Do You Understand Sequestration?

Time to trim the fat, Congress wouldn’t do it, the White house wouldn’t help, so now Sequestration gets its turn

Well, February is almost over and it looks as if the Republicans will actually stiffen their spine instead of remove the dang thing like they did the last two times it came down to the brass tacks.  That means, while the “Fiscal Cliff” was avoided and the “Debt Ceiling” was raised all to the wants and tax increases the Democrats were advocating there won’t be a last-minute reprieve for sequestration.  So, by tomorrow sequestration ought to be implemented. But do you know was sequestration is?  Oh I know you’ve heard the chicken littles tell you how the sky is going to fall, long lines at the airport, no first responders, we won’t be safe, blah, blah, blah, blah.  They are full of #$%^ and they know it.  I am here to share the truth.

The idea for sequestration came from the President himself a few years ago as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011.  The President was firmly behind the idea of automatic spending cuts totaling 1.2 Trillion dollars over the next ten years if the Congress could not find and make the same spending cuts through the budget. The truth of the matter is that we’ve been borrowing 33 cents of every dollar we spend here in the United States and if we continue on that same path then by 2027 the debt we owe on that money will reach 100% of the GDP.  That means we become Zimbabwe, post WWI Germany, 1980’s Mexico, etc.  We Will Be Broke!

Once it goes into effect we are looking at a spending reduction of 85 Billion dollars this year.  Did you get that, an 85 Billion reduction.  We are not going to slash and burn the budgets, we are just not going to expand the spending as much.  In fact, many of the measures taken by sequestration involve not expanding the budgets of departments from year to year, so instead of say a 3% budget increase in Defense we will have no budget increase.  The sequestration is hardly the monster people are making it out to be.  85 Billion dollars  is hardly anything when you consider estimated spending for 2013 is going to be 3.8 Trillion dollars. 85 Billion dollars represents 2% of that total, 2%.  That would be the same as if I asked you to give me two dollars out of a hundred-dollar budget and just spend a little less.  I think you could find a way to manage without all the doom and gloom, gnashing of teeth and complaints.  But apparently our spend happy leaders, drunk on debt, can’t find a way to curb some of their largesse.

The Defense department is going to take half of the hit of the entire thing, so what are you worried about there.  There is so much waste in the Defense department as it is, this will only help kill some long overdue dinosaurs and shore up some weak areas by getting rid of crap spending that we didn’t need to be doing in the first place.  As for the other half, unfortunately Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamp programs are untouched.  This is a shame seeing as how those things make up 42% of the spending in this country.  Maybe some people should be a little less entitled.

We’ve been spending too much for too long with no way to pay for it.  There has to be a point at which we stop and recalculate and re-budget.  The sequester is going to force that to start happening.  It may not solve the problem, it may even cause an economic down turn in the beginning, but we cannot continue to grow the debt unchecked.  We either fix it now or go completely broke down the road. What do you think will happen when we can’t pay our debts and foreign countries refuse to buy any more of it?  We lose, that’s what.  The sequester ultimately then, by refusing to grow the government monster, is good for us.

Bipartisan report

Courts Rule No Right to Concealed Carry…Really

Most states don’t mind if you have a gun on your person.

Last week the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled there is no Constitutional right for the state to provide a concealed carry permit to an individual.  The Court serves as the Appeals court for the district courts in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and most of Oklahoma.  This might seem a set back to 2nd Amendment arguments but it is really a non factor and I’ll explain why.

The main argument was presented in the Peterson v. LaCabe lawsuit, it became the Peterson v. Martinez lawsuit, which is a federal lawsuit challenging the non-resident licensing practices of Colorado and the City of Denver.  Gray Peterson, the plaintiff, is a resident of Washington state and holds a Washington state concealed carry permit as well as a Florida non-resident permit.  Mr. Peterson applied for and was denied a Concealed Handgun License (CHL).

Colorado does not issue CHLs to non-residents, but does extend license reciprocity to residents of states who recognize their CHL laws.  Colorado does not honor resident permits issued by Washington or Florida permits issued to non-residents because neither state has reciprocity with them.  Additionally, the city of Denver bans open carry, so there was no way for Mr. Peterson to legally carry.   By failing to issue Mr. Peterson a permit or to extend reciprocity to either of his other permits, the state has denied equal protection, due process, and other protections granted by the constitution.

Not so said the Court, in their finding the court ruled that “With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” More recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court noted that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues,” and explained that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Id. at 626. In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

In other words, the Second Amendment does have some limits.  Limits aren’t always a bad thing, like some loon claiming the 2nd would give him access to say a Surface to Air Missile…the courts would likely frown on something that could not be easily carried.

Contrary to the opinions of legions of libtards the Second Amendment’s coverage of the right to keep and bear arms is very extensive and inclusive but at the same time many conservaholes don’t understand that these protections have limits to them, and those limits don’t include concealed carry.

The real question here is why didn’t Peterson challenge the open carry law of Denver, the court in this case did not  rule that bans on open carry are constitutional and, in fact, noted with some bewilderment that Peterson had not challenged the open carry statute in the decision.  I guess we’ll just have to keep reading the cases and see what comes of them in the future.

Don’t fret lovers of guns, this isn’t an end all be all ruling, for it only applied to the areas under the tenth district, and it may come to a larger forum soon seeing as how their decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals who held up two weeks ago the right to concealed carry (they actually overturned the outright ban on concealed weapons permits in the state of Illinois).  This will likely end up in front of the SCOTUS either this year or the next.

Control, The State Can NEVER Have Enough

Wouldn’t it be awesome if we weren’t burdened with making the decisions of our own lives?

Sometimes when I make comments about totalitarianism in our society by our leaders there are those who insist I am being foolish, stupid, racist, sexist, classist, or any other ist to prove that I am wrong.  Well, I still maintain there are those in society, high up in their ivory towers and the halls of government who would feel better if they told us how to live our lives.  Now I have proof and while it does nothing to make me feel better it sure as heck justifies the things I say.

Professor Sarah Conly, who is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Bowdoin (Liberal Arts college in Maine, enrollment about 1700), just published her first book in mid-December of last year: Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism. No, I am not kidding, she really wrote a book which could reasonably be titled Stop Making Decisions: How We Can Force the Behavior We Want Out of You  and people say that I am off my rocker.  Just go take a free preview of her book on a popular website that sells books and read through the introduction.

She opens with Americans are too fat, too lazy, don’t save enough, make bad decisions, etc.  I’ve got news for you, not everyone is all of those things, some people are none of those things and people have this little thing called personal responsibility which we apparently don’t believe in anymore, otherwise why would someone write a book telling people that we have to find a way to force their modes of behavior in society. It is asinine at best. All Americans do not fit into the rigid categories that apparently some in their ivory towers believe the little people fit into.

Dictatorships, Totalitarian States, and Communist regimes have all tried to legislate the people.  They put limits on jobs, wealth, property, rights to vote, live, breathe, procreate, earn, raise their children, etc.  Did this control their society, yes, but at what cost? When people were afraid of not doing what the government told them to, when the government told them to, for fear of punishment, what kind of society is left?  Who wants to live in a world where you’re told what to do, when to do it, how to do it, don’t eat this it will make you fat, do eat that, don’t have guns, watch this global warming video, don’t you feel bad that you have it better than the third world.  WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN GUILT AND FEAR????

When you try to save people from themselves by making certain choices illegal and only leaving them the “good choices” what have you created?  I’ll tell you, you have a society like in Demolition Man, except the police beat the holy hell out of those who get out of line or eat salt. It is not a pretty world, it is a dystopian view of something no one wants to imagine, because deep down even those spewing this garbage believes that it should apply to the people under them, not the ruling classes, the people who will govern.  They already understand how to live the good life and make the right choice so it does not need to apply to them…the same way that Congress opted themselves out of the health care law.

They know what is best for us and will make us comply if they have to kill us in order to do it.  Once they do that, make no mistake, you are not citizens anymore, you aren’t even people, you are the property of the state, chattel, slaves.

Their Will Be Done.  To remove my autonomy is to remove my soul.

By the way, according to the indoctrinator Sarah Conly, I can only assume total indoctrination and obedience is what it takes to pass her classes this semester titled LOVE (Phil018) and Moral problems (Phil120), is already working on her second book.  Yeah, tentatively called Do We Have a Right to More Children?  The right to control one’s body is conditional on the damage it does to others is her main focus there. I guess she is making the assumption that population is inherently evil?  I bet she would love China and their one child enforced mandatory abortion policy.  Let the good times roll!

Egads! This, This Right Here is Why You Have Speech Writers.

Mr. President, I implore you not to give up your teleprompter or your speech writers.  In fact, when you do anything live if you could have them delivering your lines while you speak it might be better. Yes, google hangouts are all the fad and everyone who is anyone is doing them along with a circuit of late night television and perhaps the view again, but really, have your remarks prepared. I know you probably don’t intend on ending the presidency and becoming a monarch, but when you say that is the problem you are only letting people point fingers and say, “SEE, HE DOES WANT TO RULE US!”  Aiya! Speech writers, get some.

Watch for the Biden like remark at :39, I’m sure someone will turn it in to a “big F@#$ing deal”  ha ha ha ha.

Delusions about the 2nd Illinois Congressional District

Chicago had a complete ban on handguns from 1982-2010 but more than 50% of all homicides were committed with those illegal weapons during this time. Guess criminals don’t follow the law.

I get updates on all things political.  One of the political updates I receive is from a liberal progressive website known as the Daily Kos.  Some of the things they send me are interesting, some are laughable, some are honestly borderline offensive, and they there are the ones they send out that destroy their own credibility.  I’ll tell you about this last one.

If you don’t know, Jesse Jackson Jr. was a member of the House until late last year, after the election, when he abruptly resigned.  Now it turns out that there may be some serious problems with him and the circumstances of his resignation and he may actually end up in jail.  He is currently under investigation for misuse of $750K of campaign money.  Either way now the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois sits empty and there is going to be a special election for the seat.  This is where the delusion of the Daily Kos comes in.

They emailed me about how to make the NRA radioactive, noting this is the first time since the shooting at Sandy Hook to defeat the NRA at the ballot box.  They believe that through defeating a candidate backed by the NRA they will be making a significant dent in the NRA’s ability to lobby and provide support to members of Congress. The Daily Kos is backing Robin Kelly (D) who they say is a major gun safety candidate, read that to mean anti-gun, pro-gun control, or anything besides safety, safety is a buzz word here when they don’t want to say someone who advocates taking guns from citizens.  Here’s the thing, the 2nd Congressional district is in suburban Chicago.

This is a city with some of the strictest gun laws in America, Chicago actually had an outright ban on handguns from 1982-2010 until the courts ruled it unconstitutional, but it is still nearly impossible to own a gun as a law-abiding citizen in Chicago.  Yet, despite all those laws there were 532 homicides in the city last year.  In fact, since 2001 there have been over 5000 gun homicides in Chicago, meaning it is two times safer to do a tour in Afghanistan than it is to walk the streets of Chicago (2000 American deaths in Afghanistan since 2001).  The Daily Kos actually said, “we have the opportunity to deliver a clear and unambiguous message to politicians who would rather stand with the extremist NRA than with the safety of their constituents.”

Really, how about we compare the numbers in Chicago where guns are almost locked down to the city of  Houston where concealed carry exists.  They are closest in size among top 10 cities, Chicago at 2.7 million and Houston at 2.1 million, so just 28% smaller.  That means Houston’s homicides for 212 ought to be in the high 380-390 range.  Not even close, Houston had 216 murders, just over 40% of the amount in Chicago.  Are the people different in the two areas, or could it be that Houston arms itself and Chicago disarms its inhabitants.  Maybe. But the Daily Kos holds up their Chicago numbers unsupported by any real data and says, if you take the guns these crimes will go away.  I don’t think so, but they are doing more than that, they are setting the stage for stricter gun control.

They are busy building a straw man to claim victory.  Because the democratic candidate will win, and they will use the opportunity to push for stricter gun laws, despite the fact gun control had nothing to do with the win.  The 2nd Illinois has not elected a Republican candidate to Congress since 1950.  They have not voted for a Republican candidate for President since before FDR.  Jesse Jackson Jr, received no less than 80% of the popular vote in any of his races.  Carter and Mondale both received over 80% of the vote in the 2nd Illinois in 80 and 84.  That just goes to show you exactly just how blue this district is.  You could run a republican unopposed and it would be likely they wouldn’t crack fifteen percent of the vote.

There is no race here, that means there is no real mandate on gun control here, but don’t try to point out that logic to the Daily Kos or to their straw man candidate in Robin Kelly.  No, she’ll win and be another loud mouth voice telling Congress the people want them to take away their guns.  Well, not me sister, not ever, I’m not signing on to your crazy wagon.

There is Dignity in being a Member of Congress?

She certainly acts like a privileged class of royalty. “Oh, look at all the little people.”

The bitter, wrinkled prune of a woman who is Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) believes that cutting the pay of the lawmakers in Congress would diminish the inherent dignity of the jobs congressmen do.  I’m sorry, just what in the hell is she talking about.

Congress has arguably done nothing, nothing for the last four years and yet we should keep paying them at all?  They have not passed a budget in four years….four years people. No budget.  This isn’t like a household thing, this is the budget for an entire country, and they haven’t done one. In addition they have let sequestration threaten the economy through their inaction. Politics as usual has outweighed the solving of an economic crisis.

True we have had a divided Congress for a while now but even a divided Congress had gotten things done in the past.  This Congress has failed to pass even one piece of significant legislation.  The 112th Congress and now probably the 113th Congress may go down in history as two of the worst congressional sessions in American history, and that is counting the 37th Congress (Civil War) and the 80th Congress (Truman – the Do Nothing Congress).

Between the two of them they managed to pass legislation that produced economic growth, ended slavery, and set a National Security Act.  These recent Congress have been more content to bloviate, engage in chest puffery, and talk about how it would be so much better if everyone would cave to their whims. PASS A BUDGET!!!

Why are we even still paying these people. They sit around on their cushioned butts these libtards and conservaholes and tell us how we ought to live our lives.  These people don’t realize and the American people have seemed to forgotten these are our servants.  Congress serves at our pleasure and are beholden to us, we are not their subjects as they so happily pretend the situation is there in Washington.

If your employees weren’t doing their job, you’d do more than withhold their pay, you’d fire their asses.  Now we can only fire our House once every two years and our 1/3 of our Senate with them, but we could tell them that recent job performance has indicated their pay is too high for the quality of work they produce, then proceed to slash it.  Maybe if there was a consequence for a lazy Congress, they might get off their butts and do something.  Until then, they can SHUT UP and PASS A BUDGET.

There should be very little dignity among a group of people who can’t even perform the basic tasks of their jobs.  It is shameful and they all ought to act like it.  But of course that doesn’t affect her royal highness Pelosi, she has blinders on, or just wants to pretend she is so much better than the citizen scum she controls in her district.  “Let them eat debt.”

Source Here.

America Employs Drones Against Citizens on Own Soil

Forget the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  We can now replace it with “we will kill you with a missile from an unmanned drone if we feel you are a threat.”  I understand that LAPD-killer and former naval reservist Christopher Dorner is a bad man.  Yes, he has killed, yes he is on the run, yes he is most likely trying to get to a border and onward to a non-extradition treaty country…hope he speaks Spanish. By all means catch him, but do we really need to employ a technique we use on a battlefield here in America?

Where does it end, where then does it begin?  At what point do you as a citizen become such a threat to your country and your government that you are going to be surveilled in your own country, in secret and in clear violation of your constitutional rights?  That being the 4th Amendment right to privacy.  Could it even be happening now?  Sure, why not, technology is significantly advanced that someone could watch you and you would never even know it.

We’ve already assassinated three American citizens abroad without due process which the Department of Justice has said is totally okay, despite the fact is violates our own restrictions on assassination and several constitutional protections, but violation of sacred ideals for the greater good is all right, isn’t it? How long until we start killing the undesirables here in the good ol’ U S of A.

It won’t be long before we see the video of some poor schmuck getting whacked by a drone on U.S. soil and have the media and government laud it as a victory against, terror, crime, whatever.  But what it will really be is the beginning of the real end to our freedom, the death of democracy and the point at which our Republic becomes our prison.

Source.

Greedy Government Employees Want More

I wanted to talk about the Pope resigning his popery today, but I figure every news agency is going to devote serious time to that news story and I like to cover news that maybe doesn’t get enough attention.  The real story of the day is the statement from the American Federation of Government Employees.  Apparently the increase in pay they’ve been offered is “absolutely unconscionable.”

Granted, federal employees have been under a two-year pay freeze and have now only been offered a one percent raise, which is really for inflationary index more than it is for anything else.  But that isn’t enough?   I mean the military has had limited pay raises tied to inflation for the last three years have been in the one and a half percent range and Secretary Panetta is recommending a mere one percent for 2014 and beyond.

I suppose this tirade from federal employees has more to do with how little they are paid in relation to those working in the private sector.  When you factor in all the people in the private sector you come away with an hourly total of $28.24 for those working in the private sector.  That is not a terrible number when you think about it, some make more, some make less, but that is a nice median.  Gosh, federal employees much make so much less to be complaining.  Hmm, let us see, when you factor in all the benefits and etc, their average salary comes to….$40.76.   Woah.

I guess they are so under compensated it is ridiculous.  However, if you compare their salary with private sector employees who work for companies with more than 500 employees only you get more parity, because those people earn an average of $40.75.  Seems like these Federal Employees are just barely over the poverty line…what ever shall we do. They make more than their counterparts and most of them have a much nicer pension plan to boot.  But I guess when you suckle from the government teat, just like those on welfare, it is never enough.

Look, I understand people work hard and want to be recognized through pay the appreciation of their work, but a government employee is different.  Most of them shuffle papers all day long and do little but cyber loaf, many of them are hyper redundant because it is damn near impossible to fire a government employee which is why the turnover rate is one-quarter what it is in the private sector. If sequestration hits they won’t have to worry about that pay raise, they’ll be trying to figure out what to do when half of them are on furlough for 22 days of the month.

Looks like it might be time for some of them to take a peek at private industry…which is sad because employers will probably only hire part-time workers so they can avoid the Obamacare taxation.

Good luck with all that saber rattling and bitching government unionists.  I’m sure you won’t get screwed at all.

Source Here.

It’s Not the Holy Grail, But It is the First Card

The Brooklyn Atlantics, 1865.

The very first baseball card has been found and like all things lost and then found it was immediately auctioned off to the highest bidder.  In this case the item brought in $92,000, which when you factor in the 18% buyers fee comes to a mere $78,000 bid.  Well, you say, a rare Honus Wagner card from the t206 line of baseball cards brought more than 2 million dollars last time one was up for auction.  That is so, but that card is inherently different from this one, which goes to prove the old adage, just because it is old doesn’t mean it is worth a lot of money, a lot of money being perception based here.

However, the card may be just two of a kind known.  The card is listed as the first dated baseball card by the Library of Congress in the book Baseball Americana.  They were only aware of two surviving photos of the card, including the one that just went up at auction.  the other is in their collection.  Unlike a traditional card, which really started in the 1880’s, this card is a photograph glued to a card stock with a picture of a nine players and a manager for the Brooklyn Atlantics, who dominated their league in the early 1860’s.  The card is from the height of their dominance in 1865.  When you think that this was a mere 20 years after the real first formalization of baseball it is amazing.

This card, the first baseball card ever, spawned an entire line of collectibles after it down through time and even if it is never worth as much as a Honus Wagner for collectibility, it will be far more important to the history of sports collectibles in the long run.

 

 

Source Here.

No Gay Scouts Yet.

I remember being in the scouts. Sexual orientation was never discussed…honestly sex was never discussed either.  We met to have fun, learn new skills, serve the community, earn merit badges, and have fun.  I remember that time fondly, we met in the basement of a church every Tuesday from six to eight. In fact, I still carry my scouting coin that has the scout oath on one side and the scout law on the other.  Just to refresh your memory, or if you were never a scout, the oath goes:

On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty to God and my country. To help other people at all times, to obey the Scout Law, and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

the law:

A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

I believed those statements and followed them then and I still believe them and follow them now.  They have served me well over the years.  When I was in scouting we learned important things, survival skills, camping skills, outdoors craft, hobbies, sports, proper ways to handle knives, guns, etc.  This has been the way of the scouts for over a hundred years of scouting.  But first and foremost scouting was about family and God.  It just was, that is why meetings opened or ended in a prayer, that is why we had father/son camp outs, why we blessed our food, didn’t curse, served the community first, etc.

I understand that the gay rights movement desperately wants into scouting and I’m not sure why.  I mean 70% of all scouting troops are affiliated with scouts through their religious organizations, which for the most part are anti-homosexual as a point of biblical principle.  One of the scout missions is to instill Christian values and biblical truth into the young men and women who are in scouting.  If a ban on gay troops and leaders is lifted is this going to change too?

Will the LGBTQBLGRTYFD community demand the bible be dropped or that condom appreciation and wear be taught or this standard needs to be tossed or  many, many other things.  I don’t know, but I do know that the decision has been delayed until May because of the massive backlash the scout council has heard from units, parents, and members who say, if you lift the ban, we’re gone.  They are not interested in a politically correct scouting organization they are instead focused on something else.

Let me just say that the scouts are a private organization akin to a club and as we all know private organizations can set their membership standards however they want, they may choose to include or exclude those they wish based on any characteristics they choose. If they choose to let gays in or keep gays out that is entirely up to them.  The parents who enroll their children or pull their children will be doing so based on their core beliefs, not in any deep-seated racism or sexism or homophobia.  Different people have different standards for their lives and it should not be up to someone else to dictate what they can or cannot believe.

Source Here.