Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Farewell, for now...

Politics itself is the true tyrant. It is an all-consuming bane of reasonable men, a vicious, unchanging parlor game played by masochistic fools. There is no object because the object, by cruel design, is forever elusive. Like a game of chess played on a never-ending chessboard, there can be no winner. 

I have, therefore, decided to enjoy a siesta, and focus my efforts on a more rewarding venture. History: One Person At A Time

Truthfully, it started after my wife and I completed our family trees. We enjoyed digging up life stories so much that we were disappointed to learn that historical documents will only allow so much information to be known. We missed the detective work, and needed a fix! So instead of going out to lunch or dinner like normal couples, we went to the cemetery in search of something strange or out of place. For instance, someone dying young, two people buried together that died on the same day, or dates that indicate a combat death. We gathered up as much information on these people as possible and compiled a database of biographies.
Neither one of us will ever forget our first one.
We’d been meandering about the cemetery for nearly half-an-hour before we saw it, stuck in the ground, partially covered with foliage. It was an average size headstone of a young woman. On either side sat two smaller headstones, each inscribed with the name of a young child.  We took photographs of the headstones, five in all, then headed to the library.
After some digging, I found a newspaper article. Headline: MOTHER, FOUR CHILDREN SLAIN…BY ESTRANGED HUSBAND. 
Nobody wants to find stories of human tragedy, but it goes with the territory. And you continue doing it because something obliges you to remember those that came before you. Perhaps an innate human desire to be remembered yourself, to matter long after you die, and to live forever, if only in the hearts and minds of future generations.
 I don't know. But I do know that there is something within us that cannot bear to be forgotten, nor bear to forget. And so welcome to History: One Person At A Time. 
Like a crack addict  I may relapse every now and again, but merely trying to free myself from the fetters of politics will prove beneficial to my psychological well-being.

I bid well those wishing to remain in the cesspool.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Gun Control! Gun Control! Gun Control!

Gun Control! Gun Control! Gun Control! Are you tired of it yet? It's been the topic of discussion for nearly three-months, ever since that terrible shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. 

I'm tired of it. It's the same nonsense over and over again. Liberals twist, contort, and wrongly interpret the Second Amendment, trying to justify their gun grabbing. It cannot be done. We have a right to keep and bear arms in this nation. Period.

What are their motives, anyway? Is it to prevent gun deaths? If so, why would passing more laws make a difference? Most shootings occur with weapons obtained illegally! Why not simply enforce the laws already on the books? And what's responsible for the drop in violent crime? Are we becoming a richer nation, thus reducing the temptation to commit robbery and petty theft that results in shootings? Certainly not. The economy is in the tank, as if you didn't already know.

So, what is it? Is it the rise in gun ownership? According to one researcher, yes. 

But rather than bombard the reader with a bunch of data, which may or may not be conflicting, why not use logic to settle this? 

If the bad guy has a gun, the good guy will almost certainly lose. If both guys have a gun, the good guy's chances of survival increase exponentially. For my point, review Figure 1. 

Simple, right?

"But if we make guns illegal, then the bad guys can't buy them either! So, it'll still be equal." 

Hmm. When is the last time you walked into Wal-Mart and bought a pound of cocaine? A rock of crack? A vile of heroine? Amazingly, these things are illegal, yet available for purchase on the black market!

And do you remember Obama's propaganda conference? You know, the one where he had little kids read letters? 

Or, you've seen the Gabrielle Giffords gun-control commercial, haven't you? You know, the congresswoman that was shot and now opposes guns, as if guns are to blame? 

Why is it we never hear from survivors who oppose gun-control legislation, like Evan Todd?


Columbine survivor Evan Todd released an open letter to President Barack Obama on Wednesday in which he offers a point-by-point analysis of proposed firearms control initiatives, dismissing them as ineffective and dangerous to Americans’ rights.
He recently outlined why he fervently disagrees with the gun control policies that have been proposed in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. TheBlaze interviewed Todd earlier this week and subsequently detailed how his experience being shot back in 1999 has shaped his views on the issue.
The letter, which speaks directly to the president, covers a number of key facets in the gun control debate. On universal background checks, Todd expresses his fears that “universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation.” Additionally, he says his belief that assault weapons bans are ineffective and argues that the first law did little to stop violence when it was in effect from 1994 until 2004; he cites Columbine as a prime example.
“It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher,” he writes. “The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.”

So, I asked why we never hear from survivors who oppose gun-control legislation...And I'll answer: Because it doesn't fit with the propaganda...


Monday, February 18, 2013

State of Washington: Second and Fourth Amendment Free!

Liberals are peddling gun-control legislation with the same verve as a high school cheerleader. But they insist it's not an assault on the Second Amendment. They insist they want "reasonable restrictions" and that conservatives are overreacting.

First of all, let's address the idea that liberals only want "reasonable restrictions." This may be true of some, but certainly not all - or even most.

Not only is their aim to curb the Second Amendment, but Democrats in the State of Washington seem to be going after the Fourth Amendment as well. Are conservatives overreacting? You tell me.

From the Seattle Times:

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.
That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward somecommon-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.
“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.
Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.
But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.
I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.
“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”
That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.
The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.
“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.
He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.
Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.
Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years.
“We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”
Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.
If you believe Democrats made a simple "mistake," then contact me about the super secret nuclear bomb launching Elmo doll I'm selling...

They didn't make a mistake. They're back-peddling because even their media buddies are raising eyebrows at this one...

The New America

We're living in a New America. The Democrat Party is infested with anti-democratic liberals hellbent on destroying the Constitution because it impedes their ability to implement their radical socialist agenda. Moderates are a dying breed. Liberals willing to defend the Constitution are a dying breed. Radicals are taking over.

If you cast your vote for a Democrat, you've committed nothing short of treason!

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

A Scientific & Philosophical Question

Outspoken atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins claims the most troubling argument for nonbelievers to overcome is the fine-tuning of the universe. He recognizes that our existence depends so much on the preciseness of scientific constants that, had they been different in as little as one-part in one-hundred million billion, life could not exist.

To logical people searching for a logical conclusion, this implies intelligence, a creator of some kind. But scientists opt for the multiverse theory.

The multiverse concept posits that our universe, as perfectly tuned as it is, is only a diminutive percentage of the number of universes that exist. There are so many universes, according to the multiverse theory, that all possible constants are represented.

Our universe? Well, we’re the lucky ones. Our universe is that one in the infinite supply that is perfectly tuned to support organic life…

This is the alternative to God, folks. The belief that we hit the cosmological lottery, a lottery with odds so small they are beyond human understanding.

Is this a reasonable alternative to God? To Intelligent Design?

Thursday, January 31, 2013

The Party Of "Not Our Fault!"

Like most of their constituents, Democrats never accept responsibility for anything negative. Someone else is always to blame for their lot in life.  Abhorrent is the concept of personal responsibility -- unless you’re a Republican; then even the slave trade was your fault.

Yes, the “woe is me” mentality is exceedingly popular in American culture, and nobody clings to it better than Barack Hussein Obama.

Though his first term was an economic disaster, an utter misadventure, it wasn’t his fault. Nope. The blame rests squarely – but slightly to the right – on the shoulders of President George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor. All negative economic indicators were briskly swept to the right, thus relieving Obama and the Democrats of any culpability whatsoever.

What indicators?

  • During Obama’s first term, an average of 11,000 people per day were added to the food stamp roll, an increase of 15 million. [1]
  • Unemployment went up, went down, and currently hangs at 7.8%, exactly the same as when Obama took office. But median household income fell by $4,000. [2]
  • Since 2008, the number of people collecting disability has grown by 18%. [3]
  • Since Obama took office, more and more college graduates have been unable to find work. Over 50% of new graduates under 25 are unemployed or underemployed. [4]
  • Of all the jobs created under Obama’s watch, nearly 60% are low paying, menial labor jobs (e.g., McDonald’s, Burger King, Wal-Mart, et cetera…). [5] 
  • The number of “working poor” has grown by four-percent since Obama took office. [6]
  • The U.S. Census Bureau shows that the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the economy than has ever been seen before. [7] 
  • Every year, the United States loses half-a-million jobs to China. [8]
  • 2012 marked the fourth year in a row that the United States fell in global competitiveness rankings. [9]
  • Gas has skyrocketed over 100% since Obama took office. [10]
  • Since Obama took office, the number of homeless public school students has increased nearly 60%. [11] 
  • 37 percent of young families are below the poverty line. [12]
  • For the fifth year in a row, electricity bills have risen faster than the rate of inflation. [13]
  • Health insurance costs have skyrocketed nearly 30% since the passing of Obamacare. [14]
  • Entitlement spending has grown by 32 percent under Obama’s watch. [15]
  • Obama's presidency has created more debt than all others -- combined! [16] 
  • The Obama's vacations and extravagant dinners cost American taxpayers 20 times more than the Royal family costs the British. [17]

Though awfully bleak, these numbers are, you guessed it, Bush's fault! Even Michelle Obama's extravagant spending! Yes, yes. Someone else is ALWAYS responsible

So it comes as no surprise that Democrats would blame the 0.1% economic contraction reported Wednesday on Republicans. 

GDP Shows Surprise Drop for US in Fourth Quarter
Published: Wednesday, 30 Jan 2013 | 8:11 AM ET 
The U.S. economy posted a stunning drop of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter, defying expectations for slow growth and possibly providing incentive for more Federal Reserve stimulus. 
The economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles. 
The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter. 
The surprise contraction could raise fears about the economy's ability to handle tax increases that took effect in January and looming spending cuts. 
Still, the weakness may be because of one-time factors. Government spending cuts and slower inventory growth subtracted a total of 2.5 percentage points from growth.  

It wasn't long before Obama's Minister of Propaganda, Jay Carney, swept the blame onto Republicans. 

White House Blames Republicans for Economic Shrinkage
WASHINGTON - White House Press Secretary Jay Carney blamed the unexpected drop in gross domestic product last quarter on congressional Republicans, saying they introduced uncertainty into the economy with fiscal cliff brinkmanship. 
"There is more work to do and our economy is facing headwinds," Carney said in response to a government report showing that the economy contracted by 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012. "and that is Republicans in Congress."
In typical fashion, Nancy Pelosi followed suit.

Pelosi further charged Wednesday that "today's disappointing GDP report is a direct result of the economic uncertainty created by House Republicans' strategy of obstruction and manufactured crises." 
The highlighted portion above is important because, according to the timestamp on the article, it was written before Jay Carney and Nancy Pelosi released any statements. Yes, the liberal media was covering for Obama by blaming the contraction on one-time defense spending cuts. But now that Carney and Pelosi have blamed Republicans, that'll be the headlines for certain.

Welcome to the New America. You are losing your country to a bunch of leftwing propagandists.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Obama! Obama! Obama!

It’s impossible to fully catalogue the extent of leftwing inauthenticity. Sincerity is not within the liberal's nature, nor any charlatan's nature. For the sake of power and control, they offer what they cannot deliver - and nobody exemplifies this point better than Barack Hussein Obama. 

I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year.
So said Barack Obama on the campaign trail, circa 2007. 

The Result?

Sure, we got Obamacare. But is it universal? Does it cut premiums? 

From USA Today, circa 2010:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation. 
A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.
But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15% of hospitals into the red and "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors. 
The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts. In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. Seniors are more likely to vote than younger people and polls show they are already deeply skeptical of the law.
From Kaiser Foundation, circa 2011:
The Kaiser Family Foundation shows family premiums topped $15,000 a year for the first in 2011, increasing a whopping 9% this year, three times more than the increase the year before. The study says that up to 2% of that increase is because of the health care law's provisions, such as allowing families to add grown children up to 26 years old to their policies. 
Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services, circa 2012:

When President Obama began pushing national health care legislation in 2009, he argued that reform was needed to rein in the unsustainable growth in health care spending that was crippling the budgets of businesses, states and the federal government. But a new government actuarial study finds that as a result of the law, health care spending will be $478 billion higher over the next decade than it would have otherwise been had no law been passed.
Furthermore, as a result of the health care law, about 50 cents of every dollar of health care spending in the United States will be financed by government by 2021, according to the report from the actuary’s office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, unveiled today in the journal Health Affairs. 
Politico, circa 2013:

If you work for a small business, your next health insurance premium may give you sticker shock.
Many of the small-business and individual insurance policies are working the health reform law’s 2014 fees into their 2013 bills, contributing to double-digit premium increases for some people.

All those new consumer benefits packed into the health reform law — birth control without a co-pay, free preventive care and limits on when insurers can turn down a customer — had to be paid for somehow.

So the law’s drafters included a new tax on health insurers, starting at $8 billion in 2014 and increasing to $14 billion within four years, to help meet the new expenses. And insurers in 2014 will also have to pay a “reinsurance contribution” to cushion health plans that end up with a lot of sick customers under new rules requiring them to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Some health insurance companies are getting a jump-start, passing on those 2014 fees to consumers in policies that start in 2013.

While insurance rates have been going up for years — and not all of the new increases can be pinned to the health law — the hikes will certainly give more fuel to Obamacare critics.

The Government Accountability Office, circa 2013:
The Government Accountability Office (GAO)’s annual audit of the government, released Thursday, raises serious concerns about the federal government’s long-term financial stability and the effectiveness of the Affordable Care Act’s cost-curbing measures.The report found “that—absent policy changes—the federal government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.” 
The Reelection! 

In the past, America never rewarded failure. But times are different now. We are a new nation with a new demographic.  We are no longer a nation of innovators, but of weak-willed ignoramuses.

You needn't worry about the future of this nation any longer. The mopes from the ghetto have taken over, sealing all our fates. America is becoming a third-world nation, and there exists no humane or achievable solution.

So click Play, close your eyes, and listen as the sweet, subtle tones edge into a crescendo of utter failure.

Obama! Obama! Obama! 

Rest In Peace, America. 1776 - 2013.