is not science. Also keep in mind that many of the "scientists" purporting to support these matters have no expertise in meteorology or any other related discipline, hence they have no greater authority to opine than any other layman.
Also please remember that "very likely" is hardly proof, nor is "most believe," or "consensus," or even "most of the really smart people believe," particularly when they do things like trying to label carbon dioxide, one of the handful of gasses without which life cannot exist on this planet, a greenhouse gas and try to regulate it.
The IPCC report, like virtually every other report that tries to leap from a narrow set of potentially verifiable, scientifically valid findings to AGW to spending any amount of money = returning lifestyles on a stone age level = saving the planet from imminent destruction, is not a matter to acknowledge or ignore, but an example of unwarranted hysteria in the pursuit of unconstitutional and unsupportable power over the lives of others. And of course the primary mechanism by which this will be accomplished is redistribution of wealth. Sorry. Tax time is around the corner and I don't have any to spare.
Posted by: mikemc at January 28, 2011 07:21 PM (cIDbQ)
John has a must-read observation up at Powerline about the Left's attempts to demonize conservatives, lionize their own radicals, and control what is deemed "acceptable" public speech.
He highlights the New York Times attempt to doctor the reputation of Frances Fox Piven, a radical socialist activist that helped formulate the Cloward-Piven Plan. In essence, the plan is to destroy capitalism by overwhelming the government with cries for unsustainable entitlements. If this vaguely sounds like the sort of "change" that SEIU, ACORN, the MSM and and the controlling progressive wing of the Democratic Party is advocating, the congratulations; you're onto them.
Barack Obama has been mentored his entire life by radicals the desired to implement the Cloward-Piven strategy. Think I'm exaggerating? Look at his influences.
His mother was a radical leftist and guided his formative years. He was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, a self-described bisexual child-raping communist with outspoken political ideas. He crossed paths repeatedly with Marxist domestic terrorists and suspected murderers Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, first in New York while a student at Columbia, and later in Chicago. Obama attended the Trinity United Church of Christ for more than 20 years, a church built from the ground up on the quasi-religion of Black Liberation Theology, a bastardized hybrid of 60s black separatism and Marxist liberation theology practiced in South America.
All of these influences embrace the theory that the way to destroy capitalism is to overwhelm the entitlement system, and when viewed from that perspective, is isn't difficult to understand why the progressive left is pushing for programs such as Obamacare that all know we can't afford. They know that such a massive entitlement system with bankrupt the government. They are counting on it.
The Left knows that openly overthrowing capitalism is a non-starter, and the Cloward-Piven plot was their rather ingenious way of convincing people that they are entitled to new "rights" that only massive government programs could provide. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and other entitlement programs are the vehicles that these radicals will leverage in an attempt to destroy this nation from within.
The only antidote to such a plan is a counterweight; Americans dedicated to shrinking government, eliminating or radically restructuring entitlement spending, and bringing federal government spending back to manageable levels. Sound like any Tea Party you know?
It is imperative that the radical left destroy the Tea Party, which is why they will seize upon any possible excuse to demonize them. Immediately blaming the Tea Party for Jared Loughner's rampage was a pre-planned, coldly-calculated and entirely unabashed attempt to control political speech in this nation. It is propaganda of the most naked kind.
Because I can't throw a pit bull at 1200 feet per second.
Because my Acme Dehydrated Boulders are in my other bag.
Because I'd look stupid pushing my firearm around in a stroller.
Because a cop that isn't in my purse is at least 10 minutes away.
First learn something about them. My latest at Pajamas Media, firmly directed with disdain towards an ignorant Congress and the dog-dumb journalistic class.
MIKE'S NOTE: By all means, read Bob's informative--as always--article. Of course, if they won't bother to read the bills they pass, how can we expect them to read anything about the topics of those bills? Feh.
1
David Gregory, who claims to be a jounalist, proved his incompetancy when Dick Cheney's unfortunate shot at a quail hit his friend, who stood up at the wrong time and had his cheek peppered with bird shot. Now, all intelligent grown-ups know that shotgun pellets come in various sizes, depending on what sort of animal you are hunting. But David Gregory, who leaps to unsubstantiated conclusions like a bloody gazelle, had a hissy about Cheney's friend being hit by *buckshot*. As your readers all know, if Cheney had been foolish enough to load his shotgun with buckshot to hunt quail, any incautious quail would have ended up a pile of bloody shreds and feathers. Buckshot, after all, is hefty stuff, designed to bring down and kill a large animal, not a little bitty bird.
Just as an experiment, since at my age I don't go hunting much, I hit the Internet with some questions about shotguns, shotgun loads, and what the appropriate loads for shells would be to hunt quail. The answer, of course, was shells loaded with pellets the size of a peppercorn or smaller.
If Gregory hadn't been so lazy, he could found out this widely available information in no more than a minute or two,before he shot his mouth off. But no. That didn't fit the meme or the prejudices of the mainstream media. So he ends up looking like a fool, and giving his more knowledgeable readers the giggles.
Marianne Matthews
Posted by: Marianne Matthews at January 23, 2011 04:00 PM (Aaj8s)
The political blogosphere and Twitter have been in a uproar over Keith Olbermann's abrupt departure—some are saying a firing—from MSNBC.
The "highest-rated host on MSNBC"—which is damning with faint praise, indeed— will reportedly be off the air for some time as part of a contract buyout, but will soon be part of some sort of online venture.
I think it's great. He wasn't worth watching on television. He'll be even easier to ignore online.
NFC and AFC Championships Sunday Promise More Fun Than Olbermann's Firing
So the Jets and the Steelers are matching up for the AFC championship, and the Packers are lining up against the Bears in the NFC.
I'm sure the folks getting their sports betting news from BetUS have a far better idea of the match-ups than I do, but I'm not afraid to make predictions. It isn't like anyone is listening to me anyway.
The Jets looked solid last weekend, but a lot of folks are convinced that the game was fluke. I'm not one of them. While I've always liked the Steelers, I think the Jets are peaking at the right time, and I think they have enough in the tank to win by 10.
On the NFC side, I suspect it is going to be a down-to-the wire game, but think the Bears pull it out in the end by a field goal or less over the Packers.
1
The problem is that we're now down to exactly zero teams I can possibly root for, as a Cowboys fan - I'm so disinterested at this point I doubt I'll even watch the rest of the playoffs. At this point there are only bad, and worse outcomes left. But hey, at least we have the lockout coming to look forward to.
Posted by: Skip at January 22, 2011 01:06 AM (qWvBE)
2
If only Americans would pay as much attention to Washington as they do sports - maybe we wouldn't in this mess.
Nothing that happens on those playing fields will affect your lives. But EVERYTHING that happens in Washington does.
Posted by: GunRights4US at January 22, 2011 07:37 AM (ZSBLt)
3
If there's one thing I've learned in my life, it's that the Jets are chumps.
I'm a Giants fan, but being from NY I've watched a lot of Jets games.
The Giants specialty is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory regularly, the Jets just go all chump.
Like the Sack Exchange's big year, they went 10-1, lost the next 5 and then lost the first game in the playoffs.
Chumps.
But I have to admit, Sanchez is a winner. He might not be all that good, but he wins.
Some QBs are just winners.
Montana was a perfect example. So was Flutie.
But then, Big Ben is a winner too. I don't like him much, but he wins.
It's going to be an interesting game. I think Pittsburgh will win because, as I've said, the Jets are chumps and I don't know if one player can go against the tide of years.
Posted by: Veeshir at January 22, 2011 09:52 AM (8wp8V)
“Garbage in, garbage out.” So goes the venerable computer aphorism which tells us that the quality of what a computer produces is dependent upon the quality of the data input. Enter faulty data into a computer and it will spit out faulty conclusions. This is the very essence, an essence not well understood and cunningly concealed, of the work product of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), particularly during the last two years.
Trying to stave off the ObamaCare repeal effort, Dems have taken to claiming that not only will ObamaCare reduce the budget deficit, if repealed it will actually increase it! So says the CBO, lauded as the bi-partisan, highly respected arbiter of congressional fiscal responsibility and sanity. ABC’s George Stephanopolous, former Clinton Administration talking head, said of the CBO, “They’re the only game in town; they’re the referees.” Also providing able assistance is the lamestream media, only 16% of which has, to date, informed the public of ObamaCare CBO sleight-of-hand.
I didn't either until just a little while ago. He's just the latest of a line of radical domestic terrorists weaned on the hatred and various derangement syndromes of the radical left, and hidden by their allies in the press.
At some point, wearing black clothes and a bullet-proof vest, 22 year-old Casey Brezik bolted out of a classroom, knife in hand, and slashed the throat of a dean. As he would later admit, he confused the dean with Nixon.
The story never left Kansas City. It is not hard to understand why. Knives lack the political sex appeal of guns, and even Keith Olbermann would have had a hard time turning Brezik into a Tea Partier.
Indeed, Brezik seems to have inhaled just about every noxious vapor in the left-wing miasma: environmental extremism, radical Islam, anti-capitalism, anti-Zionism and Christophobia, among others.
In his "About Me" box on Facebook, Brezik listed as his favorite quotation one from progressive poster boy, Che Guevara. The quote begins "Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism" and gets more belligerent from there.
On his wall postings, Brezik ranted, "How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?"
Brezik's wild-eyed ranting is the product of spittle-flecked demagogues like Olbermann, racist Marxists like Jeremiah Wright, terrorists like Bill Ayers and Berhandine Dohrn, and bombastic politicians like Alan Grayson, James Clyburn, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and a bitter, clinging Barack Obama.
Because of their incitements, we have radical murdering zealots like Berzik, Andrew Mickel and Carlos Hartmann, union goon beating down opposition their opposition and threatening their children in their homes, and thugs chasing down and brutalizing political staffers. It is what they do, and what the media has always hidden.
Soros-funded mouthpieces at Think Progress and Media Matters exist to camouflage the intent of their language and politics, and the bloody extent their fellow travelers are willing to go to implement their leftist sharia. They are violent and radical, and because of their blinkered myopia, expect that we are the same.
They cry out against the violence they expect in us, but see most acutely in themselves. It's called "projection," and steeped in a denial of just how violent many of them have become.
1
The Left will come to regret inviting a compare and contrast on the "civility" record. Hoist on own petard - LMAO!
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Posted by: LibertyAtStake at January 21, 2011 02:03 PM (A5zyE)
2
The left's ultimate weapon has always been political violence. I think they realize that enslavement, dispossession and gulags are always going to be a hard sell, and therefore violent revolution has to be kept in the back pocket against the point where it becomes obvious they won't be able to establish their totalitarian state by democratic means.
As a noted right wing teabagger once said, political power grows from the barrel of a gun.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at January 21, 2011 06:46 PM (7YekA)
3
They treat any crime that hurts their agenda like it didn't happen. Do you remember the heinous homosexual crime committed by the two gays on the 12 year kid? The kidnapped him and sexually abused him for days and then murdered him. It almost didn't make the national news. Blacks raping a white woman? If it makes the news you will never know the race of the perp. Lesbian divorce? Only in the papers if it is a celeb. Muslim atrocities on family members? Only if it is murder and then there is always the admonition to not RUSH to JUDGMENT.
Posted by: inspectorudy at January 22, 2011 01:07 AM (KOOZL)
ITEM: Why can’t Democrats actually behave as though they are attending a memorial service while attending a memorial service? Is it in their DNA to turn solemn occasions for reflection and prayer into crass political pep rallies? To paraphrase Mr. Obama: “At some point, I think you’ve worshiped Barack Obama enough.” See the indispensable Michelle Malkin’s live blogging here.
ITEM: Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo) has come up with a brilliant scheme that will unite the nation behind President Obama’s recent call for civility: Republicans and Democrats will engage in--GASP--mixed seating at the State of The Union Address! I can see it now: Instead of one side of the chamber leaping to its feet, screaming incoherently, drooling, and beating their hands together until they peel the skin from their palms when Mr. Obama says “and,” every other person in the entire chamber will do it. Hope. Change. Progress. Civility.
ITEM: This might be the best argument for the death penalty I’ve ever heard: The Tucson killer, who would want his name to be prominently mentioned here, according to Fox News, apparently photographed himself in the near-nude with the handgun he used to kill six people. If you have the stomach for the whole story, red g-string and all, go here.
ITEM: Ann Althouse wasn’t the only person to notice it. At the Tucson memorial service, Mr. Obama’s hair was quite gray. At the time, it caused me a moment’s pause--between the 50+ incidents of pep rally hooting and clapping--to reflect on how the demands of the job affect each president. But only a few days later Mr. Obama’s hair has transmogrified to a youthful black with not a hint of gray! The honorable Ms. Althouse suggests that the grey affectation was done to signify age, wisdom and gravitas, while the newest version of the presidential ‘do signifies youthful energy for the limitless progressive transformations lying ahead. Perhaps. But imagine the lamestream media outcry, the many psychologist/experts commenting ad nauseum if George W. Bush’s locks suddenly changed from gray to black overnight. Double standard? Hypocrisy? Nah.
UPDATE: A thought just occurred to me: Did the dye job go from black to gray for the memorial service, or from grey to black thereafter? Which would be more revealing of a lack of character?
ITEM: Bob wrote about Rep. Steve Cohen's (D-Tenn.) comparison of Republicans with the worst crimes of Nazism. Praise be, on Wednesday the good Representative clarified his Tuesday remarks that directly compared Republicans to the Nazis and invoked the Holocaust. “I don’t think I was comparing the Republicans to Goebbels. I was saying that lies are lies and Goebbels was the great perpetrator of lies and that’s a danger, and if you look at Goebbels you can see the lie that he told about Jews which he constantly did, became considered fact in Germany that the Jews were evil, and people got involved and didn’t stand up.”… “I think civility is not lying, and if you can’t come up and say that somebody is lying when they’re lying, then the lie becomes the truth. That’s not uncivil to say somebody lied.” Well, thanks for clearing that up Rep. Cohen. This is undoubtably the new Democrat civility we've been so anxiously awaiting. Hope. Change. Derangement. Blood Libel.
ITEM: Noted Constitutional scholar Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) announced Wednesday that ObamaCare not only has “created jobs” and will create jobs, but repealing it will kill Americans. She also announced that repealing ObamaCare was a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Uh, what?! But wait; there’s more! In an interview with Fox’s Neal Cavuto, she repeated the refrain, but with a bit of multi-media assistance: An aide holding a poster of an elderly person receiving medical care behind her as a backdrop. That’s right; the Dems are now carrying portable ObamaCare backdrops for interviews. What’s next? Wheeling gurneys with desperately ill patients everywhere with them so that they can be prodded to gasp or weakly lift a finger in support of ObamaCare?
ITEM: Noted historian and Constitutional Scholar Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) also chimed in on Wednesday with the observation that people should be required to purchase insurance because the preamble of the Constitution guarantees the “pursuit of happiness,” and the 14th Amendment guarantees “equal protection under the law.” Lewis also noted that health care is not a privilege but a right. OK, let’s put aside that the “pursuit of happiness” appears in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, and that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has never remotely been construed to mean what Lewis is suggesting, and the fact that there is no such thing as a “right” to health care. Other than that he has a point, or something...
ITEM: By a vote of 245-189, the House of Representatives voted to repeal ObamaCare on Wednesday, January 19. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has already sworn that the measure will never receive a vote in the Senate and many Democrats are calling the House vote a political stunt while simultaneously spouting cooked-book propaganda asserting that ObamaCare will actually lower the deficit. So let’s see if I understand this principle: If I’ve maxed out five credit cards, have four or five consumer loans including my mortgage, and make only enough to make the minimum payments on my debts, the path to fiscal solvency requires me to obtain and max out five or six new credit cards, obtain as many additional consumer loans as possible, and immediately seek a much lower paying job. Got it.
ITEM: Who said Barack Obama’s foreign policy hasn’t accomplished anything but debasing America? At a state dinner for Chinese Premier Hu--affairs that are usually reserved only for our close allies--President Obama had stunning news: “under a new agreement, our National Zoo will continue to dazzle children and visitors with the beloved giant pandas.” That’s right; we get pandas for five more years. The tens of thousands of Chinese political prisoners in gulags, and the scientists behind China’s massive military buildup could not be reached for comment.
ITEM: And the feel good--or feel something--story for this edition of Quick Takes comes, via Fox News, from the Land Down Under--Australia--where a 19 year old man and woman were inspired to float down the flood-swollen Yarra river, buoyed in body--and possibly spirit--only by two inflatable sex dolls. Unfortunately, the young woman lost her airy partner on a rough patch and was forced to cling to floating debris until she and her male partner--who did not lose his inflation aid-- until they were rescued. The police, dealing with serious flooding, were somewhat less than amused, announcing that inflatable sex toys are “not recognized flotation devices.” Senior Constable Wayne Wilson retained a sufficiently dry wit to note that “The fate of the inflatable dolls is unknown.” Insert your own pun here.
See you next time!
1
I don't know what the current rate is, but previously, the USA rents Pandas from China at teh rate of $1 million each per year. It is written into the agreement that any offspring belong to China. No one is permited to break their monopoly. So this is nothing to brag about. It is just another example of us buying their stuff according to the conditions they set.
What else did we get from them?
1. Change in their exchange rate monetary policy? no.
2. Agreements on trade? no.
3. Agreements from them to address human rights abuses? No.
4. Agreements frm them to buy more treasury notes? No.
5. Agreements from them to back off on Taiwan? No.
6. Agreements from them to repect and enforce US patents and IP? No.
In other words, the current administration is totally inept at foreign relations an still declares victory.
Posted by: Professor Hale at January 20, 2011 09:24 AM (m7EhJ)
Posted by: Chris Muir at January 20, 2011 12:17 PM (NLHVS)
3
The applause at the memorial service might have been driven by the Jumbotron flashing when to applause. I have a photo but do not know how to publish it here.
Posted by: davod at January 20, 2011 01:02 PM (GUZAT)
4
Who (besides millions of non-Democrats) saw this coming ...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is preparing to increase the use of military commissions to prosecute Guantánamo detainees, an acknowledgment that the prison in Cuba remains open for business after Congress imposed steep new impediments to closing the facility.
It took two years for them to agree with Bush on this too.
Posted by: Neo at January 20, 2011 03:04 PM (tvs2p)
5
RE: item 4 the Presidents hair color. What's the problem. girls do it all the time. Oh!, Wait.
Posted by: Garrettc at January 20, 2011 06:12 PM (DQjJA)
6
We get to keep the pandas, and we get to keep the USA too though essentially it has been sold to China with a leaseback arrangement to be worked out.
Posted by: zhombre at January 20, 2011 06:34 PM (VPfdY)
New, Calm Political Rhetoric: Dem Compares Republicans to Nazis Over Obamacare Repeal
On the bright side Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) isn't claiming that repealing Obamacare would be unconstitutional, like the dumbest member of Congress, Sheila Jackson Lee, (D-TX).
On the other hand, Cohen decided to compare the Tea Party, conservatives, and the majority of Americans that want to overturn government-ruined health care by comparing them Nazis implementing the Holocaust.
In an extraordinary outburst on the House floor, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) invoked the Holocaust to attack Republicans on health care and compared rhetoric on the issue to the work of infamous Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
"They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels," Cohen said. "You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing, blood libel. That's the same kind of thing."
And Congressman Cohen didn’t stop there.
“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it--believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover," Cohen said.
Citing Polifact's lie of the year—or absurd over-generalization, take your pick—is a fabrication in and of itself.
But comparing the majority of Americans that want to overturn Obamacare to a genocidal regime that put millions to death in hell holes... To Nazis....
To the monsters that did this...
This is a blood libel. A real one.
By one who should know better.
1
Remember, the writers at politi(lie)fact have never met/seen a liberal lier(but I repeat myself) whom they wouldn't fellitate if he/she dropped by their office in the Poynter building.
Posted by: emdfl at January 19, 2011 04:11 PM (/LVfZ)
2
The majority of Americans do not support overturning Obama/Romney/Dolecare. Another lie, but then who's counting anymore . . .
Reforming, yes, but probably not for the same reasons. Oh well, carry on
Posted by: consumed at January 19, 2011 05:15 PM (HugmB)
3
Consumed, I direct you to the latest poll numbers regarding repeal, by quoting this:
On the morning of the House of Representatives’ vote to repeal Obamacare, it’s worth noting that four polls in the past two weeks have asked Americans the straightforward question of whether they support or oppose repeal. Three of these polls didn’t screen for likely voters (who tend to be more supportive of repeal), and, therefore, they’re almost certainly underestimating repeal’s support. Of those three polls, CNN shows respondents favoring repeal by a tally of 50 to 42 percent, Quinnipiac shows respondents favoring repeal by a tally of 48 to 43 percent (and 54 to 37 percent among independents), and Gallup shows respondents favoring repeal by a tally of 46 to 40 percent. The one poll that does screen for likely voters, Rasmussen, shows respondents favoring repeal by a tally of 55 to 40 percent. That’s 4-for-4 (a good day at the plate), and an average tally of 50 to 41 percent in favor of repeal.
Direct cites to those polls are above.
You enjoy your "community-based reality." I'll stick with the facts.
4
Hey CONSUMED, pull your head out of your butt. You lefties are all "Lady Gaga" over some silly poll of 800 people, 1000 people or maby even 1500 people!!! How quickly you forget that on November 2, 2010 there was also a poll taken. Approximately 90.7 MILLION ballots were cast, and guess what - the OVERWHELMING majority voted to repeal the "job KILLING bill" called Obama Care. Hey, dont believe me, look it up - the total ballots cast is a REAL number. Do ya think 90.7 million votes trumps 1500 democrats polled by CNN/NBC???
Posted by: mixitup at January 20, 2011 12:59 AM (Z21cb)
5
"Do ya think 90.7 million votes trumps 1500 democrats polled by CNN/NBC??? "
Of course not, those 90.7 million people don't know what's good for them.
Only Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (by annointment by St Obama) know that.
Posted by: JTW at January 20, 2011 11:08 AM (jMRqb)
A Massachusetts man has had his firearms and ammunition seized by local police for a blog entry he wrote in the wake of the shooting of Arizona Congressional Rep.Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others in Tucson on January 8.
39-year-old Travis Corcoran entitled a blog entry, "1 down, 534 to go."
Police are investigating the "suitability" of 39-year-old Travis Corcoran to have a firearms license.
"We certainly take this as a credible threat, and credible until we prove otherwise," said Arlington police Captain Robert Bongiorno.
In his blog Corcoran writes, "It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone."
Police visited Corcoran's home and found a "large amount" of weapons and ammunition, which have been removed.
The length of the suspension, or whether Corcoran's license will be revoked will be determined by the outcome of the investigation.
A debate has broken out about limits of the freedom of speech has broken out in the comments of the news story that is worth reading.
If the media is telling the entire story—and with the site apparently down, there is no way to be entirelysure—I tend to agree that the police have done the right thing in this instance. While Corcoran is not directly making threats himself against elected officials, he is certainly inciting violence. He is not using hyperbole. He is not merely saber-rattling in some sort of rhetorical way. He directly says "Target only politicians and their staff..." which is about as a direct of an incitement as one can make without naming specific politicians.
In my opinion, this goes over the line.
Corcoran, a comic book store owner, tagged his now offline blog with the following tags:
Anarchocapitalism, guns, dogs, entrepeneurialism, science, science fiction, War on Terror, Catholicism, extropianism.
1
Is anyone else bothered by the fact that they took this man's weapons and ammo but didn't bother to charge him with a crime first? While his posting was as close to incitement as anything the left has come up with recently, how is it constitutionally appropriate for the .gov to seize his property without charging him with a crime?
Oh, wait. He lives in a communist state. Never mind, I guess...
Posted by: D.W. at January 19, 2011 12:20 PM (oGXNC)
2
could it have been 2 am closing time psychosis? And agree about the lack of a charge. I don't know what to think.
Posted by: Douglas at January 19, 2011 12:39 PM (YKOnu)
3
CY, I respectfully and civily disagree with your conclusion. People have been saying exactly this same thing for years without ever making preparations to carry it out. (no plane tickets to DC, no tial runs or rehearsals, no appointments with elected officials scheduled, no tracking down their home addresses and performing a drive-by recon, etc). A further example is the constant admonition to "kill all the lawyers". What do you call one lawyer at the bottom of the ocean?... A good start.
Nor can it be shown that the communication was directed to any person or group that would act on the instructions. It was a vent, nothing more. If that kind of vent is itself punishable in that jurisdiction, then so be it. But the weapons and ammo are not relevant to the process and should be returned
Posted by: Professor Hale at January 19, 2011 02:52 PM (PDTch)
4
As you pointed without the context of the entire blog entry it is impossible to decipher whether he crossed the line and acted criminally or just exercised extremely poor judgement in his choice of words and their timing in relation to the recent shooting. Either way D.W.'s point is really the question of the day was he charged before they seized his property?
Posted by: PapioMike at January 19, 2011 03:25 PM (U2EkE)
5
Here is some context; an interview with the guy himself. http://www.wickedlocal.com/arlington/newsnow/x703882058/Arlington-comic-store-founder-explains-controversial-blog-post
Posted by: raptros-v76 at January 19, 2011 04:29 PM (jFDZB)
6
And how does this compare with the assisnation movie on GW Bush? Yet that was considered freedom of speech.
Posted by: Jprs at January 19, 2011 08:08 PM (PfiUw)
7
That's why I won't live in Mass.
In free states you have to commit a crime to lose your rights.
In Mass you don't.
Posted by: Veeshir at January 20, 2011 10:49 AM (yQyx8)
8
I have read and will continue to read his blog when it comes back online. Expressing an opinion that politicians should be hanged is exactly what our Founders wished to protect. See the Alien and Sedition Act for reference to shutting down criticism of the government.
The new standard seems to be to use one right from the Constitution to retract others. His rights to due process and reasonable search have been trampled as well. By yanking his permit, they confiscated his property. Perhaps those who agree with this policy would like to have their computers taken when their opinions make those in charge uncomfortable.
Posted by: Chris at January 21, 2011 01:47 PM (2JDda)
9
Travis Corcoran has only proven his rhetoric to be even more incendiary as time goes on:
"America was founded on the idea of shooting gov officials. Lexington Concord!" In another tweet, he writes, "I disagree with murder. ...but shooting politicians who pass illegitimate, unconstitutional laws is not murder." And in case there's any doubt about his sincery, he writes, "Nope, it's not a joke. I'm 100% serious."
I am troubled that MA has a system where you can have your guns snatched without even being charged with a crime, but suspect that authorities probably have a legitimate reason to being charges against him for repeatedly inciting violence.
He has exceeded the limits on the freedom of speech. I don't see a gray area here.
10
I don't see any gray area either. The Founders took up arms for lesser offenses than we are subjected to today. They're coming for Mr. Corcoran's guns today. What will they use for an excuse to come and get yours?
Posted by: Chris at January 21, 2011 05:05 PM (2JDda)
11
Despite what crackhead Cororan spouts, "shooting politicians who pass illegitimate, unconstitutional laws" is indeed murder, because we have a court system and electoral process as remedies.
When we lose those remedies--as the Founders did--then we have little recourse but revolution.
We aren't there yet, despite your misunderstanding of American history.
12
It's ironic that you say that, CY, because there was a long post at TJIC's blog explaining his stance which, in fact, included his explanation for opposing revolution at this time.
Posted by: raptros-v76 at January 21, 2011 06:54 PM (jFDZB)
At a Martin Luther King Day event hosted by Al Sharpton, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that education is “the civil rights issue of our generation” and the “only way” for young people to pursue the “American dream.” A CNS news article on the speech is available here. A pdf download of a related article by Charles Murry is available here. An article on college student learning is available here.
Duncan also said that he was hopeful because “...for all the challenges we have faced, we have the solution here and the President has drawn a line in the sand. He said by 2020 we have to again lead the world in college graduates. We are not going to get there unless many more young people of color are part of the solution unless, until we’re giving them those kinds of opportunities there’s no way to hit the President’s goal.”
Well. Calling education a “civil rights” issue is plainly silly and diminishes the significance of the struggle to secure genuine civil rights, past, present and future. America has always recognized the importance of education and has, since before the founding of the republic, established a system of free K-12 education in recognition of that importance. No one is being systematically denied the opportunity to obtain that free, public education. Nor are “young people of color,” academically capable and determined or not, being denied elementary, secondary and college educational opportunities. In fact, quite the opposite may be reasonably and successfully argued, reducing Mr. Duncan’s comments on this matter, particularly considering the venue, to mere pandering.
1
the problem with the US education system isn't so much volume of graduates, as volume of failures.
And with that I don't mean (just) the massive number of dropouts (most of which are kids who should never have reached that level or type of education.
All the hundreds of thousands or millions sent to colleges who'd have been far better off in professional education, learning a craft or trade as an apprentice rather than floundering in academia way over their mental skills.
And of course the massive degradation of the value of a college education that has over the decades resulted from the dumbing down of the college curiculum in order to increase the percentage of these kids graduating anyhow.
Posted by: JTW at January 19, 2011 07:06 AM (jMRqb)
2
Jackson is only a few decades behind the times. The newspaper this morning is reporting that college graduates rarely learn anything in college. Greek systems, party colleges and HBC's have reputations of producing graduates who know even less after 4 years then they did when they entered. The exceptions are degrees in hard sciences at schools with reputations for scholastic excellence.
Brown vs Board of education was decades ago. The schools are equal and very well funded, even in rural areas, yet Black children performance continues to fail nationwide.
Jackson wants more free money to help kids get free degrees. But he can't make them learn anything.
Posted by: Professor Hale at January 19, 2011 03:01 PM (PDTch)
3
This piece is pretty much on the money. I've worked at a university for well over 20 years and have seen much of what this author has talked about.
Posted by: TW at January 19, 2011 08:57 PM (yaUx7)
4
This brings to mind an old saying - 'You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.
Posted by: REB In Raleigh at January 24, 2011 08:41 PM (mz9Zk)
Two states, and two only, deny their citizens the right to carry concealed weapons: Wisconsin and Illinois. The District of Columbia, of course, also bans concealed carry, but despite the best efforts of many Democrats, DC is not a state, at least not yet. However, it seems that change is in the Wisconsin wind.
With the recent election of a Republican governor and Republican majorities in both houses of the Wisconsin legislature, it seems a foregone conclusion that concealed carry will become law this year. Gun ownership has always been high in Wisconsin, and two attempts to pass concealed carry in recent years were vetoed by Democrat Governor Jim Doyle, but now Republican Scott Walker is in the governor’s mansion and has expressed his support for such measures.
In a recent Lacrosse Tribune story picked up by Reuters (available here), the anti-gun position was prominently represented. According to Jeri Bonavia, executive director of “Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort,” “We really don’t believe that more people carrying guns in public is beneficial in any way. In fact, we think it’s harmful.” Reporter John Rondy commented, “A college dropout opened fire on a crowd gathering for an event by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, killing six people and wounding 13, including Giffords. The shooting has raised questions about permissive U.S. guns laws.”
For anti-gun “activists,” any occasion raises questions about “permissive U.S. Guns laws.” Changes in the weather, cattle stampedes, the existence of Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, George W. Bush, any criticism of Barack Obama or his policies, hangnails, bad breath, any occasion at all. Gun banners see the need for more gun bans in the ocean, clouds, the stars, the smile of a child, reflected in a lover’s eyes, perhaps even as a cure for global warming, which guns, like virtually everything else in the known universe, surely cause.
Illinois is, until decades of Democrat corruption and mismanagement cause it to become completely bankrupt and lead to its inevitable collapse, hopeless. It will likely remain, for some time, one of the last anti-gun bastions in the nation. But Wisconsin may, in the near future, rejoin the constitutional republic that Ben Franklin helped to establish and feared we might lose. The ultimate verdict on that matter remains out, but with this small light of hope in Wisconsin, there is renewed reason for hope and perhaps early congratulations to the people of Wisconsin who have taken the first steps to taking back their government.
1
Just so you know, Wisconsin is an open carry state.
Posted by: Tracy Coyle at January 18, 2011 03:51 AM (1ytkt)
2
"But Wisconsin may, in the near future, rejoin the constitutional republic that Ben Franklin helped to establish and feared we might lose."
That republic was lost in 1942 with the Filburn decision - when the Supreme Court handed the Federal Gov't unlimited powers. It has taken a long time for the full import to develop but the idea that we any longer live in a constitutional republic is laughable.
Posted by: gasminder at January 18, 2011 07:31 AM (MLbgC)
Posted by: Tim at January 18, 2011 08:40 AM (s0R0P)
4
No offense intended Tracy, but there really aren't any open carry states. You might be able to eventually beat whatever else they charge you with, but in every state there are significant jurisdictions where open carry will get you charged with creating a disturbance, refusing a lawful order, brandishing, resisting arrest, and whatever other charges they decide to trump up.
Posted by: Tracy at January 18, 2011 12:26 PM (8PmEw)
5
Just because a State allows SOME people a CCW, does not mean that they do not deny their citizens the right to carry. Here in Maryland you acctually have to be chased into MD State Police Headquarters by a person with a knife, to even get put on the list to get a permit. Those of us who would like the right to defend ourselves and the good people in the community on a day to day basis - are SOL.
Posted by: Web at January 18, 2011 03:04 PM (SghQp)
6
Web beat me to it - Maryland doesn't allow regular folks to carry. Politicians, VIPs, and violent criminals.
Posted by: dustydog at January 18, 2011 03:58 PM (j8aSQ)
7
Technically, CA allows ccw. However, it is at the discretion of the county sheriff. Rural counties- no problem. Some counties, as long as you contribute to the sheriff's re-election fund. Others, there's just no way the sheriff will grant a CCW. SAF currently suing for the lack of standards across counties.
Posted by: styrgwillidar at January 18, 2011 04:39 PM (xGZ+b)
