Politics Alabama

How Stupid Does Obama Think We Are?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:00:00 +0000

I've been following the recent scandals and Obama's responses to them, and I'm beginning to wonder how stupid Obama thinks we are? I mean, really.

On the Benghazi scandal, Obama says he wasn't involved in either allowing an American Ambassador to get killed by terrorists or in the ensuing cover-up that was designed to protect his re-election chances. Then comes the IRS scandal, which Obama didn't know anything about until we did... despite the fact that high-level IRS folks new about it for at least a year. Then the DOJ scandal, to which Obama says he knew nothing about the DOJ seizing phone records of reporters... despite the fact that the AG and deputy AG knew all about it. Is this even possible?

The way Obama is painting this picture, he's like Sergeant Schultz from the old sitcom "Hogan's Heroes"... he knows nothing. Is it logically possible for Obama to be THAT isolated from his own government that he doesn't even know what's going on?

Let's look at what really happened. The Benghazi cover-up had the effect of deflecting criticism until after the election, thus benefiting the President. The IRS targeting of conservative groups, harassing them and refusing to grant their applications had the effect of limiting (and in some cases preventing) their participation in the 2012 election cycle, also benefiting the President. The DOJ actions in tracking reporters was for the purpose of identifying those who were leaking damaging information to the press, so the intent was to benefit the President.

In all of these cases, Obama says he didn't know it was happening, and that the lower-level folks involved did it on their own with no political motives. Is this even REMOTELY believable? Is it reasonable to believe that the IRS compiled a list made of political enemies to the sitting President and harassed them on their own initiative? Is it reasonable to believe that all of these activities, aimed at helping the President, happened without his knowledge and/or blessing? I don't think so. It's too big for that, and I don't believe in coincidences.

Speaking of coincidences, the person who was in charge of the IRS folks doing the targeting is now in charge of the IRS unit that will enforce ObamaCare. If THAT doesn't wake you up and scare you, then nothing will.

"Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS' Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.

"Her successor, Joseph Grant, is taking the fall for misdeeds at the scandal-plagued unit between 2010 and 2012. During at least part of that time, Grant served as deputy commissioner of the tax-exempt unit.

"Grant announced today that he would retire June 3, despite being appointed as commissioner of the tax-exempt office May 8, a week ago."

No word of ingram being disciplined or removed from her new position, though it's beyond strange for the person who SUPERVISED the targeting of conservative groups (i.e. political enemies of the President) to now be expected to "fairly" and legally implement ObamaCare. It doesn't do anything to increase faith in our government.

In a related piece of news, apparently the IRS stole 60 million medical records on 10 million people that they had no right to take. Another nail in the coffin of trust in government.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/05/15/the-irs-raids-60-million-personal-medical-records/

According to a story by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed healthcare provider in California is suing the IRS and 15 unnamed agents, alleging that they improperly seized some 60 million medical records of 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges on March 11, 2011.

According to the complaint, the IRS agents had a search warrant for financial data pertaining to a former employee of the “John Doe Company,” however, “it did not authorize any seizure of any healthcare or medical record of any persons, least of all third parties completely unrelated to the matter.”

The medical records included information on psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual and drug treatment, and other sensitive medical treatment data, the suit alleges. A copy of the legal complaint can be purchased here for $35.

“This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents,” the complaint reads.

And ALL of this is happening without Obama's knowledge? Just how stupid does he think we are? Even supposing that Obama was colossally incompetent, it's stretching the imagination to believe that he is ignorant of ALL of these happenings. Occum's Razor leads us to the conclusion that Obama either directed all this to happen, or his close advisers did, and with his knowledge.

I think that Obama believes we are stupid enough to buy this, if he just assures us of it often enough. And while I'm sure that SOME will fall for it, I am even more sure of something else.

I, at least, am not that stupid.

Is Obama Behaving Like Dictator?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Tue, 14 May 2013 15:00:00 +0000

Political opponents targeted with tax investigations. Reporters tracked and put under surveillance. Officials lying to the public about these abuses and expecting to be believed. These are all hallmarks of a dictatorship, one in which the power rests in the hands of one man. But we're not talking about Cuba or Venezuela, we're talking about the United States of America!

When this story first broke last Friday and everybody began jumping on it, I deliberately held back a few days to see what would shake out of it. And I'm glad I did, because the picture of our President acting like a dictator is becoming ever clearer as each day passes.

When the story broke on Friday, the administration's response was that nobody of rank was involved, that it was an isolated incident at one IRS branch, and that the targeting started in 2012. Now we know that the targeting started in late 2009, occurred in at least two (the UPI is reporting four) locations, and ranking members of the IRS have been aware of it for at least last the last year, and maybe two. We know also that those officials lied about the IRS targeting conservative political groups in front of Congress during testimony last year. They claimed it wasn't happening even though they knew darned well that it was.

Meanwhile, Obama isn't even admitting that it happened! In his statement Monday, Obama said: "If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that's outrageous and there's no place for it." If? The IRS not only admitted on Friday that it happened, they apologized for it... but Obama is hedging his bets from the beginning. Not only is he saying "if," he's using words like "outrageous" and "unacceptable"... instead of words like "illegal" and "unconstitutional."

So IRS employees in Ohio and in two locations in California targeted conservative groups with heightened scrutiny, including demanding lists of members and donors. The problem with Obama's "isolated incidents" and "I didn't know" response is that similar activity was occurring in the IRS' Washington headquarters! How believable are Obama's denials in the face of what looks like a pervasive IRS push to punish and harass political groups that oppose the President and his goals?

The IRS is the single most reviled government agency in existence, and is slated to play a central role in the administration of the new ObamaCare system. Now we know that they are only too willing to behave in a partisan manner and punish the enemies of the sitting President. Many are shocked by this, but I have to admit that I am not. Do you know why?

Most people view agencies like the IRS as a single entity, whereas I know that the government is made up of people. And people come complete with their own beliefs, values, preconceptions, and biases. This is the central reason why I oppose a strong and pervasive government that has fingers in every aspect of our lives... because that government is made of people, some of whom WILL misuse their power. At times, this point has been dismissed because, my critics claimed, it would be rare and isolated incidents. By looking at this IRS disaster, we now know for a fact that it isn't true. To quote Malcolm Reynolds, "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." And because government is made of people, too much power will be used and abused... guaranteed.

Is it possible that these people acted on their own, fueled by Obama's fiery denunciations of conservative groups but without his knowledge? Yes, it is, and no, it doesn't matter in the slightest. When it comes to illegal actions by agencies of the Executive branch, the President owns the blame... because whether or not he DID know, he damn well SHOULD have!

And on top of all this IRS disaster, we now find out that the Department of Justice has been tracking phone records (including calls and cell phone tracking) belonging to AP reporters. Think of that... on top of using the IRS to target groups who oppose the President, the Department of Justice is tracking journalists! Obama's response to this is identical to his response to the IRS scandal... he didn't know and is not even sure it happened.

"Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP."

Notice how he didn't even bother to condemn this one, and says the only knowledge he has is from news reports. But the DOJ has already admitted it seized the records. Sort of contradicts Obama's statement about "any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP," doesn't it? The DOJ didn't "seek" records, they SEIZED them!

And now the White House wants to investigate all these wrong-doings itself, which is ridiculous. I mean, what little boy who wants to go out and play won't answer "Yes!" when asked if his homework is done first? Do you know how much an investigation report from the White House would be worth? Absolutely nothing. Mostly because the White House is on the list of suspects, seeing as how two major agencies of the Executive Branch (which is run by the President) have seen fit to break the law and violate the Constitution. Was the White House involved? I think the answer to that one is obvious... OF COURSE it was! Whether or not that will come out in an investigation is anyone's guess, but if the White House runs the investigation then we know that it won't.

Ladies and gentlemen, this kind of thing is behavior that any dictator would recognize at once. But the President of the United States isn't a dictator and isn't supposed to act like one. If proof is found of White House involvement, then impeachment proceedings should be brought immediately against President Obama. I don't care what your political background is, this kind of behavior is, by any measure, "high crimes and misdemeanors." In fact, what we are seeing is the Obama administration spitting upon our Constitution in their naked grab for personal and political power.

If we allow that to continue unpunished, then we deserve what we get.

NYPD Police: Prove You're Not A Terrorist!

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 09 May 2013 15:00:00 +0000

Do you remember what we were taught about our justice system as we were growing up? Everybody is innocent until proven guilty, right? The burden to prove guilt rests upon the government in general, and the prosecutor in particular. Apparently, that changed on 9/11, and now we must prove that we are NOT guilty. But don't take MY word for it, let's hear from NYPD police Sergeant Ed Mullins:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0505/Teenagers-social-media-and-terrorism-a-threat-level-hard-to-assess

“The greatest mystery in life is the human mind. We don’t know what other people do until it becomes known. Our job is to figure it out, but we need indicators to know something’s not right,” says Sgt. Ed Mullins of the New York Police Department, who is also president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the city’s second-largest police union.

Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, Mullins says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: “If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says.

“This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” Mullins adds.

Did you catch all that? The official stance of the NYPD is to take a zero-tolerance view on everything and force you to prove that what you did or said wasn't terrorist-related. Though how they can claim that we still live in a free country with that as the yardstick, I can't imagine.

My response to Sergeant Ed Mullins is simple: Not hardly, you idiot. (And yes, you can quote me on that.)

First of all, "zero tolerance" really means zero thought. It allows mindless authoritarians to simply enforce laws and policies without worrying about the reasonableness of those policies. Like arresting, suspending, or reprimanding school kids who have paper torn in the shape of a gun, make a gun shape with their fingers, or shoot a friend with a bubble gun... all zero tolerance policies that are completely UNreasonable and thoughtless. Not to mention ridiculous and at complete odds with the concept of a free country.

The foundation of our justice system is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and it is frightening that Sergeant Mullins not only believes the opposite of this, but says it out loud as if it is fact. That officer should be discharged immediately and, if he has treated innocent people in that fashion on the job, he should be arrested and charged with abuse of police authority.

But the total kicker is his claim that this is the price we pay to live in a free society. Infringements on our liberty NEVER make us more free, and seldom make us more secure. I fail to see how the mindless prosecution of innocent people in any way increases our security. What I do NOT fail to see is that the weakening of our legal protections against government undermines the very fabric of what makes this country great.

The scary part is that police officials think this way... and apparently prosecutors agree. We already know school superintendents and principles do, but many have dismissed that over the years, observing that children in school don't have all the rights of adults. (That's a nice piece of sophistry... I mean, how do we get kids accustomed to responsibly exercising their rights if they don't HAVE those rights as they grow up?) But this one hits all adults equally and can't be dismissed easily. In Sergeant Mullins' world, you can be arrested and prosecuted for statements made online without any proof of criminal intent or terrorist involvement. All we have to do is prove a negative, prove that we aren't a terrorist. How do we do that, by walking across a lake without getting wet while yodeling a rap version of "You Light up my Life?"

This is where we are heading, not because it is necessary, but because it empowers government and police... and let's face it, unless we're willing to FORCE them to stop by any means necessary, what can we do about it?

So welcome to the new world, the world in which the more they curtail our freedoms, the more free we become.

Bogus Argument Against "Bogus Argument"

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 09 May 2013 13:45:00 +0000

I was reading over at the National Journal the other day, and found an article by Jill Lawrence that made an interesting argument:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-most-bogus-argument-against-new-gun-laws-20130506

As both sides in the gun-control debate mobilize for a possible second act on Capitol Hill, could we please retire the argument that taking step X on guns wouldn’t have prevented tragedy Y?

That talking point has been a recurring theme in the gun debate, from Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp to the National Rifle Association. It even informed Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s response last week to Erin Lafferty, whose mother was shot to death in December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. “As you and I both know, the issue wasn’t a background-check system issue at Sandy Hook,” Ayotte said at a town meeting in Warren, N.H., defending her vote against the Manchin-Toomey bill adding a background-check requirement for sales at gun shows and online.

Yet arguments like that ignore the fact that step X—whether it’s expanded background checks or other proposals before Congress—might well have helped prevent or mitigate some horrendous past incident, and could spare us future tragedies.

Uhhh... no. I don't think we can drop that argument. Why not? Because these bills were written and pushed specifically to stop a future Sandy Hook tragedy... and none of the laws would have stopped the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Think back, and you'll recall the numerous comments by Obama and many liberal politicians and pundits, comments about preventing a future Sandy Hook. Comments about how the families of Sandy Hook "deserve a vote." And remember the sight of Obama standing up backed by families and children from Newtown, urging Congress to pass gun control bills.

The fact is that liberals pushing these gun control laws did so on the coattails of the Sandy Hook tragedy, and they tried to use those deaths to push through the same old laws that they always want to implement. The laws were not crafted to be effective in preventing mass shootings, but they certainly proclaimed them to be so.

In view of the fact that gun control supporters used the Newtown massacre to advance their bills, it is more than reasonable to observe that none of the proposed bills would have done anything to stop the Newtown massacre.

The key phrase in the article is this: "Yet arguments like that ignore the fact that step X—whether it’s expanded background checks or other proposals before Congress—might well have helped prevent or mitigate some horrendous past incident, and could spare us future tragedies." Note that even the author doesn't claim that the bills would stop future mass shootings, just that they might. In doing so, she acknowledges that laws such as universal background checks and magazine capacity limits are very easily avoided by the criminal element... which is, after all, who we have to worry about. It doesn't matter if the vast majority of gun owners obey the laws... those people aren't the problem in the first place. It's the criminals who are the problem, and they aren't particularly concerned about breaking the law.

So this is what I say to Jill Lawrence: As long as supporters of gun control laws use specific tragedies to advance their legislative agenda, it is more than reasonable for opponents to point out that the proposed bills wouldn't have stopped those specific tragedies. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but don't blame us, blame yourselves. The solution isn't to silence dissent, it's to propose legislation that has a realistic chance of achieving the stated goal, instead of just advancing the same old gun control ideas that liberals always want to get enacted.

Your argument against that "bogus argument," Jill, is bogus.

My Take On The Current Gun Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 03 May 2013 16:04:00 +0000

This is a message to anyone, liberal or otherwise, who wants "tougher gun control laws" in order to reduce violent crime. To begin this discussion, I want to define the problem.

In 2011, there were around 32k firearm related deaths, a total that equals 10.3 such deaths per 100,000 people. This figure is often quoted with horror by gun control advocates in order to highlight the magnitude of the problem, but in doing so they are actually misrepresenting the problem. The vast majority of those deaths are suicide and accident-related, not murders. When you remove accidents and suicides, we are left with approximately 11k firearm-related murders, a total that equals 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people. You'll notice that murders make up approximately one-third of all firearm-related deaths... so the oft-quoted 32k figure is highly inflated, not to mention inaccurate when discussing "firearm violence."

So maybe the problem isn't as large as it is being made out to be. That said, reducing the rate of violent crimes isn't the worst goal in the world, so let's look a little closer.

One of the favorite measures for gun control advocates in recent months has been a ban on so-called "assault weapons." I've always found this ridiculous, especially since every definition for the term has hinged on cosmetic features of firearms, such as pistol grips. Getting past that, however, are these "assault weapons" really a problem? In 2011, there were less than 700 murders committed using long guns... a category that includes all rifles, shotguns, and so-called "assault weapons" combined. I think that such a ban is aimed at something that isn't really a problem... getting rid of all long guns combined would decrease the murder rate by 2.1% maximum, and that's assuming that the would-be perps didn't simply pick up another weapon. It seems to me that this kind of ban is focused on the wrong target, not to mention being a massive effort that is almost guaranteed to return minimal results.

Another problem with the gun controllers is that they use tragedies to get their agenda in place. We all saw the horror that was Sandy Hook, but where I saw an evil person, gun controllers saw evil guns. They immediately began using that tragedy to force new gun control laws through the pipeline. Their stated aim was to pass laws so that another atrocity like Sandy Hook wouldn't happen again. And what did they come up with?

1) An assault weapons ban: Such a ban wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, because such a law DIDN'T stop Sandy Hook. The State of Connecticut has an assault weapons ban in place similar to the Federal ban that expired a few years ago. None of the weapons used by Lanza were prohibited by the State law. And even if the rifle had been removed from the equation, Lanza still had two handguns to use. This proposed law would not have achieved any part of their stated goal of stopping a future Sandy Hook.

2) A ban on large-capacity magazines: I've never understood why people think this is a good idea... New York passed a law limiting everybody to seven-round magazines, despite the fact that seven-round magazines aren't routinely manufactured or available. Anywhere. But besides that idiocy, there is zero evidence that bans like this do anything to reduce violent crime or deaths in mass shootings. Lanza himself carried numerous magazines filled with ammunition, and it just doesn't take long to change magazines in a gun. This law also would not stop a future Sandy Hook.

3) Background checks on all sales: This is the only one that seemed able to pass, and it did a lot more than the summary suggests. But mass shooters such as Lanza typically do not buy their guns, so a background check wouldn't do much to stop them. Indeed, all of the firearms he used were legally purchased by his mother, who passed background checks in order to get them. So this law wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook, either.

Can you see my point? The response of gun control advocates to the tragedy at Sandy Hook was to propose a bunch of laws that wouldn't have done anything to stop Sandy Hook. And this response is a major problem to their cause.

Look, in this country we have a Constitutional right to own and carry guns... if you don't like that, you can either live with it or move. The answer to violence is NOT to pass another gun control law... especially not laws that do nothing to reduce crime or stop these mass shootings. As long as those who want to "reduce violent crime" aim their legislative remedies at the vast majority of people who obey laws, they will continue to fail. Oh, they may get laws passed here and there, but those laws will not accomplish their stated aim of reducing violent crime. And you do realize why these laws fail, don't you? Because criminals don't obey the laws.

All that a law banning "assault weapons" or high-capacity magazines would do is disarm those who obey the law. Those who want to use these banned items will find them and use them. So all the law has accomplished is to give the criminals an edge up over the law-abiding citizens. And this is not something to be proud of.

The problem here isn't the availability of guns, it's human nature. The worst mass murder incident in the US was accomplished without a single firearm. (See the Bath Michigan massacre.) Unless, of course, you include terrorist incidents, and then the story is similar. (See the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Oklahoma City bombing.) Guns are not needed to kill a lot of people... evil will find a way.

The problem, as I see it, isn't any particular object, the problem is human nature. We will never be able to eliminate incidents like Sandy Hook, because we will never be able to change human nature to get rid of every evil impulse. And if you think you can, you are doing worse than deluding yourself, you are pushing that delusion onto those of us who know better. As long as you keep using tragedies to advance a political strategy that doesn't do anything to reduce violent crime, you will be alienating a large number of American citizens who aren't a threat and just want you to leave us alone.

One thing you must always remember is that laws do not prevent crime. If they did, we wouldn't have any murders or theft at all. What laws do is give us an orderly and predictable way of punishing those who harm others. If you're looking for laws to do more than that, then you are going to be disappointed.

Look, what you SHOULD BE doing is trying to find a way that really DOES reduce violent crimes. I'm not sure what that would be, but as long as your aim is to treat everybody as equally guilty and remove rights left and right, then you and I will never agree. Find a way to get at the problem WITHOUT banning this or that, and we can start talking.

Is Obama Lying Or Just Stupid?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:00:00 +0000

As most of you are aware by now, the Obama and Democrat sponsored gun control legislation failed in the Senate, unable to get the 60 votes needed to continue. The bill itself was one nobody thought could pass, as it was a background-check bill that mandated an NICS check with any TRANSFER of a gun, even if that transfer is temporary in nature, i.e. lending a friend a gun so he can hunt with you. So, the first order of business was to replace that bill with a substitute, and that measure failed. Other amendments, such as the assault weapons ban and magazine limits, also failed to pass. Despite Obama and other prominent Democrats pulling out all the stops in a PR blitz, and despite the exploitation of Sandy Hook families in an effort to have emotions overpower logic, this Democrat-led attempt to implement stricter gun controls failed.

Which brings us to Obama's response. If you recall, the mantra prior to yesterday was that the measures "deserved a vote." After the vote, however, the dialogue altered sharply. In comments not long after the bill failed, Obama said the following:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-18/obama-s-gun-safety-strategy-fails-with-political-missteps.html

“There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this,” Obama said appearing in the Rose Garden with Newtown family members after the vote. “It came down to politics.”
“All in all, this is a shameful day for Washington,” the president said.

There are two aspects to this statement that I want to highlight. The first is that "they deserve a vote" became "this is a shameful day" when the vote Obama demanded went against his wishes. Get a life, people, and realize you don't always get your way. And when you don't, that isn't shameful. That's part of life.

The second aspect is the first part of the quote: "There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this." I beg your pardon? There were LOTS of coherent reasons not to pass that gun control bill. Let's look at them. (The bill discussed below it the Manchin-Toomey substitute bill... the original was even worse.)

Why was this bill proposed? If you remember the rhetoric, it was so that "nothing like this will happen again." In other words, it was a direct response to the Sandy Hook shooting and was presented as a way to stop such events in the future. But an expanded background check wouldn't have stopped the Sandy Hook shootings... not even supporters claim that it would have. So the Democrats decided to stop future events by proposing a bill that wouldn't have stopped previous events. It makes no sense... but the fact that the bill wouldn't have done what supporters claim it would have (i.e., stopped future mass shootings) is one reason why we "shouldn't do this."

Another reason to oppose the bill is that there is ZERO evidence showing that background checks actually reduce violent crime. Why should we pass a law that doesn't actually reduce violent crime, especially when that is the stated reason to pass it? Surely even such a politically biased individual as PresBo can see that this is one of the "coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this."

At least one provision was unenforceable... the one mandating a background check be required for a gun sale by a private individual if such sale occurs "pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm." How would they know? I mean, say I posted such an internet listing, but somebody in Kentucky found out from a friend of a friend... how could ANYBODY prove anything, here? Do we need a background check or not? By the text of the law we do not, but how do we prove that to overzealous ATF agents? In short, we don't. Yet another "coherent argument" against passage.

And ANOTHER reason to oppose the bill is that it did far more than propose background checks. For example, an entirely new "Commission" would have been created... it would have been named the National Commission on Mass Violence, which would be empowered to study and propose new gun control laws. One of the questions to be studied was "whether medical doctors and other mental health professionals have the ability, without negative legal or professional consequences, to notify law enforcement officials when a patient is a danger to himself or others." Keep in mind this isn't an adjudication or any kind of official process, just one physician's opinion... and these guys will admit that they are LOUSY at predicting who is and is not a real danger to others. This WOULD result in innocent people being denied constitutional rights based upon the opinion of ONE man... or woman.

As you can see, there are MANY coherent reasons to oppose the bill in question. So the question becomes this... is Obama lying about this for his own political gain, or is he honestly so stupid that he can't even RECOGNIZE the fact that others might disagree with his priorities based upon principle and logic? I leave each person to answer that question for himself (or herself).

UPDATE: And then there is Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn), who said that "Background checks will happen, this outcome is a delay, not a defeat." Ummm... we already HAVE background checks, you idiot. Every licensed dealer must perform an NICS background check for every sale, no matter where that sale occurs. (sigh) What is it about losing this political battle that makes liberal politicians ignore basic facts that contradict their over-heated rhetoric?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/gun-control-vote-obamas-biggest-loss-90244.html

Problems With "Universal Background Check" Bill

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:00:00 +0000

So the "Universal Background Check" bill is scheduled for a vote this morning, and we are being bombarded with poll results showing "overwhelming support" for universal background checks. Okay, supporters of the bill say, since a majority of voters back the concept, it's obvious the bill should pass. If that's the only criteria, then ObamaCare should never have been passed... after all, it has been opposed by a majority of voters since before it was passed. But that's another topic.

The problem with the argument, however, is that the bill does more than it's supporters admit. First, it makes felons out of homeowners who lose a gun and don't report it within 24 hours. Second, it doesn't only require background checks for sales, but for any "transfer" of a weapon.... including lending a gun to a friend. Let's look at these.

The bill includes a provision that says if a gun-owner loses a gun or has one stolen and doesn't report it within 24 hours, then the gun-owner is guilty of a FELONY crime worthy of five years in prison. Some might think this reasonable, but consider this: the bill requires more than just contacting the local sheriff and telling them about the loss, the gun-owner must also notify the United States Attorney General! Now I ask you, what reasonable person would realize this is a requirement? And knowledge that the act of not-reporting is a crime is NOT required in the bill... intent isn't needed. So if a person, in all ignorance, fails to notify the police AND the USAG of a loss within 24 hours, no matter the reason, he is guilty of a felony. What about somebody on a hunting trip way up in Alaska? No cell phones, days away from the nearest phone... if a gun tumbles down a cliff or sinks into a lake, that hunter is almost automatically a felon. I mean, he has no chance NOT to be... but the law wouldn't care.

This provision is far too draconian and punitive, and will criminalize innocent people. Needlessly!

On to the next topic. The bill doesn't simply require a background check for all sales, even private sales, but also for each "transfer" of a gun. That means just what it sounds like. Say I have a friend who is thinking of buying a gun and wants to borrow mine to try it out and see how she likes it... things like this happen all the time. Once she takes that firearm and leaves my house/presence, a transfer has occurred. And if I didn't go to a licensed firearms dealer to run an NICS background check, then I am guilty of a felony.

At firearms safety classes, the person running the class often brings several guns for students to use if they don't bring their own. That action, if not preceded by an NICS background check performed for each student by a licensed gun dealer, would also be a felony.

Or what about lending a rifle to a friend who wants to hunt and doesn't own his own rifle? Each with his own rifle, the individuals head to separate hunting blinds... and that transfer of a firearm makes both of them felons.

Some "transfers" within a family are okay without an NICS background check, but others would require one to avoid suddenly acquiring felony status.

As you can see, this bill goes FAR beyond what most people think of when they hear the term "universal background checks," and these details were not provided to poll respondents before asking them if they support the bill. I think support would be vastly reduced if such details were known.

This bill is NOT a good one, and would result in many innocent people going to jail. No matter what people think about the general idea, this particular bill is badly written and would have unfortunate consequences.

The Dangers of "Universal Background Checks"

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:30:00 +0000

PresBo launched his anti-gun proposals with calls for sweeping legislation that hit Second Amendment rights on a variety of fronts. Now, however, it looks like the best they can even hope to accomplish is the so-called "Universal Background Checks." The idea is that every time the ownership of a firearm is transferred, a NICS background check is performed on the recipient of that firearm. These background checks are already performed on every buyer from a licensed gun dealer, whether that purchase takes place in the store, on the internet, or at a gun show. What PresBo and the other gun grabbers are aiming at, here, are private sales and gifts.

Let's make it clear, they want me to perform a NICS background check on my neighbor if I sell a handgun to him, or on my DAUGHTER if I decide to give one of my guns to her. (Yes, I know there is talk of exempting gifts to family members, but if they do that then it's not a "Universal" background check, now is it?)

Liberals are completely baffled as to why anybody would object to this... which basically shows their failure to comprehend some fairly simple facts.

The first is the cost involved with the NICS checks. I would have to pay for the cost involved, or the buyer would, one or the other.

The second is the TIME involved with the NICS checks. Though they OFTEN return an approved or disapproved result, they also can return a "will get to it later" result.

The third is the impact this will have on the NICS system. As I pointed out above, sometimes the system essentially returns a busy signal instead of a real result, and this can often be traced to the load on the system. Imagine what will happen when hundreds of thousands of private sales suddenly flood the system. If it doesn't crash under the strain, the creaking and groaning we hear will be all of those transactions that DON'T get immediate reply... if they ever get a reply at all.

The final objection to this is that of ENFORCEMENT. I mean, think about it. How will they even know when an NICS check was required? The only way they could is if they had a universal registry of those who own guns... otherwise there is no way to enforce this background check requirement OR to punish those who skip the background check. This is the joker in the deck, the poison pill in the medicine cabinet. Universal registration almost inevitably leads to gun confiscation... it did in the UK and it did in Canada. Why should we expect otherwise, here?

For those who will claim that I am wrong and that the universal background checks won't mean a universal gun registry, the Obama administration disagrees with you. In a recent memorandum titled "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies," the administration indicated that the success of one was dependent upon the other. To read the memo for yourself, look here: http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf.

It is true that his isn't a policy memo, but it did outline their conclusions and assumptions. For example, despite Obama's support for an assault weapons ban, the memo concluded: "Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence." A lot of interesting things in there, such as this little gem: "Ammunition purchase logs are a means of checking for illegal purchases and for developing intelligence on illegal firearms." They are talking about keeping a legal record of ammunition purchases in order to identify gun owners... they say "illegal firearms," but they can't tell from an ammunition purchase if the gun in question is legal or not. So the program could/would be used to identify those who own guns.

Implementing universal background checks in an effective manner WILL require a universal registry of gun owners... otherwise, how do they know a sale even took place?

And I must say that administration's protestations of innocence ring hollow, especially when we know that a VP Biden-led working group did discuss in depth the creation of a national database to track all gun sales. That, my friends, is a gun registry, and it was at the very least actively considered by the Obama administration.
http://www.examiner.com/article/national-database-on-gun-sales-part-of-obama-anti-gun-game-plan

So, for those of you who simply cannot understand why anyone would object to a universal background check system for all gun sales, maybe this will open your eyes and strengthen your ability to understand simple facts. There is more than one area for concern, here.

No Real Global Warming Observed Since 1950

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 13:00:00 +0000

We all know the "scientific consensus" on global warming, right? The Earth is warming and it is our fault. Most of us have seen a chart like this that illustrates how dramatically the temperature is rising. (Granted, without the debunking information contained on this version.)

As you can see, this shows every little up and down movement, with a most definite increasing temperature trend in later years, right? Wait a sec, look to the left of that chart, and you'll see that the chart, no matter how dramatic it looks, shows an increase since 1950 of approximately half of one degree! That means that we're looking at a very zoomed-in record. So let's zoom out a bit, and show a chart of global temperatures that includes a larger range of temperatures.

"Rather than narrowing in to measure minor variations from the long-term average, which makes annual variations of a few tenths of a degree look enormous, this one zooms out to show us the data in terms of absolute temperature measurements, in which the annual variations over the past 15 years look as insignificant as they really are."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/04/the_end_of_an_illusion_117795.html#ixzz2PWGdBwVO

As you can see, once we zoom out this far, the temperature curve looks a lot more flat. True, this chart starts at 1997, but you get the point. If you zoom in far enough, ANY variation in temperature starts looking alarmingly huge. The predictions we hear about global warming usually talk in terms of a 3 degree or 4 degree or even more rise in temperature. But look at the first chart again, and you'll see that the average temperature has risen approximately HALF OF ONE DEGREE since 1950... that sort of indicates how bad current science is at predicting this stuff, doesn't it?

Is the earth warming? Yes, it looks like it. Is the earth warming a lot? No, I wouldn't say so. Is the "warming trend" in line with increased pollution? No, carbon levels are higher than ever, but the temperatures for the past decade haven't been increasing, they've averaged flat.

So is "global Warming Theory" confirmed? No, I wouldn't say so.

What Do You Think Of PA's New Look?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

As you have probably noticed by now, Politics Alabama underwent a face-lift yesterday. We changed the look and feel of the site, though the content shouldn't have been affected. And, of course, I'll keep giving the best political commentary and opinions that I know how to give.

Please let me know, either through email or by commenting on this post, if the change caused you any problems with the site.

Why is "Home Brew" Controversial In Alabama?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:24:00 +0000

I received an email yesterday that raised my eyebrows a bit. The email was from an organization called ALCAP (Alabama Citizens Action Program), which bills itself as "Alabama's moral compass." They were urging me to contact my Senator and tell him to vote against HB9, which passed the AL House this week. I was already aware that HB9 would allow people to legally brew beer or ferment wine for their own consumption in the privacy of their own home. Home brew, as it is called, has been legal under Federal law since 1978... each adult can make up to 100 gallons of beer or wine a year for their own consumption, with a maximum of 200 gallons per household.

Since the Federal law was passed in 1978, states have followed suit one by one, until at this time only a single state still outlaws the private making or beer and wine as a hobby: Alabama. Yes, even Mississippi has legalized it, so we're once again the backwards cousin arriving late to this particular party.

ALCAP opposes the legislation, apparently, because it would be "bad for children." Please. Unfortunately, they are not alone. As the bill was being debated in the House, we were treated to a parade of ignorance and stupidity.

Rep Berry Forte (D) said, "I think we've got enough people walking around drunk on Monday mornings." (Story here)

Rep DuWayne Bridges (R) said, "If we don’t stop now, there’s going to be—next it’s marijuana. And it isn't going to be 60 gallons, it’s going to be 150 gallons or more." (Story here)

Some opposed it, as does ALCAP, on religious grounds. Rep Richard Baughn (R) said he has had two beers in the last 25 years. "I was raised in a Christian home and I was taught that any form of alcohol is bad." (Story here)

Look, people, if there were going to be horribly bad and destructive occurrences because home brew was legalized, don't you think at least ONE of the other states would have noticed by now? I mean, most states allow up to 100 gallons per person per year, while HB9 only allows 60 gallons per year. But it hasn't happened. Believe me, if other states had had problems because of this, examples aplenty would have cropped up during this debate... but they didn't. Because those doomsayers are wrong.

But the shenanigans of our increasingly juvenile Legislature didn't stop there. Representatives proposed numerous amendments intended to weaken or cripple the law. Some examples include:

1) An amendment requiring home brewers to be at least 60 years old.
2) An amendment requiring home brewers to be licensed and pay a $100 annual fee.
3) An amendment to limit legal production to 15 gallons a year.

All of these amendments were either defeated or tabled, and the bill passed as it was.

I have to say that some of the questions and concerns expressed by our Legislators were incredibly ignorant. According to one anecdote (I haven't seen an article saying this, this came from someone monitoring the debate), one Representative couldn't understand how home brewers could have a non-commercial use for beer/wine that didn't include drinking it. Even when it was explained to him that home brewers engage in competitions at festivals, he didn't understand until a parallel was drawn to BBQ cook-offs. I am simply not impressed by the intelligence shown by some during this debate.

Last year I wrote a piece when the Home Brew bill failed to pass (link here), and the comments during debate were just as ludicrous, if not more so. Several bemoaned that the bill allowed people to do this without any government oversight... obviously they don't really understand the concept of freedom. Rep Alvin Holmes famously wondered, "Is the beer we (sic) selling not good enough?" He also didn't understand what mead was, and wondered, "How you gonna keep the kids from becoming winos?" Another from Rep Holmes was "Man, you gonna make everybody up there a wino!"

People, get a clue. Making beer or wine at home is NOT dangerous, and if the experience of other states tells us anything, it tells us that it also doesn't lead to rampant drunkenness or turn children into winos. This is a hobby... and Alabama's current law criminalizes a hobby that harms no one. Why not give freedom a chance, just this once? It works, I promise you.

And ALCAP? I did, indeed, contact my Senator... only I asked him to vote in favor of HB9. Maintaining our status as the only state in the country to outlaw home brew isn't logical, regardless of your religious convictions. And trying to force your religious convictions on others is, in my personal opinion, a rather large sin in and of itself.

Congratulations to Rep McCutcheon (R) for sponsoring this bill year after year, and for getting the House to pass it this year. Now it's on to the Senate, which approved it last year. I wish you the best of luck.

UPDATE: The ALCAP, once they became aware of my blog post, did not like it very much. They characterized it as "an attack" and bemoaned my willingness to do this. Though I offered to post their rebuttal to my original post, they have not yet responded to that offer.

UPDATE: Still no response to my offer to ALCAP... they haven't accepted or declined the opportunity to post an explanation of their opposition to HomeBrew in Alabama. I do not expect to hear back from them, but if they finally decide to accept it I will be glad to post their position paper unedited by me. I suspect they won't do it because they can't make any coherent argument against it except an appeal to religion. Hey, I'd be happy if they proved me wrong, here...

Alabama Legislature Votes To Reduce Your Property Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:55:00 +0000

If you will think back to 2005, when the US Supreme Court ruled in Kelo that cities could steal property and give it to somebody else who might use it in such a way as to pay more property taxes, Alabama led the national trend by approving laws restricting the scope of eminent domain seizures. At the time, Democrats held majorities in both Houses of the Legislature, and they did the right thing in response to that ludicrous SCOTUS ruling.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/31/alabama-brings-back-eminent-domain-for-p

Alabama’s statutes had contained some of the best protections in the nation for property owners; officials couldn't seize property for private development unless it was a true threat to human health and safety.

Now things have changed a bit, and Republicans hold not only strong majorities in both House of the Legislature, but also every statewide office. Many of my conservative friends were ecstatic when this happened, telling me that NOW we would begin to see things done RIGHT! Instead, the Legislature passed and Governor Bentley signed into law a bill that would once again allow municipalities to condemn properties on flimsy grounds with the sole purpose of giving it to large developers who promise to build something that will pay more property taxes than you do now.

Gee, thanks Republicans.

The new law makes Alabama the second state to renege on strong eminent domain reform. (Utah stripped eminent domain powers from redevelopment authorities in 2005 only to partially restore them in 2007.)

Are Republicans "better" than Democrats? In this case I would argue "definitely NOT!" Indeed, on average both parties are about the same... they deliver on a few hot-button issues but regularly disappoint on more than enough issues to counter-balance the limited good they do.

I mean, come on! Alabama LED THE WAY to stronger property rights... and now is one of the first to reverse those strong property rights. Could you ASK for a clearer sign that the Republicans we elected don't really give a flip about our rights and our concerns?

This is a prime example of why Alabama NEEDS looser ballot access laws. In 2010 the Republicans benefited from massive dissatisfaction with the Democrats... but they only benefited because Alabama's ballot access laws are so tough that no other political party has a prayer of getting on the ballot and staying there. Had Alabamians had a third choice (or fourth or fifth), we might not be facing this erosion of our property rights that has been foisted upon us by the Republican party.

DHS Advocates Self-Defense Using Scissors

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 14:00:00 +0000

In the midst of a nationwide debate on gun control, it is interesting to note that the government that wants to restrict our access to firearms is telling us to use scissors to defend ourselves against a assailant with a gun.

In my mind, any law, regulation, or Presidential Executive Order that reduces my ability to defend myself against an armed attacker is more than an infringement on my Constitutional rights, it is a declaration by a hostile government that our lives do not matter. That the political goals of our government are more valuable and important than are the lives of American citizens. And I have a problem with that.

At this moment we're seeing bills to ban certain handguns, rifles, and shotguns, proposals to make it harder and/or more expensive to purchase and own firearms, and even restrictions and taxes on ammunition! It is becoming clear that the policies of our government, championed by Barack Obama and the Democrat Party, do not really include wanting citizens to own and carry guns... for self-protection or any other reason. Why do I say this?

I say this because of a new instructional video released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), providing advice on how to react if we are attacked by an assailant with a gun. Their first advice is to try and run away or hide where the gunman cannot see you. They further advise us to stack furniture in front of the door behind which we are hiding to make it more difficult for the shooter to reach you. The video even goes so far as to advise you to plan ahead and prepare. How, by carrying a weapon with which to defend yourself? Of course not... they advise you to plan escape routes ahead of time so you won't have to do it on the spur of the moment!

What??? They want you to prepare... only not really. Not once do they counsel you to carry some weapon for personal protection. In fact, at about the 52 second mark, the video makes the following statement:

In the event of a shooting at your location, you must quickly determine the most reasonable way to protect your own life... you will need to determine if the best course of action is to evacuate or to hide.

Do you notice anything missing? Yeah, I do, too. Whether or not fighting back is the best choice in any particular situation, they don't even present it as an option. It is clear that they do not want you fighting back. In fact, their advice is to run away or hide and wait for police to handle the situation. And if you die because you didn't have a gun, they don't really care.

Finally, around the 1:45 mark, they make a single, pathetic reference to self-defense.

“If you are caught out in the open and cannot conceal yourself or take cover, you might consider trying to overpower the shooter with whatever means are available."

As those words are spoken on the video, a woman is shown reaching into a desk drawer and withdrawing a pair of scissors. They belatedly offer you the choice that every person should have, self-protection, by hastily improvising a makeshift weapon to use when you resist. Advising someone to carry a weapon with them wouldn't fit in with the anti-gun tone of the current administration, you see... though you'd be MUCH better able to resist with a gun than with a pair of scissors.

What DHS is telling you is that your life isn't important enough to your political masters who run this country to matter. Their policies are more important to them than is your life. Carrying a gun with you would give you the greatest ability to protect your life, but the President doesn't really believe in you being able to do that, and so they will fight to restrict your rights... after all, one voter more or less doesn't make all that much difference to them. If you die because they stopped you from obtaining a gun or because they wouldn't let you carry it with you, then that's just too damn bad. Shut up and obey orders like good little cannon fodder.

I'm sorry if I'm going over the top a little, but this really ticks me off. At the same time they're telling us that guns are the enemy, they advise us to fight a gunman with SCISSORS!!! The contempt for us that this reveals is simply staggering. They say that our government derives its power from the consent of the governed. But it's times like this that I am most willing to withdraw that consent. Not that this would make a single iota of difference to the power-hungry morons we have in charge.

Anyway, if you'd like to see the video, here it is:

If the video doesn't play, you can view it online here:
http://youtu.be/oI5EoWBRYmo

Huffington Post Attacks Skeet "Truthers"

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 16:23:00 +0000

An article over at the Huffington Post is attempting to attack and de-legitimize those asking whether or not the President of the United States just lied for political advantage. Let's take a look at this...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/obama-skeet-shooting_b_2592233.html

Yes, in the wake of the current president remarking that he has occasionally gone skeet shooting at Camp David, there appears to be a Skeet Shooting Truther, or "Skeeter," movement picking up steam on the far-right.

First of all, the President did not say he "occasionally" went skeet shooting, he claimed he does it often.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57566051-10391739/obama-gun-control-supporters-must-listen-more/

Asked if he has ever shot a gun, the president said, "Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time. ... Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there."

Not only did he claim to shoot skeet "all the time," but he also claimed to "oftentimes" take guests up there to shoot with him. Clearly, the President isn't claiming he does this "occasionaly," but rather that it is a regular and normal occurrence at Camp David. Strange, then, that not a single shred of evidence exists to support the claim, not a single picture, not a single guest who says they did this with the President, nothing.

But are we wrong to even ask for this proof? Are we crazy for even thinking of it?

To answer that, let's look at what the President did. Obama is in the middle of a big push to enact gun control legislation, and obviously he would carry more moral weight if he was viewed as an authority with guns. So the claim that he shoots skeet was advanced in order to establish his bona fides, so to speak, and thus improve his chances of passing gun control legislation. In other words, he said it for political gain. I'm not sure anybody disputes what I just said... because it is what Obama clearly did.

Further, the statement came out of the blue. In all of Obama's past utterance on guns he has never advanced such a claim before, and he has had opportunities where saying this would make sense. Further, nothing in Obama's background leads us to believe he is an avid shooter of any type of firearms. All of his past utterances about guns have been how and why to limit civilian access to them... pro-gun control. Heck, when he was running for the Illinois State Senate, Obama said he supported a state law to ban all handguns. ALL of his background shows an animus to firearms, and nothing prior to this claim indicates that Obama shoots guns for fun.

So, the claim would be to his political advantage and there are no hints of it in his past. Hmmm... yes, I think that smells just a little bit, and so asking a few questions isn't out of bounds. And, despite what the Huffington Post thinks, it doesn't make us crazy.

Now, sure. I get it. The conservative media establishment loves to wallow in these ridiculous conspiracy theories about the president. It's all part of the Clint Eastwood Invisible Obama syndrome. They attack a nonexistent president and make things up because they've got nothing else to say.

A lie for political gain by the President isn't a "conspiracy theory," by any means. Looking at it logically, the president is using this claim to position himself on the gun control issue to be more credible, so questioning this surprising claim is well within the bounds of propriety.

When White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked for pictures of Obama skeet shooting he responded with this disingenious little gem: "When he goes to Camp David, he goes to spend time with his family and friends and relax, not to produce photographs." What? Are we to believe he doesn't go on vacation to spend time with his family and relax? Because they're certainly not shy about providing pictures of THAT!

I'll stop with those two pictures, but know that I could continue to post vacation pictures of Obama and his family all day long. So it's obvious that just because Obama intends to relax and enjoy himself with his family, this doesn't preclude pictures of him doing it.

So maybe the sticking point is Camp David? No, because we even get pictures of him relaxing at Camp David.

It's obvious that the Carney response was malarkey, and one doesn't have to be crazy to ask why they don't simply provide a picture. Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest answer is the most likely to be true, and the simplest answer is that they don't have any pictures of Obama shooting skeet. Why don't they have pictures? Again, the Razor leads us to the conclusion that no picture exists because he doesn't do it. In other words, he lied.

And that's really all that is being asked. Did Obama lie with this surprising claim, intending to use it for his political benefit, or is it actually the truth? It's a simple question... but instead of answering it, the White House equivocates and liberal media sources attempt to slander those who ask the question! All this could go away with one picture, or if one of the guests Obama referenced would step forward and tell us about it. Boom... issue gone.

Obama has acted this way in the past... when faced with questions on a subject he ducks and dodges for so long that people start asking WHY he won't answer simple questions. By clinging to secretiveness about his own claims he invites people to press for the truth, and in the process creates the very conspiracy theories that he later decries so successfully.

To Huffington Post author Bob Cesca I say this: Questioning the truthfulness of unsubstantiated claims that are obviously intended to garner political gain is a reasonable thing to do, especially when said claims conflict with everything we know about his past history. Trying to paint questioners as conspiracy theorists or possibly crazy simply reduces your own credibility. You may not think the President is lying, but that doesn't make the question itself illegitimate.

Does Feinstein's Bill Ban All Semi-Auto Rifles?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:39:00 +0000

As most of you know by now, Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced a bill entitled the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013." The bill bans a wide swath of semi-automatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles based upon little more than cosmetic features. But did you realize that, according to a literal reading of the bill, it ACTUALLY bans ALL semi-automatic rifles?

Let's look at it. The bill bans semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine and one of several features, one of which is a pistol grip. Here is that definition from page 2 of the bill:

The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

(i) A pistol grip.
(ii) A forward grip.
(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
(v) A barrel shroud.
(vi) A threaded barrel.

Most rifles do not have pistol grips, you say? I regret to inform you that, according to the definition included in the bill, they do. Here is the definition of "pistol grip," found on page 13 of the bill:

"The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumb-hole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip."

As you can see, the definition of "pistol grip" encompasses far more than actual pistol grips. The phrase "or any other characteristic that can function as a grip" is the poison pill in this definition... EVERY rifle has a grip of some kind, and this phrase encompasses them all. The grip being, of course, the part of the rifle held by the shooting hand (i.e. the hand that pulls the trigger).

Here is a picture of a pistol grip:

Here is a picture of a thumb-hole grip:

And here is a picture of a regular rifle grip:

By a plain reading of the bill, all of these will be outlawed, which means that every semi-automatic rifle (and shotgun, for that matter) meets the definition of having a pistol grip and therefore is an "assault weapon" and banned unless listed in the exclusion list (which begins on page 23, Appendix A, of the bill). And for those wannabe legal scholars out there who claim that since the INTENT of that section was clearly to specify pistol grips only and that's how courts will view it, please keep in mind that the intent of a bill only matters if the plain text is unclear. In this case, the text is perfectly clear, so the plain language of the bill will most likely be used over intent.

There is some supporting evidence that this was actually done on purpose, rather than by accident. If you look at the list of guns excluded by the ban, you'll find the fixed-stock Iver Johnson M-1 Carbine. But that rifle doesn't have any of the cosmetic features (such as what the rest of the world thinks of as a pistol grip, see picture #1, above) and therefore would not be banned at all. So why exclude it? If we take the included definition of a pistol grip as intentional, however, then the phrase "any other characteristic that can function as a grip" would make this weapon banned and therefore make the appearance of it in the exclusion list a little more understandable.

But whether this was done by accident or design is a question that can be debated at a later time. The reality of this bill, however, is that it outlaws far more firearms than the supporters of the bill claim. This bill is about banning guns, getting them out of the hands of civilians, and has nothing to do with reducing crime or violence.

The Alabama Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:41:00 +0000

Ladies and gentlemen, I have written a bill that I would like to see introduced into the upcoming session of the Alabama Legislature. Give it a read and, if you think it's a good idea, forward it to any and all legislators whom you think might be interested in sponsoring or co-sponsoring it.

The bill is called the Alabama Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, and is intended to prohibit the acquisition and use of drones for surveillance by law enforcement in criminal investigations.

Here is the full text of the bill:

SYNOPSIS: As unmanned aerial drones become less expensive and more readily
available, law enforcement officials around the nation are expressing interest in using them for routine surveillance in criminal investigations.

This bill would prohibit any state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency in the state of Alabama from obtaining unmanned aerial drones and using them to gather evidence or other information.

This bill would also prohibit any information gathered in violation of the provisions of this Act from being used as evidence in any court of law in this state.

This bill would also provide a remedy for abuse or violation of this act.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT

Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the Alabama Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act.

Section 2. For the purposes of this Act, the following terms are defined.

(1) Drone means a powered, aerial vehicle that:
(a) Does not carry a human operator;
(b) Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
(c) Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
(d) Can be expendable or recoverable; and
(e) Can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload;

(2) Law enforcement agency means a lawfully established state or local public agency that is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of penal, traffic, regulatory, game, controlled substances, or any other state or local law or ordinance.

Section 3. A law enforcement agency shall not obtain a drone by any means, nor shall they use a drone to gather evidence or other information. The primary official in charge of any law enforcement agency in violation of this provision shall be charged with a felony criminal charge.

Section 4. The Alabama Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act does not prohibit the use of a drone to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.

Section 5. An aggrieved party may initiate a civil action against a law enforcement agency to obtain all appropriate relief in order to prevent or remedy a violation of the Alabama Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act.

Section 6. Any information or evidence obtained or collected in violation of the Alabama Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act is not admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state, nor may it be used to obtain further search warrants or for any legal purpose.

Section 7. This Act shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

Well, what do you think?

UPDATE: For those who have contacted me telling me they didn't think was a big enough problem to deal with right now, all I can say is that when colleges start offering programs to teach people how to pilot drones... well, it's possible that you are wrong.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/29/16726198-anticipating-domestic-boom-colleges-rev-up-drone-piloting-programs?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

While most jobs flying drones currently are military-related, universities and colleges expect that to change by 2015, when the Federal Aviation Administration is due to release regulations for unmanned aircraft in domestic airspace. Once those regulations are in place, the FAA predicts that 10,000 commercial drones will be operating in the U.S. within five years.

At the moment, 358 public institutions – including 14 universities and colleges – have permits from the FAA to fly unmanned aircraft. Those permits became public last summer after the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Should AL Have A "Parking Lot Law"?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:27:00 +0000

One of the gun bills proposed this year was also proposed last year... it failed to pass last year and it should fail to pass this year.

The law I'm referring to is the "Parking Lot Bill," which would allow employees to bring their concealed weapons to work and store them in their car during the work day... even if the person who owns the property doesn't want anyone to carry guns on that property.

And that's the rub... This bill pits what many people view as a "second amendment right" against well-documented property rights. It is well settled that owners of property, even business property, have the right to refuse individuals the right to carry weapons onto their property.

Where the proponents of this bill err is in the assumption that the Second Amendment gives us the right to ignore the wishes of a property owner and carry a weapon whether the owner likes it or not. It does not. If I don't want visitors to my home, for example, to carry guns, then they will not as long as they are in my house. And if they do carry against my wishes, I am fully within my legal rights to kick them out of my house.

The fact that we're talking about a business doesn't matter as far as property rights are concerned. I mean, if McDonald's can refuse service to a person without a shirt and ask them to leave, then certainly they have the legal right to do the same with somebody who carries a weapon. It boils down to this... the owners of property get to decide whether or not others carry guns while on the premises. Period.

The Second Amendment restricts government from limiting our rights to keep and bear arms, but it does NOT apply to individual property owners. No property owner is constitutionally bound to honor the First Amendment rights of people on their property. You may have the absolute right to speak your mind, but not necessarily HERE on my property. The same thing goes with the Second Amendment. The Constitution doesn't force employers to allow concealed (or open) carry on their premises.

The state legislature can pass this law, but if they do, it will amount to a partial taking of property... the state will be usurping part of the management of every piece of commercial real estate in Alabama. This isn't a Secondnd Amendment issue, no matter the rhetoric you hear coming from the NRA. This is a power grab by the state government, who want to tell business owners how they have to think about guns.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a libertarian who has had a concealed carry permit for more than a decade. I LIKE being able to carry my weapon with me as I move through the day, and I'm a strong champion of individual gun rights. But I don't let my respect for the Second Amendment blind me to the evil of forcing property owners to allow things they'd rather not.

And the state legislature shouldn't either.

The Trillion Dollar Coin Option

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:35:00 +0000

Just in case you haven't heard of this, there is a new option floating around about how to deal with a "financial crisis" if Congress stalemates over raising the debt limit: simply mint a trillion dollar platinum coin.

The logic is fairly simple. Existing laws regulate the printing of paper money and coinage on gold, silver, and copper. Platinum isn't regulated, so theoretically the President could instruct the US Mint to create a limited run of trillion dollar coins. These coins could then be used to pay down some or all of the national debt, thus getting around the debt limit.

Let's look at an example. We're at the limit, and the President is projecting more than a trillion dollars of deficit spending this year. So he could use two coins to pay off $2 trillion of the national debt... and now he can borrow an additional $2 trillion before he runs into the limit.

Simple, right?

The catch comes in the form of side effects. Let's say the US Mint creates five one-trillion dollar coins. That means they unilaterally add $5 trillion to the money supply... it doesn't matter if that money comes in five one-trillion dollar coins or in 50 billion $100 bills, the result is the same. And adding that much currency to the total in circulation would affect the currency markets and inflation rates.

In other words, minting those coins would devalue our currency, not only in terms of its buying power, but also in relation to other national currencies. A dollar would not buy nearly as much as it does today, and that's a bad thing. With all that extra money floating around, we'd see also see upward pressure on interest rates. Depending upon how much was printed, we could see anything from mild reactions (minting one coin) to massive inflation and devaluation of the currency (minting enough coins to pay off the national debt).

Though this option is "possible," in that it is arguably legal, and though implementing it would probably be simple enough, the economic ramifications on our already weak economy would be like a devastating uppercut to a fighter with a glass jaw... especially if the "pay-off-the-entire-debt" option were pursued. Make no mistake, it is a bad option... But how bad could it be?

Let's start simple. There is a formula used by economists to show what happens when a government prints money. That formula is MV = PT. In this formula, M is the amount of money in circulation, V is the velocity of the the circulation of money in the economy, P is price, and T is the number of transactions taking place.

Assuming that V and T remain constant, doubling the amount of money in circulation would double prices. Printing $17 trillion to pay off the debt would have a substantial impact on the economy in terms of inflation. The resulting devaluation of our currency would likely discourage others from buying our bonds to finance our ongoing deficit spending... the potential impact cannot be casually dismissed here.

The math would hopefully keep the Obama administration from printing more than enough to just alleviate the debt ceiling on a temporary basis. But even then, with trillion dollar deficits, minting and using a single coin would have a significant inflationary impact.

So when you hear about the "trillion dollar coin," this is what it's all about. It's simply the irresponsible notion of "print money and devalue the dollar to pay down the debt" dressed up in shiny new clothing.

Smoke And Mirrors On Deficit Reduction

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:37:00 +0000

Ladies and gentlemen, you've been had. Guys, you'd better check your pockets to make sure your wallets are still there. Ladies, verify that your bloomers aren't missing. Congress and both political parties have just pulled the political equivalent of making an airplane disappear, and nobody has noticed.

Let's travel back in time to when the deal known as the "fiscal cliff" was being brokered. At the time, there was immense pressure to do something to reduce the deficit, and politicians on both sides felt the pressure too keenly to simply ignore it.

So the Democrats and the Republicans brokered a package of spending cuts and tax increases that were so horrible that neither side could let them become law. Then they set a new deadline MONTHS down the road, all the time assuring us that deficit reduction would happen one way or the other.

That's what the "fiscal cliff" was, a package of spending cuts and tax increases so horrible that Congress would be forced to implement less damaging deficit reduction. Only it didn't happen that way.

Think of the recent debate about "avoiding the fiscal cliff"... how much emphasis was there on "deficit reduction?" Oh, there was a little lip service here and there, but not the same pressure to reduce the deficit that Congress had been under months earlier. Mission accomplished, the public was diverted.

And the specially brokered deal that allowed Congress to save the country by "avoiding the fiscal cliff?" Not only does it NOT reduce the deficit, the CBO has said it actually INCREASES the national debt by about $4 trillion over the next decade... which means it increases the yearly deficit by an average of $400 billion a year.

Ladies and gentlemen, you've been had. Surely you don't think this was done by accident, do you? On the contrary, this was a well-though-out plan to divert the public from their desire for deficit reduction by putting in its place a fear of something bigger... the fiscal cliff.

The "fiscal cliff" package was supposed to reduce the deficit, but in "avoiding" that cliff, lawmakers managed to also avoid deficit reduction completely. And are we really focusing on this? Not really, we're already looking forward to the "debt ceiling" debate and hoping we can get some deficit reduction out of that.

Let me be clear... we can't. The leadership of both parties is more interested in scoring political points than in avoiding our looming national bankruptcy. That's why Boehner is the speaker again, despite his abandonment of sound fiscal policies. And of course there was no leadership change for the Democrats. Why should they change leadership? They're winning! They got most of what they wanted in the recent deal, and they have every reason to expect a similar resolution to the debt-ceiling debate.

And while Congress is fiddling and Obama is auto-signing bills, our national debt keeps growing rapidly. We are already at a debt level where a bankruptcy crisis could be triggered, and Congress doesn't care. What this country NEEDS to do is eliminate the deficit as quickly as possible, preferably within the next year or two, and turn it into a surplus. Then we need to begin paying down our national debt. But Congress doesn't care.

Do you?

More On Gun Control

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:07:00 +0000

I'd like to deal with two other issues in the context of gun control, and I figured I'd lump them together. Those issues are the rarity of mass school shootings and banning "high-capacity magazines."

Whenever one of these mass shootings happens these days, we are treated to an overabundance of coverage, but that doesn't mean these things are becoming more common. The fact is that no matter how you measure them, by number of incidents, offenders, or victims, the numbers haven't been increasing. I'm not trying to be insensitive or offensive, here, but if we don't look at the facts then we haven't a prayer of taking meaningful and effective action.

Here is a chart showing the data dating from 1980 to 2010. Note there is no increasing or decreasing pattern... it looks fairly stable. If we have a high spike in 2012, as looks likely, we must realize that it's not part of a trend.

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Looking at the numbers, we can see that mass shootings account for a vanishingly small percentage of the total murders we see each year. For example, the chart shows about 80 victims of mass shootings in 2010, but in that year we had 14,772 murders... which means the mass shootings made up 0.54% of total murders. Seems to me we're focusing on the wrong thing, here.

These things aren't happening any more frequently, but we get instant coverage plastered across all the media. We get to feel like it happened next door, and this is guaranteed to heighten our perception that they are, in fact, more common than they really are.

Mass shootings are VERY rare, and they don't kill a lot of people when they do happen. These events are not normal, they are an aberration... setting public policy based upon them will result in bad laws that don't actually reduce crime rates.

The other issue I'd like to address are bans on "high-capacity magazines" for handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

It's important to realize that, prior to the assault weapons ban in 1994, there was no such term in our lexicon. The politicians invented the term and then arbitrarily set a number to it... 10 for rifles and pistols, and 5 for shotguns.

The assumption here is that smaller magazines will result in lower death tolls, but is that correct? Keep in mind that the Virginia Tech murderer had one pistol with a 10 round magazine and another with a 15 round magazine, and that incident had a very high body count relative to other incidents. Why didn't magazine size matter to that shooter? Quite simply, he had a backpack crammed with nineteen spare magazines, and he simply dropped one magazine and inserted another. A tactical reload like that can typically be performed in less than 3 seconds... I think the speed record is about half a second.

I regularly carry a handgun with a 15-round magazine and one in the pipe. That doesn't make my handgun any more dangerous to anybody who is not in the process of attacking me... but it does increase my self-defense potential if I need it.

But keep in mind that the size of the magazine typically only matters in a mass shooting - which events make up about half a percent of all murders in the country. In the other 99.5%, magazine size doesn't really matter.

See why I say that setting national gun policy on mass shootings isn't a good idea? This a bad policy that will be ineffective in reducing crime rates. But we already knew that, because the 1994 assault weapons ban (which included the ban on "high-capacity magazines") had no impact on violent crime rates. None, nada, zip, zero.

It's easy to react emotionally and demand that "something be done." But that kind of reaction doesn't lead to well-thought out laws that are effective in reducing crime rates. Let's look at the facts and take the time to think things through in a logical manner.

Should We Ban Assault Weapons?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:51:00 +0000

Less than a week ago, a truly evil person took a few guns and shot up an elementary school, killing 20 children and 6 adults at the school. In the immediate wake of that shooting, in some cases while the police were still on scene at the school, people started calling for a new assault weapons ban. At this moment, at least two members of Congress have announced they intend to introduce legislation for a new "assault weapons" ban at the opening of the next session of Congress.

So here's the question, should we pass a new ban on "assault weapons?" My short answer is no, because the original ban was arbitrary and ineffective. But let's start from the beginning.

The first thing to understand is that the law did not affect fully automatic weapons at all. Those are already regulated by other federal laws. It is illegal to buy, sell, or own a fully automatic weapon manufactured after 1986, and to own one manufactured before that you need a federally approved license. In a nation with hundreds of millions of gun owners, only a couple of hundred thousand own fully automatic weapons legally. So keep that in mind... An assault weapons ban only affects semi-automatic weapons, i.e. one trigger pull results in one bullet being fired.

Before the original ban was drafted and passed in 1994, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the legal lexicon. Because of that, the bill had to provide a set of criteria telling us what constitutes an assault weapon. A rifle, for example, was an assault weapon if it could accept a detachable magazine and had two or more of the following cosmetic features:

- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
- Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally)

Notice that there is no mention of the KIND of firearm. Therefore, a .22 caliber rifle with a pistol grip and a folding stock was banned, while a 50-caliber sniper's rifle capable of hitting and killing a target a mile away was not. How dangerous the weapon might be wasn't considered, merely the appearance of the weapon.

Similar cosmetic definitions were provided for semi-automatic pistols and shotguns.

It is important to keep in mind that the law didn't ban powerful or dangerous guns, merely those that LOOKED dangerous. I fail to see how that is an effective method for dealing with gun violence. And in point of fact, the assault weapons ban was NOT effective at reducing gun violence.

The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention performed a study of the ban and other gun control laws, eventually concluding there was "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

The National Research Council reviewed many such studies and concluded that they "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence." Of course, that may have been because, "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found that, should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons," are rarely used in gun crimes.

In short, no evidence exists that any feature of the ban, either of the weapons themselves or of high-capacity magazines, reduced crime in any way, shape, or form.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence disagrees, of course. To them, effectiveness isn't determined by a reduction of the crime rate, but rather because "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime." To them, the goal is to get rid of guns, not to reduce the number of gun-related crimes, so to them the law was a success.

That said, a spokesman for the ATF responded to this claim by saying that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report. So it might not even be true.

And that's basically my case against renewing the assault weapon's ban. If the new law is similar to the original, which we won't know until Senator Feinstein introduces the bill next year, then it will not be effective in reducing crime... and after all, that IS the stated goal for passing the law!

If it won't be effective then why pass it?

The law arbitrarily banned guns based upon how they looked... which, by the way, might not pass Constitutional muster under the new Heller SCOTUS ruling. We know that such a law will not reduce gun-related crime at all. For these reasons, we should NOT pass another assault weapons ban.

UPDATE: From what Senator Feinstein is saying now, it appears as if the new bill WILL be mostly a rehash of the old law.
http://thehill.com/video/senate/273439-sen-feinstein-describes-passing-new-assault-weapons-ban-as-uphill-road

"In the wake of a shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that claimed the lives of 27, including 20 children, Feinstein has vowed to introduce legislation reinstating a federal ban on assault weapons. Feinstein was a major proponent of similar legislation in 1994."

UPDATE: Now it looks like President Obama is supporting Feinstein's bill.
http://thehill.com/component/content/article/273487-obama-will-push-for-ban-on-assault-weapons-in-second-term

How To Destroy The GOP In One Easy Step

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:31:00 +0000

I would like to take this opportunity to describe in small, easy-to-understand words how the entire Republican party could be destroyed once and for all. This isn't a fanciful, intricate plot by the Democrats (or whomever), spear-headed with malicious intent. It's a plan advanced by members of the Republican party in their desperation to win the Presidential election.

Here's the deal... a Republican state Senator from Idaho (Sheryl Nuxoll) has proposed a plan whereby Romney could win the election. Yes, that's right, a way that Romney could win the election that he already lost. Well, sort of... You see, he hasn't actually lost yet because the election hasn't actually been held yet.

Keep in mind that the President is elected, not by the people, but by the Electoral College. Our recent election actually chose the electors who will sit in the College, which will meet on Monday, December 17, to select our next President. That's when the real election happens.

So what's the plan? The plan is for all of the states which went for Romney to boycott the electoral college. That is, simply refuse to attend. Looking at the numbers, it is possible that by doing this the Romney supporters would deny to the Electoral College the 2/3 states majority it needs to conduct business (this requirement is detailed in the 12th amendment).

So what happens if the Electoral College doesn't have a quorum? Theoretically, the US House of Representatives (which is GOP-controlled) has the responsibility of selecting the next President. Nuxoll's hope is that the House would vote for Romney... Though theoretically at that point ANY name is in the running, not just those who actually ran. (Yes, Ron Paul could be elected by the House... as could I. Or you.)

That's the plan, folks. Nuxoll claims it is "constitutional," though the quorum requirement was clearly not meant to be circumvented just because the losing party didn't like the results of the election. In reality, it would quite likely spark a Constitutional crisis of phenomenal proportions.

Ladies and gentlemen, if the Republican Party actually embraces this idea, they will be deservedly destroyed. Nobody else will have done it to them. They will have done it to themselves. This plan isn't anything more than sour grapes. It displays a win-at-all-costs mentality that should disgust any intelligent individual.

Make no mistake, this would constitute stealing the election. By that I mean the Republican Party would be directly responsible for the greatest show of contempt for our nation and the principles that are her foundation that we've ever seen in the entire history of our nation. The phrase "blowing their noses on the Constitution" shows only the barest fraction of the enormity of the abomination this would constitute.

If it happened, our entire political system would fragment and dissolve. Don't like the results of the election? Now there's precedent for stealing it! The House of Representatives would, over time, become the real place the Presidents were chosen, as the losing party tried the same trick over and over again to seize the Presidency.

And the Republican party itself would be guilty of offenses far more massive than anything they have condemned the Democrats for over the years. Not only would the party dissolve in one massive sneeze of contempt and disgust from the electorate, they would deserve to disappear in such an ignominious manner.

I hope I'm getting across to you how despicable even SUGGESTING this course of action is to me... You can't protect and strengthen the Constitution by tossing it out the window in your frenzy to win.

Suck it up, Republicans... You lost. Destroying our entire political system in a pathetic expression of denial is NOT an appropriate reaction to that defeat.

Here's a radical idea: If you want to win elections, why not try nominating GOOD, principled candidates instead of people who, through some system of semi-mystical attributes that nobody really understands, are deemed "the most likely to beat the Democrat!!!!"

If the party has any integrity at all, Miss Nuxoll will be severely reprimanded for her lack of character, her lack of integrity, and her expressed disgust for the rule of law as set out in our Constitution.

UPDATE: My apologies, but I forgot to post the link to the article that details her proposal... in her own words.
http://chumly.com/n/185c26f

The True Story of Thanksgiving

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:55:00 +0000

Thanksgiving is here once again, and with it come visions of children's plays with Indians and Pilgrims, complete with little Pilgrim hats made of construction paper. The story told in these plays and learned by public school students at every grade level is a simple one.

The Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock late in 1620. The first winter was harsh, but the colonists worked hard and applied themselves industriously to their own survival. They had help from the local Indian tribes, who helped them learn how to survive. The result was a plentiful harvest in fall 1621, not to mention the first celebration of Thanksgiving.

It's a wonderful story. There's only one problem with it: It isn't true. Oh, it does contain elements of truth. For example, the first winter was harsh, and the local Indian tribes did help the colonists learn how to survive, what to plant and how to prepare the food. But the 1621 harvest was not bountiful. In fact, famine haunted the fledgling colony.

When the colonists first landed, they signed something called the Mayflower Compact. Most of us have heard this document praised as an early social contract helping different people to live together. What most of us never learned was that it was also an experiment in socialism.

The Mayflower Compact required that "all profits and benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing or any other means" were placed in the common stock of the colony. Further, it required that "all such persons as are of this colony are to have their meat, drink, apparel and all provisions out of this common stock." People were required to put into the common stock everything they could, and take out only what they needed.

William Bradford, governor of the colony at the time, wrote the "History of Plymouth Plantation." In it, he wrote that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Since "the strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak," the strong men simply refused to work, and the amount of food produced was never adequate.

In fact, the colony went hungry for years as strong men refused to work hard, and theft of crops still in the ground ran rampant. Bradford wrote that the colony was riddled with "corruption and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

The harvests of 1621 and 1622 were adequate enough so that "all had their hungry bellies filled," but that did not last. Deaths from malnutrition continued into the next year.

But in 1623, something changed. Bradford reported, "Instead of famine now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." By 1624, the colony was producing so much food that it began exporting corn.

What caused this change?

After the poor harvest of 1622, the colony brainstormed for a way to raise more corn and obtain a better crop. The solution, like the Thanksgiving story told today, was simple. In 1623, Bradford "gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit."

The socialistic experiment that had failed them was abandoned and replaced with capitalism. That turned the colonists away from failure and forward into success and growth. And this move away from socialism, along with the resulting prosperity, is what we truly celebrate today. It is easy to see why I call Thanksgiving the first Libertarian holiday.

Thanksgiving, far from being the simple and uninspiring story of a group of people learning how to farm, is actually a celebration of what has made America itself great. It is the story of people working together by working for themselves first, and in so doing, improving the standard of living for everyone. These are the American ideas we hold dear.

As you sit down to your table laden with turkey, dressing and pumpkin pie, remember the true story of Thanksgiving, and what it means to all.

How Are GOP Presidential Candidates Selected?

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:00:00 +0000

The conventional wisdom is that Republican voters across the nation select the GOP candidate who runs in the national election, but is that true? I really wonder.

When John McCain ran in 2008, I remember reading an article or two that mentioned it was his "turn" to run for President. Apparently there's some kind of seniority list over at national GOP headquarters, and they keep track of who has paid their dues and is next in line. It was John McCain's "turn" to run for President, and by some massive coincidence Republican voters selected him as their candidate.

I also heard mention last year that it was Mitt Romney's "turn" to run for President, and again the massive coincidence occurred. Which explains my question... who really picks the candidate?

In light of many things that happened during the primary cycle, it becomes a more important question.

For example, remember the Nevada caucuses? After the officer elections resulted in Ron Paul supporters in control of the state GOP party and winning a majority of the delegate seats, the former officials formed a second party... and the national GOP recognized the second state party with its Romney dominated slate of delegates.

There were many more shenanigans during the primary season that I won't go into, but if you like, you can read about them (complete with supporting links) here:
http://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/how-the-republican-party-stole-the-nomination-from-ron-paul/

Disagree with that author's conclusions if you like, but don't ignore the facts.

Then there was the national convention, where the leadership changed the rules AND CHEATED the delegate vote in order to keep Dr. Paul from even being formally nominated as a candidate. If you'll remember, the rules committee recommended changing the long-standing rule that any candidate can be nominated who has a majority of delegates in five states. They wanted it to be eight. When the change came up for a vote, the voice vote was close... too close to call. But it didn't matter, because the phrase "the 'ayes' have it, and the resolution is adopted" scrolled onto the teleprompter screen WHILE THE VOICE VOTING WAS TAKING PLACE.

The GOP leadership didn't care how the delegates voted, they wanted the rules change in order to keep Dr. Paul off the ballot. And they got it by ignoring the delegates. Proper procedure in the event of a close voice vote is take a roll call vote to make certain. Not only did they not do that, they didn't care how the delegates voted. They decided the rules change would pass and simply bypassed the delegates who were supposed to make the decision.

As I said, there are definite signs that the GOP cheated and lied in order to obtain the nomination for the guy whose turn it was to run for President.

As we sit here with four more years to go before the next Presidential election, Republicans across the nation need to ask themselves if they like this kind of behavior by their party leadership. If the answer is yes, then do nothing and you will not only lose in 2016, but you will DESERVE to lose.

If the answer is no, on the other hand, then you need to get involved in your party leadership. Become part of the local or state Republican party. Run to become a party officer. And when the time comes to lie, cheat, and steal in order to rig the nomination, refuse to do so and run the thing honestly.

Some of you automatically tuned out when you read the name "Ron Paul." I understand that many dismiss him out of hand, and that's okay. This isn't about one man or another, it's about the integrity and honesty of the process and the people in charge of that process. Either it's wrong to rig an election or it's not, and every single one of you need to decide that for yourselves.

But if you decide that anything is excusable if it eliminated Dr. Paul from getting the candidacy, then know that you are propping up a corrupt system that is serving the ends of the party instead of that of the voters and party members.

And if you do that, then shame on you.

My (Late) Take On The Election Results

noreply@blogger.com (Politics Alabama) — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:06:00 +0000

First off, I want to apologize for this being so late. My family and I went on a cruise on November 3rd and didn't get back until November 8th... and yes, we voted absentee before we left. We were celebrating my daughter's 25th birthday, her graduation from college, and her engagement.

On the last day of the cruise I started feeling sick... turns out with conjunctivitis (pink eye), which caused first a sinus infection and then an inner ear infection which is still bothering me. Add in NaNoWriMo and my mother-in-law stopping by for her yearly visit, and you'll understand why I haven't written anything since we returned.

But it's time to comment on the election results.

Those of you who have read what I've posted over the past year or so will understand when I say the election results did not surprise me. From the very beginning I've said that Romney wouldn't beat Obama... despite mainstream Republicans claiming otherwise and talking about opinion polls that "over-sampled Democrats" and were inaccurate. The polls turned out to be almost right on.

We were told during the primary season that Mitt Romney "might not be perfect," but he was "the most likely candidate to beat Obama." The problem with trying to guess who has the best chance to win is that we too often turn out to be wrong.

Remember John McCain in 2008? Wasn't he the left-leaning moderate who was "most likely to win?" Yes he was... but he lost, right? But Republicans didn't learn their lesson and decided to nominate ANOTHER left-leaning moderate who they felt, through some mystical divination that was never explained to me, was most likely to beat Obama. And, surprise surprise... he lost, too.

Not only did Romney lose, the GOP lost seats in both the Senate and the House.

Why did this happen? In my opinion it's because the Republican party selected as their candidate someone who didn't embody what the platform says they stand for. Oh sure, Romney TALKED a good game during the election season, but his words directly contrasted with how he governed when he was actually in office. For every pro-business, small government stance he took during the election, voters were able to locate one OR MORE previous actions/opinions that directly contradicted it.

The Republicans thought, for the second-time in a row, that a slick-talking politician whose positions change when expedient was more likely to win than a principled person who truly believed in and had a history of supporting limited and constitutional government. And for the second time in a row, they were wrong.

Mitt Romney and the GOP lost because they deserved to lose. They decided principles were not important, and that's a losing proposition. If they don't learn a lesson from this and nominate a principled candidate in 2016, they will lose yet again and become increasingly irrelevant on the national stage.

Will they learn this lesson? Only time will tell... but I must say I'm not terribly hopeful.