Ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room ... and expecting a solution

Somebody is pointing their finger in the wrong direction!

How gun control advocates could break the NRA's blockade - CNNPolitics:

Since early in Bill Clinton's first term as president, the National Rifle Association and its legislative allies have effectively stymied meaningful federal gun control legislation. That blockade has held for two decades despite a succession of mass shootings over so horrific they have become known simply by their location: Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, San Bernardino, Orlando and now Las Vegas.

Nobody is forgetting the massacres which make the headlines, but everyone is forgetting the true cost of firearms violence.  It's not the crazy-man-with-a-gun that we need to deal with; they're crazy, you can't do anything about them but lock them up after the fact.

The REAL problem is the everyday low-key violence which occurs in urban ghettos.   And while you remain too shy *(or too politically correct)* to identify the real problem, all of your solutions will fail to stop the greatest number of firearms deaths in America.

What is the Real Problem?

Most of the 'firearms violence' incidents, those which continue to rack up high body counts on a daily basis, don't occur in the white-bread high schools in our nation.

Why is it that young black men are being murdered by the dozens on a weekly basis with nobody paying much attention to it; but when one young white man goes crazy in a 'fly-over' state, the pontificating political left acts as if the world is coming to an end?

After the Columbine high school shooting, Clinton pushed in 1999 for legislation centered on closing the so-called "gun show loophole."

Where was Bill Clinton before that seminal moment?  Was he stretching his legs under his desk in the Oval Office, perhaps experiencing his own seminal moment?

There has never been any sign of a National Leadership willing to pay attention to the problems with the urban poor, and ... yes, the young black men who weekly slaughter each other more regularly than all of the Las Vegas and Columbine tragedies, which occur on a relatively rare frequency?

Where is the call from the Federal government for a solution to the SOCIETAL problem which is the true progenitor of Urban Firearms Violence?

Does America choose to ignore the slaughter in Chicago, Baltimore, even D.C. merely because both the victims and the murderers are usually BLACK?

 The more consequential change since the 1990s has been the willingness of more Congressional Republicans with large white-collar and suburban constituencies to vote with the NRA.

Why is there an emphasis on "... large white-collar and suburban constituencies ..." when the violence is not usually perpetrated on, nor by, white-collar and suburban constituencies?


Most urban firearms violence involves a strong racial bias.    It isn't because both killer and victim are black; its because they live in a neighborhood where economic opportunities are lacking for young black men with no marketable skills.   .

They're not shooting each other because there are too many guns, Dammit.  They're shooting each other because they have nothing better to do!

The mothers of these young men are often unmarried, trying to support their family, and there is no father-figure to teach their sons how to be a man.  The daughters have only their mother as a role model ...  sometimes the children have no father in common.  These children often have no incentive to get a good education.  New business opportunities won't establish themselves where the violence is too fearful to attract workers who are NOT young local untrained men and women.

It's because poverty and neglect are so common in these communities that there IS no sense of community, except that "Whitey is going to keep us down!"   (And they are right!)

It's because our  National Leadership is ignoring that particular gorilla, because the headlines are full of Las Vegas and Washington and which Republican Senator is dissing which Republican Party Hack this week.

When we read articles such as the one in the headline, we should cringe.

REPUBLICANS AREN'T TURNING ON TRUMP, THEY'RE TURNING ON EACH OTHER

(They have nothing better to do.)

Money for nothing ... chicks for free!

Deportation fears stop some LA County immigrants from applying for EBT program:
(May 10, 2016)

Los Angeles County officials say they are hearing stories that immigrants with legal status or those who are undocumented are staying away from health and social services programs. At a county Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, Supervisor Hilda Solis said she’s hearing from residents in her district that pregnant women are afraid to go to hospitals to deliver their babies. Los Angeles law enforcement officials as well as those with various county departments have said they will not share immigration status with ICE.

So you want to immigrate to the States, but you don't want to take advantage of all the Free Money that America offers its citizens under the Welfare program?

Good.

Get a job, become a citizen, contribute to the common welfare and then feel free to take advantage of American welfare programs after you have paid your fair share.

I'm sick of extra-nationals coming to America only to abuse the programs which we have established to take care of our own.

Not every American is as heartless as I am on this point.  

Most of us are sympathetic to citizens who have issues which require them to rely on the largess of the Public Trust to help them get past the Hard Times.

But people who come to America only to suck on the public teat?

Not so much.

And if you legitimately decline public support because you know that you have not contributed?

Very good for you ... you are a responsible new citizen and we are happy to include you.   WE will help you to find a job, support yourself and your family, and welcome you to the community of hard-working who just want to do the best they can with the (often limited) means they have.

Every one else, those who sneaked into this country because you think you can get money for nothing?

Not so good for you.

You're liars, you're cheats, you are an imposition on our trust, and frankly we don't need more never-do-wells whose intent is to take take away from the rest of us, because we will let you.  

Can Trump Rob Peter To Pay Paul?

 Is our new president making promises he can't keep?

Oh, HELL yes!

Can Trump Deliver More Water to California's Farmers? - Breitbart:

President-elect Donald Trump has stated his commitment to helping California’s farmers attain more water, as the Golden State prepares to enter its historic sixth year of a crippling drought, with a federal water policy in place that favors fish over agriculture.

Where is he planning to get more water for California?

A large  (YUGE!) part of the water that soothes California Drinkin' comes from the Pacific North West ... parts of which have their own irrigation problem.

What's more important?  Salmon or Lettuce?

One of those problems is that the Pacific Salmon fishing industry (not so much the fish, as the people) depends on Salmon returning to spawn in their 'home waters.   Most of those waters are not located in California, but in Oregon and Washington.  And small farmers in Southern Oregon could produce bigger crops, if they could get more water.

When California draws irrigation water from other states, Pacific Salmon mortality rate soars.
The facts are, Oregon/Washington/Idaho/Colorado are already suffering from threats to harvests because they are sharing their water with California.

Not only are the Northern California farmers "part of the problem", but mega-cities such as San Francisco and Las Angeles are unable to provide sufficient water to service their rapidly growing population without "stolen water":

Colorado River Supply

A California Plumbing Supply industry (link at paragraph heading) provides the answer:
The Colorado River provides water usage to seven states, parts of Mexico, and several Native American tribes. Naturally, all parties are looking out for their own interests first. Many people in other states upriver resent having to let water they want to use flow by them and go to California.The Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct provides more than three-quarters of the water for urban San Francisco. It draws primarily from the area encompassing Yosemite National Park. The East Bay also gets most of its water from the high Sierra, via the Mokelumne Aqueduct. 

We're All "JOADS" Now:

These problems were not created by Donald Trump.  They were created by the mass immigration into California since the Dust Bowl brought failed farmers from Oklahoma to California back in the 1930's.

(See: Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck)

No American president has been able to find a better solution to California droughts than "Redistribution" ... which was Obama's solution to the flow of money; and we all know how well that worked out.

We will be treated to the drama of a billionaire who cannot buy himself out of a problem.  This is the immovable object being faced by the unstoppable force.

I can't wait to see how the Trump Administration handles itself.

Democrats: "Our History"

Democrats.org:

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you'll see why we're proud to be Democrats.

Yeah, right.

In the 1930s, Americans turned to Democrats and elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt to end the Great Depression. President Roosevelt offered Americans a New Deal that put people back to work, stabilized farm prices, and brought electricity to rural homes and communities. Under President Roosevelt, Social Security established a promise that lasts to this day: growing old would never again mean growing poor.

Today, Social Security is broken; funding is not protected and old people living on their Social Security are poor.  Trust me on this; I've been trying to live on SS for the last few years.   My saving account nest-egg has been severely depleted.

And after President Kennedy's assassination, Americans looked to President Lyndon Johnson, who offered a new vision of a Great Society and signed into law the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

Now Americans who have spend their entire careers paying for Social Security are still being taxed to support people who have never found a reason to hold down a job as long as the government will pay them for not working.

President Johnson's enactment of Medicare was a watershed moment in America's history that redefined our country's commitment to our seniors—offering a new promise that all Americans have the right to a healthy retirement.

Medicare pays for ... some things.  Need an ambulance?  Costs more.  (Thousands more!)  Need pharmaceuticals?  Costs more.  A LOT more!  So Johnson created enough "social programs" to undermine the economy, but never managed to back up his "Great Society" with a renewable source of income.   The end result is a medical support program with more holes than Swiss Cheese, but with the aroma of Limburger.

Plus that whole Viet Nam thing..
 (oh, BTW; thanks for the all-expenses paid tour of South East Asia, JFK and Lyndon; I had a couple of friends who got the Red Carpet Casket tour package on the way home .. in front of their survivors).

In 1992, after 12 years of Republican presidents, record budget deficits, and high unemployment, Americans turned to Democrats once again and elected Bill Clinton to get America moving again. President Clinton balanced the budget, helped the economy add 23 million new jobs, and oversaw the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in history.

And he did NOT have sex with 'that woman'.  Everything else in that statement is puffery.  His greatest accomplishment is NAFTA.  For what that's worth.

And in 2008, Americans turned to Democrats and elected President Obama to reverse our country's slide into the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression and undo eight years of policies that favored the few over the many.

uh .. yeah.  And he instituted the largest raid in American history on the country's economy, with a budget of multiple TRILLIONS of dollars, with no plan to pay the bills.  Guess who is going to pay the bill?  That's right ... the 50% of Americans who are still working ... and paying higher taxes than ever.  But of course, it would be a Base Canard to call Our President a "Socialist".

Oh, and the next Fiscally Responsible (read: "Republican", but I repeat myself) President, who will HAVE to pay the bills.  In the meantime potential workers are being economically encouraged NOT to work, or to save; so, look forward to another Economic Depression, folks.

Under President Obama's direction and congressional Democrats' leadership, we've reformed a health care system that was broken and extended health insurance to 32 million Americans.

No, it's still "broken", but  it's "Borrowing" from Peter to pay Paul, and it has been stretched to the breaking point.

Our only hope as a 'prosperous nation' is to elect a president who has a realistic understanding of the word "Prosperity".  Which means, among other things, not to tax those few Americans who still work for a living to support the huge numbers who are comfortable with living on the dole.

Do I think Obama is the greatest living president?

I put him somewhere below George Walker Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush.   Even though the father (read my lips; no new taxes) was a total failure as a leader.

(Are there any other living Republican Presidents?  Did I miss someone?)

Power of the People comes from the Government. Or ... not.

Symbolism | The View From North Central Idaho:

 People, especially young men, want power, to feel empowered. Welfare laws what they are, there are few good fathers to be role models in a lot of inner city “families.” Boys and young men look for “strong” men to emulate, and they see gang-bangers above shop-keepers in the social hierarchy. The anti-gun laws have created the inner city gang problem, and here is the underlying mechanism. Gun laws are not only unconstitutional, they are anti-human, they are anti-black, anti-business, anti-woman, and anti-equality. As people are wont to say, “read the whole thing.” It’s not long.

...

I tried to comment on this statement, but my input could not be accepted.  Which is probably "A Good Thing", because what I have to say is too extensive to be embodied in a comment form.

Here is what I was trying to say:

It's another way of saying that you are respected if your overlord (in this case, the government) cannot or will not stop you from grabbing power.   Shop-keepers are intrinsically law-abiding citizens, so if their government will not allow them to have "local power", these honest citizens have no recourse but to bow down to those who will TAKE power.
All of the negative consequences follow from the governmental decision to rule by fiat.  The Poor Man without power --- TAKES power!

Expansion:

The Smallest Minority: R.S.P.E.C.T for and the Rule of Law

The Smallest Minority: R�S�P�E�C�T for and the Rule of Law:
(Sunday, March 23, 2014)


If it is not your common practice to read Kevin Baker's blog ("the smallest minority on earth is the individual ..."), I don't know why.   But in that case, you probably are unaware of the "Uber Post" he published over the weekend.

In it, he discusses respect for the law on three levels:   Respect by The People, Respect by The Judiciary,  and Respect by The President.

The president will not enforce the law.   Prosecutors are not infrequently allowed misconduct in the cases they bring to trial, and the judges allow them to get away with it .... or they are subject to losing their bench because the prosecutors ask that the judges recuse themselves from the cases.   And judges may decide judgements which are either not based on the facts presented, or the applicable laws.

Which puts the lie to the belief that in America we are governed by "the Rule of Law, rather than "the Rule of Man".

In that case, The People also lose respect for the law.  

Another popular belief is that a man may be found guilty of breaking a law of which he was not aware, because "Ignorance Is No Excuse!"   Which is true, and at the same time almost inevitable.    The fact is, nobody know what the law is;   they are too numerous for even the Federal Government to be capable of making the full body of Federal Law available to The People, to the Lawyers, to the Prosecutors, to the Judges, to the Legislators or to The President (who now makes his own laws, modifies them on whim, and chooses which laws he will enforce on a daily basis).

Baker elucidates our concern that we are reaching, or have already reached, the "Tipping Point" beyond which both the America Economy and the American Society will no longer be viable.

The Bottom Line of the commentary?

But if they haven't broken us to the State by the time all those spinning plates start falling off their sticks, well, as I've said before, our "austerity protests" are going to be SPECTACULAR.

So put on your tinfoil hat, secure it to your head with a roll of Duct Tape, pour yourself a healthy measure of your favorite beverage and RTWT!

Other People's Money

The Smallest Minority: Bill Whittle 


In Kevin Baker's latest accolade to Bill Whittle, the message is that we don't have to be energy-dependent on 'foreighn nations' because HEY!

.. we have energy resources of our own, and all we have to do is to utilize them NOW!

I'm not so sure.

I've played poker (and badly .. expensively) and one thing I know is that  it's best to play with what was once portrayed [by Danny Divito] in a popular movie as "Other People's Money".

The theme in that movie is that 'you never play with your money"
.. and I think that's poignantly applicable in the field of .. who could have guessed it? ... "Big Oil".

We know we have huge oil reserves.  And in the current (and also recent Administrations) we have eschewed using "our oil".  Sure, it costs a lot now, but what happens when the Saudie and other reserves are depleted?

We are an oil-dependent economy.  If we can't get oil, we're at an economic standstill.  So, why should we use OUR oil when other nations, whose economy is reliant on sales to .. well, us?  What happens when their oil reserves are depleted?

We are screwed.
Unless we have oil reserves of our own .. which currently cost more for US to recover than it does for US to buy from THEM.


I'm all for preserving American oil reserves, for as long as we can.  There will come a day when we MUST fall back on our reserves ... if we have depleted them because we are trying to save a buck or two NOW, then those reserves may spell the difference between begging and choosing.

Personally?  I don't like the idea of America begging for higher costs of oil.  Read:  Gasoline, just for a start.

Ultimately, I would rather that the American Oil Reserves  be present when we find ourselves desperate for .. PLASTICS!

  (Segue back to Benjamin in the movie "The Graduate" where he is advised:  "One Word: Plastics!")

It's actually good advice.  We depend on Plastics now (for high technology) at least as much as we depend on oil (for transportation).

Think about it.  Anyone who advocates preserving American oil reserves, regardless of their political stance, and advocating for American independence.

And I'm behind that, all the way.

DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. - YouTube

DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY. - YouTube

What's a "budget"? 

Hat Tip to The T-Man

What IS "The Government" In Charge Of? (The Wisdom of Horation Bunce)

I was surprised to see that my recent rant on governmental excess and the current Administration ("So You Think You Like The Idea Of National Health Care") reaped a couple of comments. This was just a way for me to express my distaste on several topics, but it seems to have pushed some buttons for some readers.

TheGunGeek responded:

While you listed a whole bunch of things that our government is in charge of, you managed to leave off the most important ones:

- Medicare
- Medicaid
- VA Health care

Nobody but nobody would choose any of these if they had any other choice for their health coverage. What does that tell you about how well the gov would handle national health care? ...

That got me started thinking a bit harder about just what issues The Government (we're talking about the Federal government here) has assumed responsibility to administer ... and to impose.

My thoughts turned to a story about Davy Crockett. No, not the Davy Crockett portrayed by Fess Parker, but the Davy Crockett who was, among his many accomplishment, an elected member of the Federal Government. (He famously said: "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have." We should remember this.)

You can read the following story in great detail in Lew Rockwell's article "Davy Crockett vs. Welfare", and if you get nothing more from this I hope you read that illuminative lesson.

A brief summary of the story is that Crockett once voted in favor of a bill to provide Federal money to fund a worthy charitable effort. Later he discussed this allocation with a constituent, one' Horatio Bunce', and he was taken to task for his vote. The gist is that his constituent pointed out that Congress had no constitutional authority to spend tax money on this sort of effort. Certainly it was a worthwhile cause, but the nation did not OWE a debt; further, if the nation owed this debt to designated the recipients, then every other person in similar circumstances was owed the same debt. Finally, the amount of funding was arrived at arbitrarily, setting an unhealthy precedent for similar excesses in the future.

_____________________

Think back again on the list that TheGunGeek provided:

• Medicare
• Medicaid
• VA Health care

Because the Federal Government is constitutionally obligated "... to provide for the common defense ..." (and Congress can "declare war"), it seems reasonable that The Nation should be obligated to pay ALL the costs of War, including providing medical care for military members who are wounded. But should this be accomplished by establishing a Veteran's Health Care system including the construction and administration of hospitals? Or should it be limited to paying the bills for a Veteran who can choose his own physician(s)? This is a question which one might honorably argue either way.

But Medicade and Medicare? Sure, it's "nice" that this is an option for indigent and elderly citizens, but the administration of such is a bureaucratic morass. And besides, does the Constitution authorize it?

In fact, many of the Departments of the Federal Government are not obviously constituted for the purpose of addressing a Constitutional debt. The Department of Education comes to mind.

Besides Defense, there are some other issues for which the Federal Government is Constitutionally obligated. With a few significant exceptions, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America does a fine job of enumerating the powers and obligations of the Federal Government.

Most of the rest of the Constitution (including the Amendments) is generally characterized by enumerating the things which the Federal Government can NOT do! (There are some powers accorded to the individual States. )

Interstate Commerce:
Over the years, many of the Constitutionally assigned Powers and Obligations have been warped re-interpreted by successive Presidential Administrations and Congresses. Not least is The Commerce Clause (also found in Article I, Section 8):

... "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"...

Various administrations and Congresses have interpreted this clause (a subset of a Section, itself as a subset of an Article) to provide them with the power to regulate the interstate transfer of firearms. These are currently in force, as we are 'generally' forbidden to purchase firearms in any state except our state of residence. (We get around this by purchasing by mail or internet, etc.; but the firearms must be shipped to a Local Licensed Dealer who performs the now-necessary function of accomodating the National Instant Check System verification of confirming that the end-user is legally permitted to purchase a firearm.) In fact, there is a declared intention of the Party in Power to re-impose not only restrictions on the purchase of firearms due to "firearm type", but to also require registration and to dis-allow transfer of some firearms across State lines.

(See also commentary by Michael Bane)
_________________________________

Excesses of Government have reached a new high ... or a new low, depending upon your point of view.

The Federal government receives something on the order of 500 billion dollars annually from Income Taxes. Yet this administration has, in the short span of 3 months (and without giving the Legislators sufficient time to properly review the Bills), obligated this nation to accept the fiscal obligation of over TWO TRILLION DOLLARS of new fiscal obligations. These are in excess of the 'normal' issues which must be paid for by our Nation.

And, finally completing the circular route of my reasoning, what are included in the "normal issues"?

• International Disaster Relief. A noble cause, a worthy charity. Not included in our Constitution.
• Foreign Aid. A noble cause, a worthy charity. Not included in our Constitution.
• Educational Grants (eg: "No Child Left Behind"). A noble cause, a worthy charity. Not included in our Constitution.

Note that all of these are described as "Charity". Actually, some of the examples given are not in fact "Charity", but an effort to position our Nation as a "responsible" member of an informal World Power.

Perhaps a good idea. Perhaps to our benefit . Not included in our Constitution.

Education? Used to impose Federal influence on Local and State Educational priorities.

__________________


I'm not saying that all of these allotments of your money aren't a good idea. I'm just saying that the Constitution does not enumerate them among the Powers and Obligations of the Federal Government.

Congress, and Presidential Administrations through the year, have imposed these tax burdens on our Nation for, ultimately, the sake of expediencey.

But they have never addressed these issues in a manner which would make them legal. Namely, a Constitutional Amendment which would permit these bureaucratic entities to decide who gets how much of your tax dollar.

Going back to the Davy Crockett story:

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

I think we have reached that point. And I think that we should all stop a minute to consider the wisdom of Horatio Bunce.

President Obama, Are You Listening?

Rick Santelli on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange asks:

"How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage, that has an extra bathroom, and they can't pay their bills??"

Santelli's Chicago Tea Party

CNBC's Rick Santelli and the traders on the floor of the CBOE express outrage over the notion they may have to pay their neighbor's mortgage, particularly if they bought far more house than they could actually afford, with Jason Roney, Sharmac Capital.

Video - CNBC.com

(YouTube Link)

Santelli has a good point.

There are of bankers who have been forced (by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) to extend special loans to "Sub-Prime Borrowers" who stand to be subsidized by the Presidents "Stimulus Bill". Chances are, the banks will survive because of "The Bill".

At the same time, there are even more home-owners who CAN make their mortgage payments, but they are paying for a home which is worth less than their purchase price. Why? Because the Housing Market has gon into the toilet because the the market is flooded with homes which were previously owned by the "SubPrime" borrowers.

What is this second group going to to? They've lost money on their homes, even though they are among the responsible small minority which can pay their bills?
I'll tel you what they're going to do. they're going to default on their debts, and go buy a repo which was originally bought by one of the sub-prime borrowers.

What does this mean to the housing market? There will be a lot of repos from this second group wh will buy homes lost by the subprime group. The bill won't protect this group ... it will only protect the banks. (And it certainly won't protect the second group of folks who bought their homes responsibly.)

Who loses?

We do. Those of us who have to pay the tax increases to support the first group at the expense of the second group.

Instead of having "a few" low-value homes to manage, the Feds will find themselves owning homes defauled by the second group. Because the new law protecs both the first group, and those who take over their loans!

In a single action, Obama et al has managed to subsidize "loser loans" and penalize "responsible loans".

Thus has our new president managed to turn the entire housing market topsy-turvy, and in the process he has bankruptes "us". As in U.S.

I tell you now that even though G.W. Bush has recently been rated seventh from the bottom among all U.S. Presidents, our current president will end up making him look good.

I suspect that this is something which the Republican Party engineered just so they could offer a much more viable candidate in 212, it doesn't help us today.

In the meantime, our ass is grass and Obama is a lawn-mower.

You heard it here first, Folks!