Obama Is Right But Has Wrong Path Forward
Dec 17, 2012 Political
Last night Barack Obama was at a memorial for the victims of the tragic shooting in Connecticut. He pointed out that this is the fourth time since he took office that we have gotten together to mourn people murdered in mass shootings and that we cannot tolerate it any longer. He is correct but his path forward will be the wrong one.
Yes, there have been a number of mass shootings but those are way down compared to the past. The largest mass murder in a school happened decades ago and did not involve a gun and while one mass shooting is one too many the reality is that they happen less frequently.
Obama will push for gun control and his media wing is already screaming about confiscation as a means to end the violence. The first reality is that attempting to confiscate the firearms of millions of people who have NEVER used them illegally will most certainly increase violence because a civil war will ensue.
Obama is right in saying we cannot tolerate this any longer. What we cannot tolerate are the liberal policies that make people targets. Gun control does not stop gun violence because criminals do not obey the law. They will get guns like they do now. Criminals are not legally allowed to buy or own guns but they get them just like people buy and use cocaine and heroin every day. The only people who obey the law are the law abiding who, once they comply, become targets (or easy prey) for those who refuse to obey.
All schools in the US are gun free zones. It is illegal to take guns on school property so how do these murderers get guns there? They do not obey the law, it is that simple. The only thing that making an area gun free does is advertise to murderers that they will have free reign in an area and will be unopposed should they decide to shoot people.
Gun control is not about guns, it is about control. If we were able to confiscate every firearm in this country and no one could ever own one the bad guys would still get them. Even if we could prove that people absolutely turned in all their firearms and could buy no new ones Barack Obama would still be surrounded by armed people. The politicians calling for gun control and confiscation would still have armed guards protecting them. Why? They know that gun control will not stop bad people from getting guns. They know that the gun is not the problem, the breakdown of society and liberal policies that prevent people from protecting themselves are the issues at hand.
One only needs to look to Chicago to see that gun control does not work. Guns are banned there and hundreds of people are murdered with guns each and every day. How can this be?
But Obama is still correct, we cannot let this continue. So I will help him stop the violence. If you want to prevent these kinds of tragedies remove the gun free designation of schools. Remove the prohibition on guns in the public places where they are banned. Allow law abiding citizens who want to carry firearms carry them in malls, and churches, and schools. Allow teachers with carry permits to carry their guns at school. Very few murderers will venture into an area that has armed people who will shoot them. This is why most mass shootings take place in areas where guns are prohibited. The murderers KNOW that it is unlikely anyone will be armed and able to resist.
If the principal of this school had a gun and knew how to use it the murderer would have been stopped. The principal had to charge the shooter with no protection and she ended up dead. If she had the time to charge him she had the time to retrieve a gun and shoot him.
We need an armed citizenry because there is evil in the world and evil cares not about laws or signs. Evil only cares about doing evil things.
Another thing we can do is pass a law that every citizen must buy a handgun. Whether or not they carry it will be up to them but all those eligible (non felons, etc) will be required to buy a handgun. Then, criminals will know that everyone has a gun but will not know who is actually carrying one. This should be easy and liberals absolutely cannot object. You see, crime affects interstate commerce so Congress can force people to buy a gun. Obamacare made that clear. So long as we call the fine for not buying a gun a tax we can do it and there is nothing they can do to stop it. And why would they want to when it will stop the violence?
I am sure this will fall on deaf ears (or literally on eyes unwilling to see) because the anti gun zealots are hell bent on controlling people. They will fail to see that more guns equals less crime and we will be force fed gun control propaganda by people like Chuck Schumer, an anti gun Senator who has a rare conceal carry permit in New York. We will hear from those who hate guns telling us how they are dangerous and that they are not good for anything all while enjoying the protection of armed people.
And we will have to listen to lectures from Barack Obama about gun control. Yes, we will be lectured about guns by the guy who illegally provided thousands of them to drug cartels who then used them to mass murder hundreds of Mexicans.
And we will be lectured about mass murders by a government that murdered a lot of people, children included, in Waco Texas.
If this man had waited until recess and driven his car over all the kids as they played on the playground we would not have calls to ban cars. More people are killed in drunken driving accidents each year than are murdered by guns and we are not calling for a ban on cars or alcohol. Drunk drivers are punished, not the millions of people who own cars and drive them responsibly. Tobacco is responsible for more deaths each year than guns are but government will not ban tobacco because it produces a lot of revenue in taxes. Abortion murders more children each year than guns but liberals work hard to make that practice even easier.
Banning anything will not stop people from obtaining it. Alcohol was illegal in this country and people still drank it. Cocaine and heroin are illegal and people still use it.
It is illegal for criminals to buy or own guns but they still get them and will regardless of how strict any ban might be.
The murder of so many beautiful and innocent children is tragic and my heart aches for the families who lost loved ones. But I am not willing to give up my liberty for the perception of security because one is never secure when one relinquishes liberty.
One becomes enslaved and that is never a secure position to be in.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: connecticut, gun control, innocents, lies, Obama
GOP Should Not Cave In On Taxes
Dec 12, 2012 Commentary
Barack Obama is certain that the GOP will cave and raise tax rates on the wealthy, defined as those who make more than 250k a year. He might be right because the GOP has a history of caving in. For some reason the party has not figured out it will get blamed no matter what and it continues to try to appease and give up in hope that people will like them and not blame them.
Who gives a rip how people perceive you? If you don’t cave and things get better Obama will get credit and the GOP will be seen as obstructionists. If they cave and Obama gets what he wants and things do not improve the GOP will be blamed. We know this is how it has been throughout history and we also know that Obama is not capable of taking responsibility. He blames everyone but himself for any problem (but he takes all credit for anything good).
Let’s make it clear right now. Barack Obama does not care one iota about doing what is best for the country. His focus is on destroying the GOP. He wants to make political moves that will paint the GOP into a corner so he can score points and he cares not how it affects the nation.
If the GOP caves and raises tax rates on the wealthy then Obama will portray it as an admission from the right that the lower tax rates enacted under George Bush (but only the ones on the rich) were the reason for the fiscal problems. He will say that the Republicans are admitting to it and that is why they had to raise the tax rates. This is already the narrative as Obama claims things were wonderful under Bill Clinton when tax rates were higher. He does not realize that the Clinton years were sleight of hand. He also fails to see that everyone had higher tax rates and that spending was much lower. We still spent too much and we still had deficits but they were nowhere near as bad as they are now.
The Obama plan will net maybe about 100 billion a year over ten years. We are over budget by more than a TRILLION dollars a year (and have been each year of Obama’s occupation). The math does not add up. Obama wants a ten year tax increase equal to the amount he is over budget in a single year.
The problem is not the amount of money coming in; it is the amount going out that is the problem.
We could raise revenue by lowering tax rates on corporations and making a more favorable environment for them to hire employees. If we get millions of people working again then there will be millions more people paying taxes. If we revised the tax code to institute a flat tax then everyone would pay a fair share for the country and everyone would have, to quote Barack Obama, skin in the game.
Half of wage earners pay no federal taxes and the top half pay for the nation. Yes, those in the bottom pay state taxes (in some states) and they pay Social Security and Medicare. Those are called taxes but the reason these programs were started was as a way for people to save for their own retirement. They have morphed into social programs that are nothing more than Ponzi schemes. In any event, these taxes are levied on people for their own retirement. An 11% tax on all earnings from all wage earners could pay the bills and eliminate the need to collect a separate SS and Medicare tax.
The GOP should not cave on this issue. Who cares about the fiscal cliff? The people in Congress along with Barack Obama decided two years ago that they would strike a deal that would force the sides to come together and work something out or draconian cuts would take place and taxes would increase on everyone. Well, they played games, worried about the election and ignored the issue for two years. Now the table is set and the conditions they ALL agreed to are about to come to fruition.
Let them. No deal is better than a bad deal, period.
Let the taxes on everyone go up. Let the SS tax go back to where it was. Cut Defense and let budget cuts across the government take place. Everyone will be affected and those who voted for Obama can feel the pain along with everyone else.
While we are at it we can turn off all the Obamaphones to save some money.
The GOP is worried about how it will be perceived by people not in its base if it does not cave in and let Obama raise the tax rates of the wealthy.
It better worry about how the base will react if the tax rates go up. Tick off the base and you will never win again no matter how many Democrats you make happy.
Ask John McCain how pleasing Democrats works out…
The low information entitlement Obama voters will never support Republicans. That would require work, thought and the ability to learn.
Keep in mind that Romney lost because he said that his plan would put people to work. 51% of the voters said the hell with that and voted to ride the gravy train of welfare.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
French Actor Greedy For Wanting To Keep More Of His Money
Dec 11, 2012 Political
The French elected a Socialist to the presidency and that person, Francois Hollande, raised the tax rate on the wealthy to 75% for any income over 1 million Euros. The wealthy in France are not taking it lying down as many move out of the country. One such person is French actor Gerard Depardieu who bought a home and established legal residence in Belgium where the highest tax rate is 50%.
It is a shame that an area with a 50% tax rate is considered a haven from high taxes but this is what happens when governments continue to raise taxes. People become accustomed to the higher rates so that they eventually seem fair when the rates get really high.
This is an example of Overton’s Window.
In any event, the move is not sitting well with French politicians who are very upset that Depardieu moved out. They just can’t understand why this guy would want to keep the money he earned. This is a problem with liberal/progressive/socialists, they think the money one earns belongs to government and can’t quite get a handle on why people balk at surrendering it.
The United States is led by such people who tell us very candidly that they believe in redistribution and that they think wealthy people reach a point where they have earned enough.
Amazingly, these people never feel they have earned enough. People like Bill Clinton leave politics and earn millions of dollars speaking and then look for ways to shelter the money. People like Warren Buffett decry low tax rates and scream for high tax rates on income while never advocating a tax on wealth. That would hurt them and they just can’t have that. Hell, Buffett owes the government a lot of money in taxes he has not paid…
Back to France. Keep in mind that Depardieu left to avoid paying 75% of his income (over a million Euros) to a place where he will pay taxes at a 50% rate. He is, in effect, keeping 25% of his money but he is denying all of the taxes he pays to France and that is not sitting well. The Socialist mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, described Depardieu as “…a generous man but in this instance he is not showing that.”
You got that? In order for Depardieu to show he is generous he needs to forfeit 75% of what he earns to the government. I would turn that around and say that the government is showing how greedy it is by confiscating three-fourths of what a person earns.
Once again, this is how these liberal/progressive/socialist leeches think. They think that if you work hard and earn money then you should have most of it confiscated by the government so it can be used to support others. You should earn that money for everyone else.
Or as Obama might say, you didn’t build that so you have no right to it…
The wealthy did not get that way by being foolish. Hell most got wealthy by Obama and his ilk designating 250k a year as being so but the truly wealthy got that way by taking risks and managing their money well. They will certainly be able to thwart government attempts to confiscate it.
The mob extorts money from people by threatening to send goons to harm them.
The government extorts money from people by threatening to send the IRS to harm them.
The only difference is that one of these entities has its extortion legalized but the outcome is the same. People are forced to comply until they can leave.
Depardieu did that in France and I suspect many Americans will do something similar. They might not leave the country but their money will go elsewhere.
Places where it can’t be fondled by the overly greedy government and its insatiable appetite for ever increasing and foolish spending.
But lest we forget folks, Obama owns all of this now. It is not on Bush or anyone else. It is on Obama. Anyone who follows him does so at his own risk (politically) but the onus is on Obama alone.
My only hope is that the pain that is sure to come affects those who voted for him in the most intense ways possible. You asked for it so you deserve what you get.
Au revoir….
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: exodus, france, high taxes, Obama, socialism
Detroit To Big Cheese; Give Us The Cheddar
Dec 6, 2012 Political
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson of Detroit said that since the residents of Detroit overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama in the last election he needs to provide a bailout for the city. Detroit could run out of money by the end of the year after decades of Democrat rule and liberal/progressive policies.
Typical of liberalism, the people in charge royally screwed things up and now have their hats in their hands requesting, no demanding, that Obama take money from those of us who do not live in Detroit and pay for their mismanagement. I guess since Obama bailed out the irresponsible auto makers the rest of Detroit thinks they deserve some of the pork as well.
Why is it that all across this nation the cities that are run by Democrats are in ruins? Why is it that they can’t run things and why is it they demand that the rest of us pay for their inability to do their jobs?
I know Detroit has a small tax base as people either don’t have well paying jobs (if at all) or have left but perhaps if those who live there would pay their fair share things would be a little better. You see, Watson has underpaid her property taxes by thousands of dollars for quite some time. She claims she pays her bills and that she paid what they billed her.
There was evidently some damage to her property and she said she thought that reduced her property value. The city lists her property as a vacant lot even though the house she lives in is on it. Does she expect us to believe that she looked at her assessment or property bills and thought they were correct?
Isn’t it more likely that she saw they made an error, knew she could pay it and blame them and likely not have to pay what was actually owed after the fact?
If we accept her claim as true then how is she in any way, shape or form qualified to be a part of the team that runs the city? If she can’t figure out that her bill was wrong and work to get it fixed (the ethical thing to do) then how can she look at bills and expenses for the city and know if they are correct or not?
How many other tax bills are wrong? How many, if correct, would have helped with the financial problems Detroit faces?
Most importantly, why should the rest of us send them money especially when it is obvious that they can’t manage the money they are supposed to collect?
Obama will have a second term and does not need these folks any longer so it is unclear if he will bail them out or not. It would be wrong to send them money which is probably why Obama will try it.
If he does though, I think a case could be made for impropriety. Watson said that the City voted for Obama so he owes them. She said there ought to be a quid pro quo.
If Obama bails them out, no matter the reason, it will look like he did it because they supported him. If Detroit supported Obama with the expectation of something in return and Obama gives them something for that support then it would raise red flags regarding the legality of it.
Of course, Barackey Claus gave out lots of “free” stuff in order to buy votes (ObawmahPhone!) and 51% of the voters thought that was just fine…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bailout, city, detroit, failure, joann watson, liberals, Obama, progressives, property tax
Obama’s Illegal Immigrant Drunken Uncle
Dec 5, 2012 Political
The Obama family has a history of ignoring American immigration laws. His alleged daddy worked to subvert the law, he has relatives who have subverted the law and his drunken Uncle Onyango has subverted the law. Hell, Barack Obama is likely in violation of the law but his tracks are well covered (ahem, ignored).
In any event, Onyango has been in the US since 1963 and has been here ILLEGALLY for decades. He received a deportation order and has been in violation of that order since 1992.
Onyango was supposed to be deported but he received a DUI and his deportation was delayed to allow the legal proceedings. That final stay ended in June of this year but he is still here.
In a move that is described as unusual, his case has been reopened by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Looks like Obama’s buddies at ICE (which falls under DHS) are looking out for his family.
His drunken uncle (who ran a liquor store no less) has been here illegally for decades and was scheduled to leave. Obama wins reelection and suddenly the case is reopened. The move could allow Onyango to become a permanent resident. This would seem to run contrary to what the regime tells us about keeping illegals who have no records and deporting those who have committed crimes. Then again, the Obama regime is nothing more than a crime family running the government.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
It must be nice to have friends in high places.
Or, given Obama’s drug use, high friends in places.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: deportation, drunken uncle, dui, illegal immigrant, Obama, onyango