The video is presented by The Blaze.
You really have to wonder if these people actually listen to themselves. Either way, it is difficult not to be left with a low opinion regarding their collective IQ, which indicates these people couldn’t have arrived at their points of argument on their own. They’ve been fed.
If they were really involved with understanding the problem, and I don’t believe they are, they would eventually come across the data point that tells them that when threatened and without the ability to defend themselves and loved ones, they would be dead long before police arrived.
Police rarely prevent the murder. Only comic book heroes can do that. Law enforcement (key phrase, there) only show up after the fact. So, to their argument about 30k or so gun victims, the counter argument should then be “If only those poor souls had been armed and trained.” At least then there would be a fighting chance for a different outcome.
A few days ago, April 17,2014 to be exact, Bloomberg (Michael Bloomberg’s business) published what they call “Bloomberg Visual Data” titled “How Americans Die”, by Mathew C. Klein. It presents data in a graphical form showing, well, how Americans die. One page in particular caught my eye and I wondered about the left hand knowing what the right was doing. As many probably know, Michael Bloomberg is no fan of gun ownership and even committed $50 million in an effort to challenge the NRA with gun control legislation. Honestly, I couldn’t make this up if I tried. The chart is presented below.
The data presented by this chart renders the woman’s argument (in the video) about 30,000 gun deaths each year as either a lie or, at best, deliberate disinformation. If neither of those premises are true, then she’s either making stuff up as she goes or, again, she’s being fed.
With this data, the question should now be about why these protestors and others of their ilk aren’t absolutely livid over the fact that drug induced deaths are above 40,000 per year and rising above deaths by automobile and suicide, the latter of which is also on the rise.
I know they can’t be livid about automobile deaths and diligently working to ban the automobile, because then they wouldn’t be able to drive to their next protest. However, we shouldn’t expect that from preventing liberal politicians from passing legislation that limits the number of passengers to only two. If you’re like me, now you’re recalling that Colorado, a very liberal state, recently legalized marijuana. This is where I reach for that duct tape.
The following articles illustrates what happens when people are allowed to protect themselves. The theme is the same; good people stay alive, assholes die or go to jail after a visit to the hospital.
Home intruder shot dead despite several warnings from homeowner
Detroit man shoots at intruders, killing one in latest home invasion
Attempted Intruder Shot Dead By 17-Year-Old In Hominy, Officials Say
Florida Family Fatally Shoots Home Intruder: Police
Robber shot dead by jewelry store owner
Armed robber shot dead by businessman
Coming to its senses?
By any measure, Chicago has the most stringent laws against gun control in the country. In spite of this, FBI statistics released in September of 2013 show that Chicago passed New York as America’s murder capital in 2012 despite the Windy City only having a third of the Big Apple’s population.
Chicago police are reporting that the murder rate for the first quarter of 2014 is the lowest it’s been in more than 50 years, which gun advocates are attributing to a concealed carry law passed in Illinois last year.
Of course, Chicago Police Superintendant Garry McCarthy says the opposite is what’s reducing crime: police have recovered 1,300 illegal guns during the first three months of 2014.
If Chicago’s efforts are the true cause of the dramatic drop, then what the hell were they doing during the previous 50 years? I suspect the truth lies nearer to the concealed carry laws that serve to give would-be criminals second thoughts about perpetrating their next crime. Certainly, having the police get off their doughnut injected ass doesn’t hurt, either, but I find it odd that suddenly their efforts are are the reason. The claim looks more like an attempt at avoiding being embarrassed.
1 dead, 11 hurt after car drives into crowd on LA boardwalk
The driver of a car that struck 12 people on the Venice Beach boardwalk in California, killing one and hospitalizing nine others early Saturday evening, did so deliberately, according to witnesses.
One witness told CBS LA that the driver was “out for blood.” Another estimated that the car was going 60 miles per hour. The car was still moving as it drove out of sight of first responders and the injured.
We MUST have car control laws to prevent these senseless and random acts of murder. I don’t understand why, in this modern era of civilization, we have to have cars when we have mass transit. The solution is so obvious and if we could save but one child, it would be worth it.
Police suspect that the car involved was either a Dodge Charger or Avenger. With names of cars like this, it isn’t difficult to understand the motivation it creates for people to do these things. Also, what do you want to bet the car was black? You see, that paint scheme is always applied to things that bring harm to people. I’ll bet it even had handles on it … and a device to make it quieter… like a silencer. Those poor souls couldn’t even hear it coming.
The other day, a friend of mine asked me what I thought of Dr. Benjamin Carson. For those who don’t know, Dr. Carson is a retired and rather famous neurosurgeon. He recently addressed the National Prayer Breakfast where he made news for his criticism of Mr. Obama’s policies in general and specifically, for Obama Care. You can read the story here where there is a video of Dr. Carson’s speech.
I told my friend that I like Carson’s point of view. He shows he is willing to go toe-to-toe with Obama’s principles. However, at the end of the day, he’s a doctor. He knows not of the ways of politics and campaigning and it may eat him. Time will tell.
My friend then asked what I thought about him forming a third party.
I am no fan or supporter of a 3rd party system, no matter who steps up to form one. We should instead learn the lesson taught us by recent history when Ross Perot split the vote away from George H. W. Bush and allowed Bill Clinton to win. It’s a losing proposition.
Instead, we should concentrate on how to reconstitute the Republican Party which has allowed itself to be undercut and discredited by the left. The GOP has been a dismal failure on commanding the national dialog and delivering a message that can garner votes.
In addition, there is a bigger problem working against the GOP. Simply put, America has been subverted. That process has produced several generations of voters who believe they have a right to access to the treasury. From that same pool come the politicians who also believe they have that right. The GOP has a long and bumpy road ahead of it.
It was at this point I began to tell my friend about a recent article written by David A. Stockman. Stockman is a former Republican congressman from Michigan, President Ronald Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985 and the author, most recently, of “The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America.” Mr. Stockman’s piece was very well written and also garnered some criticism from both the left and the right. The piece describes the current state of America, how we got that way and offers a remedy for our financial and political systems because these systems are indeed wrecked. Stockam’s point is that if we’re going to get anything done, it’s going to ….
… require a drastic deflation of the realm of politics and the abolition of incumbency itself, because the machinery of the state and the machinery of re-election have become conterminous. Prying them apart would entail sweeping constitutional surgery: amendments to give the president and members of Congress a single six-year term, with no re-election; providing 100 percent public financing for candidates; strictly limiting the duration of campaigns (say, to eight weeks); and prohibiting, for life, lobbying by anyone who has been on a legislative or executive payroll. It would also require overturning Citizens United and mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget, or face an automatic sequester of spending.
It would also require purging the corrosive financialization that has turned the economy into a giant casino since the 1970s. This would mean putting the great Wall Street banks out in the cold to compete as at-risk free enterprises, without access to cheap Fed loans or deposit insurance. Banks would be able to take deposits and make commercial loans, but be banned from trading, underwriting and money management in all its forms.
It would require, finally, benching the Fed’s central planners, and restoring the central bank’s original mission: to provide liquidity in times of crisis but never to buy government debt or try to micromanage the economy. Getting the Fed out of the financial markets is the only way to put free markets and genuine wealth creation back into capitalism.
As it turns out, this the the very issue that I have been rattling around in my head for awhile now, and it relates to my current vision of America as being a clown car aimlessly bouncing around in the desert, changing direction on every impact of a rock or armadillo. The issue takes the form of a few simple questions; “Where do we want America to be in 20-50 years? What should our priorities be and how do we get there when we change captains every 4-8 years? ” Remember, it took a mere 40 years to get where we are today. We should be looking for answers to these questions and if we’re going to solve the problems facing us we are going to need a national policy that takes on characteristics of a moon shot.
Amazing, isn’t it? Right away, I have two thoughts.
First, people such as those presented in the video, are demonstrating an inability to process truth even when the facts are carefully laid out before them. Their minds have been corrupted to the point where that capability has been taken from them. They are no longer independent thinkers capable of engaging in critical analysis. In a sense, they are truly drones, zombies, the walking unconscious.
As a visible case for this point, in Greece, the populace run into the streets to protest and riot against austerity measures designed to pay off their astronomical level of debt. In effect, these people are protesting against the outcome of their own design, the result of generations who voted for politicians who have promised them benefits they could never afford. Their chickens have come home.
Second, Nikita Kruschev was absolutely correct when he addressed the Western Ambassadors at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956, where he said the following:
We will take America without firing a shot…….We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. “We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.
I would have to say the process of subversion which has produced a population unable to process and accept truth has been very, very successful. In addition, our education system has performed superbly at keeping the voting population as dumb as a box of left-handed crayons while at the same time the media expertly performed their duties by continuing to pump pablum into the brains of American voters.
First, how crazy are you?
I doubt any sane person believes that sleeping with their home’s front and back door wide open is wise and it is certain they wouldn’t go to work the next morning leaving their garage door open. It’s not only dangerous, the thought process involved for someone to deliberately leave their home unsecured reflects an unhealthy mind. It’s certainly no way to run a home but without adequate borders, this is what we’ve been doing with our country.
A recap of our current effort to secure our home
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was first introduced on September 13 of 2006 by Peter T. King (R-NY). The bill called for the construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border. Additionally, the law authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting as well as authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border.
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives with 283 voting “for” with 138 against. Days later, the Senate passed the bill with 80 voting “for” with 19 against. Most Republicans voted in support of the Fence Act while most Democrats voted against it. In October of 2006, President George W. Bush signed The Secure Fence Act of 2006 into law.
In January of 2008 the 110th Congress introduced Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act of 2008 (H.R. 5124). This bill called for Homeland Security to construct an additional 700 miles of two layered, 14 foot high fencing along the southwest border. The bill died in committee and was never voted upon.
By April 2009 Homeland Security had erected about 613 miles of new pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers along the southwest border from California to Texas.
In May 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) unsuccessfully reintroduced for the second time his “Finish the Fence” amendment which would require Homeland Security to construct an additional 353 miles (568 km) of fencing along the US-Mexico border.
Growing State Budget Deficits
The left continues to fail to understand that if our country does not get our borders secured, state budget deficits will continue to grow, threatening our economy and our ability to recover from the recession by further burdening taxpayers with more taxes.
For information regarding state costs of illegal immigrants and state education budget short-falls, see Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red.
The IRS is an Enabler of Illegal Immigrants
As for the left’s argument that illegal immigrants pay taxes, a recent audit by the Treasury Department found that $4.2 billion per year is handed out to illegal aliens from a program called the Child Tax Credit/Additional Child Tax Credit. The study found that the IRS did not require citizenship documentation for this tax credit. This study and others also pointed to widespread fraud involving other ‘refundable tax credits’ such as the ‘First Time Homebuyer Credit’ and the ‘Earned Income Tax Credit’ which is available to low income parents, as well as identity theft involving stolen Social Security numbers.
Illegal aliens use the IRS to collect additional money from the federal government, in additional to other programs they collect from including Obamacare. The IRS should not double as a welfare program and the ‘refundable tax credit’ program should be ended entirely, but it is even more absurd for the normally strict IRS to turn a blind eye to illegal aliens collecting welfare through this system.
Governor Perry’s view on a Border Fence for America
From Julia Preston, “Some Cheer Border Fence as Others Ponder the Cost”, “The New York Times”, October 18, 2011
Perry said that building a border-length fence would take “10 to 15 years and $30 billion” and would not be cost-effective.
In 2009, the Congressional Search Service reported that the Department of Homeland Security had spent roughly up to $21 million per mile to build a primary fence near San Diego. The cost had ballooned as the fence extended into hills and gullies along the line.
The same year, Customs and Border Protection estimated costs of building an additional 3.5 miles of fence near San Diego at $16 million per mile. Even this lower figure would yield a rough projection of $22.4 billion for a single fence across the 1,400 miles remaining today.
Imagine, 22.4 billion to secure America. Contrasting this against the $787 billion Stimulus bill, which analysts are saying (as predicted) hasn’t stimulated squat, we then see we could have built a border around America just over 40 times. We don’t hear much of an outrage about the wasteful failure of the so-called “stimulus” but you will always hear the left whine over 22 billion because it’s too much money to spend to protect America.
New scientific information show liberals are able to take conflicting information and “cope” with it better than conservatives. According to the study, liberals are likely to see threatening and conflicting sets of data as opportunities to explore.
For this reader, the study sheds some light on how liberals tend to make decisions which can lead to trouble. A current case illustrating this is represented by the nation’s astronomical debt level and the inability of liberals to recognize these fiscal conditions as a threat to our nation’s well-being. For them these conditions are viewed as an opportunity to explore further, a tack that does not lead to the correct actions required by these conditions. This is further represented by their willingness to continue to spend money which exacerbates the situation further.
On the other side, conservatives recognize the situation for what it is. It is viewed as threatening or upsetting to a desired and sound state, which is fiscal responsibility sans exploratory policies (liberal adventurism) that are dangerous to the country’s well being.
The irony here which is often repeated where liberals are involved, is that while liberals see the demise of their social programs as destructive to the country, the pursuit of such policies will actually deliver to everyone what they hope to avoid.
On the contrary, following sound fiscal policies, i.e. less spending, lowered tax rates, lowered federal debt ceilings and the reduction of entitlement programs (unsustainable access to the treasury), will actually give them what we all want, which is a healthy country whose populace are not enslaved by its government. With such an environment, everyone is in a better position to realize their own potential to succeed.
Individuals who call themselves liberal tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, while those who call themselves conservative have larger amygdalas. Based on what is known about the functions of those two brain regions, the structural differences are consistent with reports showing a greater ability of liberals to cope with conflicting information and a greater ability of conservatives to recognize a threat, the researchers say.
Based upon the findings, it suggests liberals need to employ conservative thinking to save them from themselves. But it also sheds some light on why liberals are fond of viewing conservatives as unwilling to “progress” as they would want and why they generally view the Republican Party as the party of “No!”.
The other message here is that liberals cannot be reasoned with because they are inherently incapable of seeing the other side which is often pointing them to the error of their thinking.
The full story can be read here.
Hard Lessons from Mid-Terms and National Census
The Democrat’s devastating mid-term defeat resulted in the Republicans gaining more than 60 seats in the House. The 2010 census shows that Americans also voted with their feet by abandoning Democrat controlled states in favor of states governed by Republicans or embracing more conservative policies.
What is clearly apparent is what drove voters in the mid-term election cycle. By and large their votes showed anti-incumbent and anti-Democrat attitudes. In addition, they were motivated further by concerns about the jobless recovery, lingering recession, a perceived lack of focus on job creation and preservation, as well as the perception of government overreaching (health care reform) and wasteful spending (bailouts, stimulus). While the Republican Party leadership was lacking in its conviction that it shared the same conservative viewpoint the abandonment of which angered so many conservative Americans, the Tea Party movement embraced these themes and when one looks at the incoming Republican freshman class, although not homogenous, it will generally be large, eager, and opposed to the size and intrusiveness of government.
The over-arching message given to the Democrats by the mid-terms and the census is that America in general is rejecting liberal policies which are being understood and judged as the reasons behind the bulk of the nation’s problems. The other message is that if you’re a Democrat seeking reelection, you had better find a way to distance yourself from the policies embraced by the Democrat Party to which you belong.
Conservatives in Democrat Clothing, Switching Ideology or Subverting their Enemy?
In the South, a number of Democrats elected to state offices have switched parties. At least 18 Democratic state legislators have jumped to the Republican Party and officials from both parties say more defections are likely in coming months.
While Democrats in other states are abandoning their party, most of the defections are occurring in Southern states. Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas have already seen cross-overs with more being anticipated.
In Georgia, where Republicans control all state offices as well as the legislature, nine Democratic legislators—eight representatives and one senator—have changed sides, strengthening solid GOP majorities. On the local level, even a black county commissioner who was once national president of the College Democrats of America has switched.
In Texas, where officials aren’t allowed to formally change parties until January, Republicans expect to pick up two state representatives and “around a dozen” county officials, judges and commissioners, state party spokesman Chris Elam said.
With the continuing shift away from the failed ideology of the left as shown by the mid-terms and census, the exodus of elected officials who abandon their party’s policies to embrace more conservative policies of their opposition creates a new set of questions regarding their loyalty to their beliefs and about their true intentions. If we can take the outcry from the left over Bush’s Patriot Act and the silence they observe about the intrusive policies of Obama’s TSA and policies which are exacerbating economic recovery it is apparent liberals generally do not like to stick to their own principles. Movements seen by their leadership only serve to enforce that view. On the other hand, perhaps the simple explanation is that defecting Democrats are beginning to recognize the failure of their policies and are abandoning their political belief system, but I really doubt that point of view.
There is yet another point of view; the population making their way out out of the rust belt’s liberal states and into the sun belt’s conservative states may represent the very voting base causing the rust belt in the first place. After all, they’ve crapped in their bed, now they’re looking for a new place to stay.