Lies, D*mn Lies, and Statistics

The SCOAMT has been bragging about his economic numbers since before the SOTU.  We were told that the economy grew at a 5% rate last year.  We’re regaled with stories about the improving job numbers.  Gas prices are down!

One of those is true.  For the moment.

Shortly after the State of the Union, those numbers were revised.  Whoops, not 5% growth in Q4.  Try about half that.

And then there are the jobs numbers.  Anyone paying attention knows that the numbers aren’t as rosy as the SCOAMT would have you believe.  Now the CEO of Gallup- the poling organization- has written an editorial calling the number a lie.

There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.

And it's a lie that has consequences, because the great American dream is to have a good job, and in recent years, America has failed to deliver that dream more than it has at any time in recent memory. A good job is an individual's primary identity, their very self-worth, their dignity -- it establishes the relationship they have with their friends, community and country. When we fail to deliver a good job that fits a citizen's talents, training and experience, we are failing the great American dream.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

Yeah, What He Said

Here, go read this.

It says something I've been thinking- and even saying- for the last week or so.

Let's set aside all the problems with Emperor Obama's Amnesty.  Let's pretend he did something I liked.  I dunno- an across the board tax cut, just to pick something.

That makes it no less wrong.  That makes it no less evil.  Barack Obama is not an Emperor- or, he's not supposed to be.  He is a President.  Our Founders sought for just the right term for the Chief Executive of our Nation for some time before settling on "President."  He "presides."  He is supposed to "faithfully execute" the law, see that it is Justly applied to all.

But note that he is precisely operating as an Emperor.  Even if he were going to simply ignore immigration law, that would be one (very, very bad) thing.  But it would be equally applied to all.  Instead, he enacted- by executive fiat- new law.  He did not simply say, "I'm just ignoring immigration law," his plan has requirements and prerequisites which must be met.  That's not "details about the execution of a law."  That's not "discretion."  That's authoring new law.

And the Legislature will let this stand.  The Republicans will do nothing because there's nothing they can do.  All the talk of defunding the government or shutting it down?  It won't stop this amnesty.  It won't stop an Imperial President.  Not confirming presidential appointees?  For one thing, no one will really notice that.  For another, that *also* won't stop the amnesty.

There is only one remedy- the Constitutional remedy: impeachment.  And Republicans will not do that, because the Democrats will not do that.  Democrats have welded themselves to the SCOAMT.  They hitched their wagons to him in 2008, and now it's too late.  If they turn on him now, they lose *both* the black and hispanic vote.  At least, that's their fear, and it's not entirely irrational.

Absent some real action from the Legislature- a united legislature looking to preserve the great Republic our Founders created- we have just witnessed the end of the American Experiment.

The Protection Racket

For the record, let's state that what the SCOAMT did last night was tantamount to an imperial takeover.  Apparently, now, the President and not the Legislature or even Judiciary is the arbiter of what is and is not law.

I wish I could say I was surprised.  I am outraged.  But in a sense that's like being outraged at a scorpion for stinging.  I do not believe that his character would allow him to do anything else than what he did.  Malignant Narcissism is *going* to assert its power, especially after being told it's not so powerful after all.

However, I do have more outrage for the Media.  The MFM consensus seems to be this: "Barack Obama is protecting illegals."  Yes, that is their word of choice: "protecting."  It's odd to me that they would discuss the decision not to see justice done against law-breakers as "protecting."

Would they be so sanguine if he "protected" thieves in the same way?  Murders, arsonists, identity thieves, or even dead-beat dads?

Let's say the President had said this:  "Too many Americans must live in the shadows.  Their situation requires that they live outside our normal bounds of law, but it is not their fault.  Society and their history have forced them into these shadows.  It is their poverty, their lack of education, and their lack of opportunities- a lack reinforced by law and custom- which causes them to live on the outside.  So tonight I am declaring an amnesty for all thieves.  If not for their poverty and lack of other options, they would not steal your cars, your jewelry, or your money.  It is a failure of our system- a great moral failure- to hold them accountable for their past deeds.  So I am now offering complete amnesty for any past crimes and wiping the slate clean."

Would the MFM be speaking glowingly of him "protecting" the thieves?

Yet that is just what he has done.  Illegal aliens break laws all the time.  Setting aside the ones we might normally classify as "criminal"- those who have committed heinous crimes- even the most benign routinely commit fraud and identity theft.  They drive illegally and have no insurance- and they don't drive particularly well.  The most "deserving" illegal alien broke the law first by coming across our border illegally, and then repeatedly breaks the law any time they work, receive welfare benefits, or drive.

And what of those here legally?  What of low-income, low-skilled legal aliens or citizens?  It is they who will see most of the negative effects of this.  They are the ones who will face additional competition for already low-wage jobs.  It is they who will have to face waiting rooms- for Doctors who accept Medicaid, and for Hospital Emergency Rooms- filled to overflowing, even more than now, with the children of illegals.  It is these in our society- those most already in need of "protection" who the President just threw to the wolves.

Then we consider legal aliens, especially naturalized citizens.  If this is anything other than a strongly-expended middle digit toward them, I can't see what.  Legal aliens jumped through numerous hoops- even those on temporary visas.  They pay high fees for their residency.  They know that one misstep in regards to our laws- even one relatively benign- can get them sent back to their country of origin with no chance of ever returning legally.  Those who seek naturalization wait years and pay astronomical fees to do so.

Yet now they look at what this President has just done, and realize their foolishness.  Why obey the law, why pay all those fees?  They could have just come illegally and been saved all of that.

Yet it is the illegals who are being "protected."

SCOAMT^2

Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.  I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.

Well, now I have more evidence.  Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal.  Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration).  Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.

So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away.  Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship.  Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war.  It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.

But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior.  When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban.  This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason.  Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.  That crime for which there is exactly one punishment.  Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.

So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release.  Absolutely.  Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists.  This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.”  Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter?  Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”

Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too.  Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs.  That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW.  So it’s a POW-swap.  Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.

Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief.  He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off.  As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal.  So it makes some sense.

What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this.  What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up?  The President of the United States just arguably committed treason.  He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency.  If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?

It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT.  They must start stone-walling him at every turn.  No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT.  No more pushes for Amnesty.  No more “my friends across the aisle.”  Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama.  And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.

Which is it?

Why "Income Inequality" Is Important

I know that the SCOAMT would like to change the subject from ObamaCare to "the minimum wage."  He thinks that's a better option for him.  Heck, maybe it is.  But I find myself drawn to point out something that might be obvious to some, but certainly isn't to others: they're the same discussion.

Remember, the putative "point" of ObamaCare was to "bend the cost curve down" and "make health care more affordable."  Indeed, the very name of the actual bill says so: "The Affordable Care Act."  And what, exactly, is the point of that if not to address that great bogeyman of the Left- Income Inequality?

Which means that any discussion of the minimum wage by Democrats is based on the same foundation as their discussions about "universal health care," or "welfare," or any number of other things.  And they're all based on a faulty understanding of money.

For some reason- perhaps laziness, perhaps malfeasance, perhaps true ignorance- Democrats continue to insist that all of these things are the same: money and currency, and cost and value.  This is hogwash.

Money is not the same as currency- else the exchange of currency would be a static thing.  If money were the same as currency, a British Pound would always be worth exactly 1.2 US Dollars (or whatever exchange rate).  Instead, we find that currency exchanges fluctuate, now 1 pound is worth 1.2 dollars, now it's worth 1.3, now it's worth 1.1.  Obviously there is something other than the currency which is actually being exchanged here.

Cost is not the same as value.  If it were, the economy could not grow at all.  All exchanges would be either detrimental to one party or, at best, they would be neutral.  If cost were the same as value, then either I (as the seller of some thing) must over-charge to see a profit, or I must under-charge (thus incurring a loss), or I must charge exactly my cost (thus seeing no benefit from the sale).

It is important to note that most liberals know all of this.  Just listen to them discussing the economy.  At one moment they'll tell you "the economy is not a zero sum game" and the very next they'll say, "but it acts like it."  They'll say, "such-and-such adds value to what-have-you" and then they'll decry "profiteering" (as though selling things for profit were akin to being a pirate).

Yet, they act as though they believe these things they obviously know not to be true.  Raising the minimum wage only makes sense if money and currency are the same thing.  Price controls (which are what ObamaCare amounts to) only work if cost is the same thing as value.  "Income Inequality" is only a bad thing if money is the same thing as currency and cost is the same as value.

Since neither of those things is true, then "Income Inequality" cannot be a bad thing.  Indeed, it is a good thing.  That "Income Inequality" is one of the major drivers of any market economy- even one as fettered by regulation and red-tape as ours.  People on the bottom seek to rise to the top.  Thus (if they know the truth that money != currency and cost != value), they seek to become more valuable to their employer (or their customers) while also obtaining more capital (that is: money).  Those who succeed are made "richer" those who fail are made "poorer."

I am not going to engage in a defense of capitalism's record on charity.  Such defenses have already been made, and only the willfully ignorant believe that capitalism does not care for the poor better than socialism.

However, I will point out that the fact that those who fail to become more valuable are made poorer is a driver in the economy.

They are a driver in that the poor still need things.  Thus capitalists seek ways to serve those needs- providing low-cost alternatives to higher-cost goods.  Since the rich didn't get that way by wasting money, they often *also* seize on these lower-cost alternatives, further enriching society in general.

They are a driver in that, absent some perverse incentive, the poor are encouraged by their very "poor-ness" (virtually no one in the USA is "in poverty") to become more valuable.  As they strive to become more valuable, more value is added to the economy, and everyone (including the "poor") benefit.

They are a driver in that, being currently less valuable than others, they can provide low-cost services.  A fry-guy job at QuickyBurger for $7.50/hr is better than no job for $0.00/hr.  By providing those low cost services, the "poor" make services cheaper than they otherwise would be AND make themselves more valuable.

Considered another way- what if there were no "income inequality?"  What if, as the Democrats claim to dream, suddenly the fry-guy at QuickyBurger is making the same as a Personal Banker at MegaBank Corp, who is making the same as a software developer for MegaSoft Industries.

Well then, what personal value is it for someone to put forth the effort to become a banker or a software developer?  Being a fry-guy isn't the most rewarding career, but it's certainly much easier with far less stress (in general) than being a banker or a software developer.  Why pay for certifications or go to school for 4+ years when doing so will have no benefit?  I mean, I can pay several hundred to a couple thousand dollars for classes and certification (to tens of thousands of dollars for a college degree), but then I'm making the same amount as the fry-guy.  What's the point?

For there to be software developers and bankers and electricians and so forth to have any incentive to learn those trades, there must be some value to them.  That is, there must be the promise of more income than they'd get as the fry-guy.  In short, the "challenge" to "remove income inequality" is the quest to destroy an economy- to make an "economy" full of fry-guys and empty of bankers, software developers, and electricians.

Another Round of "Spot the Media Bias"

Today's Guest is a post from NBC's "First Read."  "Obama vows to keep at gun control"

We'll take a look at two pull quotes, and see what we can see.

First up:

Speaking following a meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, whose country has been ravaged by gang violence supported in part by gun trafficking into Mexico, Obama vowed to return to the issue of gun control in the United States.

Okay, what does this paragraph want to tell us?  Oh, yes, there it is: Mexico has been ravaged by gang violence supported by gun trafficking.  So guns are bad.  What doesn't it want to tell us?  Two things pop up off the top of my head:

1) Guns are already illegal in Mexico.  Not only are guns illegal, even owning a bullet is illegal.  So tighter gun control is obviously not being particularly helpful there.

2) The man giving that speech was the one responsible for much of the "gun trafficking in Mexico."  Readers of this blog, and other Conservative blogs, have heard of Operation Fast and Furious- the scheme whereby Mexican drug games were given guns by our own government with no method of tracking.  Those same guns were used to murder over 300 Mexican citizens, and at least two American citizens.  The man in charge of that operation- or at least who should have been in charge and should be fired for incompetence if he didn't know about it- is Eric Holder.  His boss is Barack Obama.

Okay.  Second pull quote:

And in an article published Wednesday, the proposal’s Republican author, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, suggested that politics were afoot in many GOP senators’ decision to oppose the package.
“There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it," Toomey told local newspaper editors.

What does this quote want to tell us?

Oh, GOP "political" obstruction.  Got it.

What doesn't it want to tell us?  Again, I've got two off the top of my head, feel free to add more in the comments.

1) While some GOP Senators may have opposed it simply because SCOAMT wanted it, a) that's actually a pretty good starting position, and b) that doesn't include all of those who were told in no uncertain terms that anything less than strong opposition would get them de-elected.

2) That there is any possibility that there could be actual policy objections to the law.  By casting GOP opposition to the law as "political," the reporter is able to ignore the possibility that there are any substantive objections to the law.

Once again, simply checking for bias shows the one-sided coverage rampant in the Media Complex.  These are all points which are germane to the debate, and they didn't take me any thought at all to remember.  An unbiased media, or a media who at least attempted to address their bias, would have included the points, at least as "by-the-ways."  NBC would rather you forget about them all together.

Nature Takes Its Course- CNN Money Astonished

CNN Money has an article today (probably "yesterday" by the time you read this) about Doctors increasingly seeking the dubious protection of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.  Most of the piece is largely fluff- all emotion and "analysis" without ever really touching on the subject.  I will leave the speculation of why that's so to others, but I think I have some hints.

Here's the first one:

Five years ago, Plantation, Fla.-based bankruptcy attorney David Langley didn't have a single doctor as a client. Since then he's handled at least six bankruptcy cases involving doctors. Two current clients -- an orthopedic surgeon and an OB/GYN -- also are in bankruptcy. 

Hmmm... What could possibly have happened between 5 years ago and today?  I got nothin'.

Now, don't pay attention to this, as it's a Red Herring:

The weak economy has taken a toll on doctors' revenue, as consumers cut back on office visits and lucrative elective procedures, said Guy, a bankruptcy attorney in Nashville with Frost Brown Todd LLC. 

Why do I say it's a Red Herring?  Because all of the actual doctors cited in the article are doctors not known for their "lucrative elective procedures."  Mentioned are: an orthopedic sugeon, an OB/GYN, an Oncologist, and "Primary doctors."  Not listed?  Cosmetic/Bariatric sugeons.  If "cut[ting] back on... lucrative elective procedures" had anything to do with it, don't you think people who specialize in "lucrative elective procedures" would be at the forefront of bankruptcy filings?

So, back to finding hints about why CNN Money might have written a piece which was largely "human interest" and very light on actual facts.

Hint number 2 is here:

Doctors also blame shrinking insurance reimbursements, changing regulations, and the rising costs of malpractice insurance, drugs and other business necessities for making it harder to keep their practices afloat. 

I should note that in the linked article, those words "insurance reimbursements" (meant to make you think BlueCross, Aetna, and United are paying your doctor less) are a hyperlink to an article titled: "Medicare doctors' pay to be cut."  That article blames the (by then already) largely averted Sequester.  In reality, you can blame lower Medicare reimbursements on ObamaCare.

Wait, I said I wasn't going to speculate.  Whoops.

Beware the Trojan Horse

 Or... "Those aren't spending cuts, Jim."

Jim Kunhenn with the AP doesn't even realize his own bias.  Most people don't, but the AP would have you believe the are not biased, so it is important to realize they are.  It is also important to spot the bias before you fully read an article, so that you can know the author's starting position.

For instance, Jim gets this part right:

"President Barack Obama's proposed budget will call for reductions in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs while still insisting on more taxes from the wealthy..."  

President SCOAMT's current plan does call for "reductions in growth."

But then he gets this part wrong:

"Obama has also called for limits on tax deductions by the wealthy, a proposal that could generate about $580 billion in revenue over 10 years."  

First off, the limits he's calling for (last time I heard, maybe the new proposal is different), are not "on the wealthy," but rather are on deductions that SCOAMT would you to to believe only the wealthy take.  I have discussed before that this is simply not accurate.  There is no deduction that only kicks in when you're a millionaire.  Rather, there are deductions that people who run their own businesses can take, and (on paper at least) many of the "wealthy" do run their own businesses.  The "Corporate Jet Deduction" is exactly the same deduction that small businesses get to take for their commercial trucks or vans.  It's the same deduction that an IT business gets to take for the computers it buys.

The first part is said because it sounds good for SCOAMT- that is, it makes him sound "reasonable"- and therefore attempts to paint any opposition to the President's proposal as "unreasonable."  The second part was said because it also sounds good for the President, it makes him sound like he out "for the little guy," and therefore any opposition must be out "for the rich."

So, now that we have the issue of his unacknowledged bias out of the way, we can proceed with the rest of the article.  Click over and read it, but here is the main highlight:

A key feature of the plan Obama now is submitting for the federal budget year beginning Oct. 1 is a revised inflation adjustment called "chained CPI." This new formula would effectively curb annual increases in a broad swath of government programs, but would have its biggest impact on Social Security. By encompassing Obama's offer to Boehner, R-Ohio, the plan will also include reductions in Medicare spending, much of it by targeting payments to health care providers and drug companies.

By changing Chained CPI, the President a) gets to monkey (yet again) with the inflation numbers to hide actual inflation, and b) hurt Social Security recipients (the blame for which he would then lay at the feet of Republicans).  The sensible, reasonable way to "fix" Social Security is to cut the bureaucracy, and ruthlessly cut out anyone on SSDI who is capable of any work whatsoever.  I was laid up with back-pain so bad it made me immobile for most of a month recently- I still worked.  Not everyone can do that, but most people who are "disabled" aren't really- they could do work, they just couldn't work that construction job they've had their entire working lives.  It sucks, but that's not really the Government's job to fix.  Don't even get me started on people who are "disabled" because of depression.

Then note the changes to medicare- all in benefits (that is: payments to doctors and pharmacies).  Not even lip-service toward "waste, fraud, and abuse." 

This budget is designed to be a poison pill.  For the SCOAMT, it is a win-win-win.  If the Republicans uniformly (or nearly uniformly) oppose it, then he can blame the "obstructionist Republicans," for four more years.  If some Republicans oppose it, and others support it, he gets to further deepen the divide between the Conservative and Moderate factions of the Republican Party.  If Republicans agree, he gets to hasten the destruction of the political party he views as his enemy, and deepen the mistrust between Republican officials and grass-roots conservatives.

The only way Republicans have any chance of "winning" is not to play.  Remind people that Obama campaigned on 3:1 cuts to taxes, then moved the goal-posts to 2:1 cuts to taxes, and then moved them again to 1:1 cuts to taxes.  Tell people this is unacceptable; that the first might have been agreeable, but that you cannot negotiate with someone who refuses to negotiate in good faith.  Then point out- relentlessly- every chance you get that SCOAMT's cuts are all in services, he never once proposes to cut Government.

The rules of the current game are rigged.  Play a new game.

Nice State You Got There...

Be a shame if something were to... happen... to it.

That is the not-so-subtle meaning of this letter from The White House to the Great State of Texas.  Yes, your State received a similar one as well.  It details the specific cuts the White House will have made if Sequester goes through.  Note that all of these cuts are from actual operations.  Somehow not one mention is made of fewer vacations for the President.  Somehow not one mention is made of fewer "fact finding missions" or reduced salaries rather than cut jobs.  Not one mention is made, in short, of cutting anything that isn't useful.  No, all the cuts will be targeted specifically to make the sequester as painful as possible, just so that the Traitor in Office can blame Republicans again.

I'm not going to review all the cuts, though you should do so to see what I mean.  What I am going to do is look at the introduction to the letter, so you can see how this is operating exactly like a protection racket.  If you don't want to click over, I'll be quoting the whole thing.

Impact of March 1st Cuts on Middle Class Families, Jobs and Economic Security: Texas

Okay, let's stop there.  I know, it's just the title, but it's important.  Note the tone the letter is already taking.  "Oh, these cuts will have an 'impact' on Middle Class Families!"  No scare-mongering there.  None. At. All.

Unless Congress acts by March 1st, a series of automatic cuts -- called the sequester -- will take effect that threaten hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs, and cut vital services for children, seniors, people with mental illnesses and our men and women in uniform.

Note the blame of congress here.  The President came up with the sequester.  He recommended the sequester.  He signed the bill that created the sequester into law.  Yet now Congress must act.  There's not a single thing he could do.  He's powerless!  Of course, he could target cuts at unnecessary expenditures.  But this is President Dumbo.  He's not going to do that.

There is no question that we need to cut the deficit, but the President believes it should be done in a balanced way that protects investments that the middle class relies on.  Already the President has worked with Congress to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion, but there's more to do.  The President has put forward a balanced plan to not only avoid the harmful effects of the sequester but also to reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion in total.  The President's plan meets Republicans more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does tax revenue from the wealthy.  For details on the President's plan click here [link not reproduced].

Note the wording here: "cut the deficit."  Democrats would have you believe, despite sixty-plus years' evidence to the contrary, that raising tax rates is a legitimate way to "cut the deficit."  It is not.  It does not work.  It has never worked.  It will not ever work.  The Government is spending more money in a year than you could get if you taxed every US Citizen into poverty and beyond.  The only thing we have not seriously tried in modern times are real spending cuts.

Note also two further obfuscations.  That "$2.5 Trillion" is partially projected savings from winding down military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and partly projected savings from ObamaCare.  However, the first is not "savings."  Not spending money you weren't planning to spend anyway is not "cutting."  The second is a lie.  It is a known lie.  Everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows it's a lie.

Then there's that last line: "The President's plan meets Republicans more than halfway and includes twice as many spending cuts as it does in tax revenue from the wealthy."  This single line is so chock-full of errors its almost deserves its own post.  I'll hit them quickly- 1) SCOAMT promised 3:1 spending cuts to tax increases during the election.  That he's now proposing 2:1 is not "meeting Republicans more than halfway," it is moving the goalposts.  2) Notice that tax rate hikes are called by their new Orwellian Name "tax revenue."  Never mind that they won't bring in any appreciable additional revenue.  3) The tax hikes the President are proposing don't hurt the wealthy.  He himself has admitted it.  His point in closing the supposed "loophole" for "corporate jets" (which is actually normal tax law anyone can use- if you buy a special uniform for work, you get exactly the same tax-cut.  It's a business expense that can be written off your taxes) is that it will prevent the rich from buying new jets.  That doesn't hurt the rich.  It does hurt the middle class workers whose livelihood depends on the rich buying those jets.

Unfortunately many Republicans in Congress refuse to ask the wealthy to pay a little more by closing tax loopholes so we can protect the investments that are helping grow our economy and keep our country safe.  By not asking the wealthy to pay a little more, Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families, and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction.  The President is determined to cut spending and reduce the deficit in a balanced way, but he won't stick the middle class with the bill.  The President is willing to compromise, but on behalf of the middle class he cannot accept a deal that undercuts their economic security.

How many lies can they pack in to one paragraph?  Let's see:
1) Republicans are not refusing "to ask the wealthy to pay a little more."  The know the wealthy- the working affluent, as I like to call them, are already paying nearly (and sometimes more) than 50 cents of every dollar to various levels of government.  If you ask them to pay more, they'll either just quit making money, or move elsewhere.  Don't believe me?  Ask California and New York. 

2) "Investments" is Democrat-ese for "spending," and "helping grow our economy and keep our country safe" is Democrat-ese for "F*ck you.  Pay me."  The sequester is a drop in the bucket.  It comes out to somewhere between 1 & 2% of current spending.  You cannot convince me that needed services have to be impacted.  That is a choice Democrats are making, not one Republicans are forcing.

3) "Republicans are forcing our children, seniors, troops, military families, and the entire middle class to bear the burden of deficit reduction."  "Everything he just said is Bullsh!t."  I've already gone over this- this is Democrats' choices, not Republicans.  One of the proposed cuts (by Republicans) was to cut congressional salaries.  Nancy Pelosi refused those because her high station deserved the money she's making, and how dare you look at the your Betters, peasant?

4) "but [the SCOAMT] won't stick the middle class with the bill."  Once again, this is a lie.  The President has already raised tax rates on the middle class.  He wants to do worse by raising the minimum wage (which will make everything more expensive and increase unemployment further).  And, again, those "tax loopholes" he wants to close are things the middle class use every year.  Every time you take the mileage deduction for your work car, or deduct the cost of your uniform from your taxes, you're using exactly the same "loophole" the "wealthy" are using for their corporate jets.

5) "The President is willing to compromise..." once again: moving the goalposts is not "compromise."  He promised 3:1 (which Republicans said they might reluctantly support depending on the details), now he's offering 2:1.  That's not compromise.  As for "a deal that undercuts their economic security," maybe he could look at his own economic policies before he tries to blame Republicans.  He might also look at his own (well documented) roll in the Mortgage Bubble.

Our economy is continuing to strengthen but we cannot afford a self-inflicted wound from Washington.  Republicans should compromise and meet the President in the middle.  We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity, and if Republicans continue to insist on an unreasonable, cuts-only approach, Texas risks paying the price.

There we have it.  First, a couple more lies: "Our economy is continuing to strengthen..." well, maybe if you work in Government.  It's still really freaking tough for the rest of us.  "We cannot simply cut our way to prosperity,"  yes, we can.  We've done it before.  See the late 19-teens and what became known as "the roaring 20s."  That was "cutting our way to prosperity."  It wasn't the first time we did it, either, though I'm pretty sure it was the last.

But then there's the clincher: "Texas risks paying the price."  See, the SCOAMT can't allow cuts that won't hurt, because this is a scam.  He- not Republicans- is holding the middle class hostage.  He- not they- can target cuts so that they trim "fat" instead of "muscle."  He- not they- can move back toward the middle- his original proposal which had already been accepted in principle- 3:1 cuts-to-taxes.  Most Republicans would have jumped on that in a second in January.  That's what the President said in the campaign, the President was re-elected, obviously the people supported that.  But now he has moved the goalposts to 2:1 cuts-to-taxes.  That's after we've already increased taxes on everyone who makes a paycheck, and already increased the top marginal tax rate.  The President would like you not to remember that those things happened at his insistence.

This is no different from a Mob Boss saying that if you don't pay your protection money, he "can't be held responsible for any damages," while his enforcers are right there ready to knock your display cases over and start a fire in your shop.  This is all the President's doing.  For him to attempt to blackmail Republicans this way is beyond outrageous. 

Don't lean on the Republicans.  Support them.  Tell them "more please."

Heretics Must Be Silenced

BenK over at the AoSHQ linked this story this way, "Remember You Stupid Right Wingers, The Dems Don't Want To Take Your Guns."  That perfectly sums up the article.  But I want to point out something that should be obvious, but still needs to be pointed out.  The hostile tone the article takes toward gun-owners.

You see, the NRA obtaining (that is to say: someone leaked it to them) the article and then daring to use it in advertising "underscores the no-holds-barred battle underway as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up."  Also, we're reliably informed that "the White House has not proposed and does not support" gun confiscation.  See, ABC said so, so it must be true.

But maybe we should make our own determination.  When the Vice President is recommending you commit a felony offense rather than actually defend yourself, maybe the White House is not the most trustworthy source on what they want to do.  So let's look at those proposals.

Proposal One- "Universal Background Checks."  Essentially this would do nothing.  Democrats claim it would close the "gun-show loophole."  Problem: the gun-show loophole does not exist.  If a licensed dealer sells you a firearm, they're supposed to do a background check.  Even if you want to sell your gun privately to some other person (called "private transfer") that's supposed to be done via an intermediary who has their FFL.  Now, those private transfers don't require the same background checks that direct sales do, but you're unlikely to sell your gun to someone who isn't supposed to have one anyway.  And background checks won't stop gifts and "boating accidents."

In short, if someone who is not legally permitted to own a firearm wants a firearm, they're already barred from that with enough redundant systems to make the straight forward purchase of a gun, even privately or at a gun show, difficult.  They are already more likely just to go to the black market or use other means to obtain one illegally. 

Proposal Two- Limiting magazine size.  First, as the memo points out, this is just silly.  Among other things, magazines are easy to manufacture if you have just a little bit of skill at machining.  That's not exactly a ubiquitous skill, but neither is it terribly rare.  Beyond that, though, is the fact that there are already millions of those magazines already in private hands.

Now, let's say that the government were somehow able to just make all the "bad" magazines go away.  What then?  Well, it means an aggressor has to prepare a little more, buy a few more magazines, and that's about it.  It does not take that much time for a well prepared aggressor to change magazines.  If you were hoping to "rush him," all you're doing is volunteering to be the next one shot.

Proposal Three- banning new sales of "assault weapons."  We've already gone over the fallacy of that term, but let's recap- an assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle capable of firing more than one bullet per pull of the trigger.  "Assault Weapons" are weapons Democrats think "look scary."  It would not be difficult for Remington, or Colt, or Ruger, or any other arms manufacturer to take a barrel capable of firing the .223 bullet used by an AR-15, and marrying it to a stock that looks more like a traditional hunting rifle.  Add a magazine and make it semi-automatic (like Ruger does with it's .22LR 10/22) and now I have a weapon that is exactly the same as the "Evil Black Rifle" called an AR-15.  Only I can call this one the "fluffy bunny" and it would be just fine.

And that's before we look into how many are already in private hands, how making them illegal won't stop criminals, etc.

At bottom, none of the proposals on the table does a thing to make people any safer.  Indeed, it makes them more vulnerable by preventing law-abiding citizens from having the means to defend themselves.  None of these proposals will take a single gun off the streets.  None of them will stop a single rifle already in private hands from being used.  None of them will make weapons any less available to criminals. 

If you want to do that, you have to completely disarm the citizenry.  That is the only option.

Now, either the SCOAMT and his administration really don't have any plans to confiscate guns, which just goes to show how fundamentally unserious they are, or they're lying.  Now, I might be willing to buy "unserious," but I don't think that's it.  Gun control to the point of gun confiscation has been a Liberal wet-dream for decades.  This is proven by how much they howl when gun-rights advocates point out when people defend themselves with guns.  It is proven by how little coverage those events get.  It is proven by how little coverage the continual blood-bath in Chicago gets (did you know they had 3 school shootings last year?  All three with 10+ victims?  Why haven't we heard about that from "no one can have a gun outside the home" Chicago?).

Liberals want to take your guns.  They're smart enough to know better than to admit that outright.  And when it gets stated and backed up with evidence, they will do anything they can to silence the opposition, and make the people pointing out their goal the bad guys.  Thus the article.

ABC is lying to you.  The White House is lying to you.  They do want you disarmed.  Don't believe different.

Healthulu

ObamaCare is a mind-twisting, sanity killing nightmare of a law.  As I have said previously, it changes US Citizens into Subjects.  The moment the US Government seized control of Health Care, it seized complete control of our lives.

Don't believe me?  How else do you explain this?
The FDA says much of ObamaCare is aimed at helping Americans live healthier lives, and these proposed labeling requirements would help them do just that. In the text of the proposed regulation, the FDA states: "[The information] should help consumers limit excess calorie intake and understand how the foods that they purchase at these establishments fit within their daily caloric and other nutritional needs."

That's an FDA Statement about a Rule requiring grocery and convenience stores to provide nutritional information on "prepared, unpackaged food" they will sell you.  That would include your donut and coffee at 7-11 as well as that soup you bought at the soup and olive bar in your local up-scale grocery store.  It would include the prepared samples you can get at Sam's Club or Costco on the weekend.

Now, the Fox Article focuses on the cost issue.  It will cost grocery and convenience stores a great deal of money to provide the correct nutritional information.  As Food Marketing Institute regulatory counsel Erik Lieberman said:
Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: "If you get it wrong, it's a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines."

My point is much  more fundamental, however.  Look back at that FDA Justification: "The FDA says much of ObamaCare is aimed at helping Americans live healthier lives."  But it's not aimed at "helping."  From the Individual Mandate, to this rule, to rules beginning to hit school cafeterias, ObamaCare is quickly taking over every aspect of our lives.  It's healthier to walk or ride a bike than it is to drive- how soon before walking/biking to work is mandated to help "Americans live healthier lives?"  Getting 6 - 8 hours of sleep at night is healthier than working on short sleep.  How long before people have to keep sleep logs (like OTR Truckers already do) on pain of fines or imprisonment?

ObamaCare allows for these things.  As long as it is the law of the land, we have no defense against them.

Someone needs to pilot the proverbial Steam Ship into the maw of this beast.

About Focusing on "Mental Health"

In my Jan 16 post "Tyranny in a Velvet Glove" I said this:

    14.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

Then, just two days later, I wrote this:

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Now, I'm sure there are some who rolled their eyes and thought, "okay, now you're over reacting."

Maybe y'all should tell that to Doctor Lee Heib, MD.  Here's what she wrote (published last night):

Wait … not so fast. The problem is one of definition: Who is mentally ill?

The use of psychiatry against dissidents in the Soviet Union was one of the major human rights scandals of the 1970s and 1980s. Overt tyrants don’t need to employ psychiatry as a weapon, but establishing a dictatorship that pretends to be a republic requires a stealthy way of silencing opponents. As the Soviets discovered, not everyone is afraid to speak out, and when dissidents are perceived by the public as speaking truth, they must somehow be discredited.
So there you have it.  Not from some schlub on the internet, but from someone in medicine who can see how the SCOAMT is manipulating that profession for his own political ends.

Now, I hear you saying, "But she's not a psychiatrist, and that was the USSR.  How would she know?"

Well, the plural of anecdote is not data, but when anecdotes confirm (or seem to confirm) a prediction, then it's time to at least take a theory seriously.  So here's just one anecdote from her piece- click over to read the whole thing.

Brandon Raub, USMC veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, made quite colorful anti-war and anti-administration remarks in a Facebook page. He was subsequently drug away in handcuffs by local authorities purportedly at the request of mental health workers.

Col. Thierry Dupuis, county police chief, acted under the state’s emergency custody statute which allows a magistrate to order civil detention and psych evaluation of anyone considered potentially dangerous – i.e., he was hauled off and jailed for a “pre-crime.” He hadn’t hurt anyone. He hadn’t done anything overt except express his beliefs on paper. And anyone with a three-inch kitchen knife is “potentially dangerous.”

Mental health is a tricky issue, and no one wants true psychotics to own weapons.  However, there is often no way to find the "true psychotics" until it's too late.  So we have two choices- disarm everyone, or deal with the fact that sometimes crazy people will get their hands on weapons and do crazy things with them.

Disarming everyone is not really on the table.  Even if we wanted to do so, we would not be able to (and you can take my guns from my cold, dead hands).

Leviathan Government: "Feed Me!"

Bloomberg news is reporting that the SCOAMT thinks the US Government needs more of your money.  In related news, they are also reporting that water is wet.

The actual article is a smorgasbord of the SCOAMT being completely ignorant on the economy.  Ready for this America?  Just remember: you elected him.

1) Apparently increasing taxes will help grow the economy.  Every economist since ever says "Wha?"
2) Unemployment went up because "We cut military spending."  Well, yes you did, but you increased spending elsewhere.  And if "government spending" were what made jobs, we'd already be at ~5% Unemployment by now.  Did that happen and I just didn't notice?
3) Death Panels?  Yeah- they're real: "[SCOAMT] said the government can cut health-care costs..."

Seriously, this man has all the economic acumen of a grasshopper, and all the brains of a balloon animal.

White House: "Rejoice. Unemployment has decreased to 7.9%!"

Down from 7.8%.

No, seriously.  The White House thinks this is an improvement.  Not just that it's an improvement, but that it is such an awesome improvement, they're worried that you'll get depressed when next month's number's aren't as good.

Don't believe me?  I almost can't believe it myself.  But here (Via Drew at the AoSHQ) is the proof:

According to Alan B. Krueger, the White House Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, this is an improvement although he again warned against looking too much at one month of statistics.

"Okay," you say, "but that's just that reporter's impression of what he said."

Fair enough.  Here's the direct quote:

“While more work remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to heal from the wounds inflicted by the worst downturn since the Great Depression,” Krueger said in a statement. “It is critical that we pursue the policies needed to build an economy that works for the middle class as we continue to dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began in December 2007.”

Read that again: "Today's employment report {of ~150K jobs added, and U-3 increasing to 7.9% -DT} provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to heal..."

Ignore the "Blame Bush" rhetoric which follows that.  On what planet is job "growth" that is only roughly equal to population growth, and an increase in the Unemployment Rate "evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to heal?"  Remember when some Republican (I seriously can't remember if it was George Bush or John McCain) said "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" when the crash started in 2008?  Do you remember how he was excoriated for the statement?  He was out of touch.  He was living in a fantasy land.

Yet, somehow, this statement is dead-on true, and completely grounded in reality.  I have neither seen nor heard a single "mainstream" media source that has expressed the least bit of incredulity at this statement.  Not.  One.

This is not merely a media that is supportive of this Administration.  It is a media which has decided to wage war against the American people as a propaganda arm of the Democrat party.

A Stark Example

There are two areas.  One is a city, the other is considerably larger.  One is, and has been for decades, controlled by Democrats and has a very strict gun control scheme.  The other is an active war zone.  One has had 4 deaths this year, the other has had 40, just from gun-shots.  What are we talking about?  Afghanistan and Chicago, IL.  But which is which?

Chicago, home of our Gun Grabbing President, and his ballerina ex-adviser (who happens to be mayor now), has had 40 gun related murders, despite having one of the most strict gun control schemes in the country.  Afghanistan has seen only 4 US servicemen die this year.  Which of those sounds like an active war zone?

Of course, the difference is that Afghanistan is an active war zone.  US Soldiers carry weapons with them all the time.  They have the means, as well as the right, to protect themselves from violence.  If you even look like a threat, a US Soldier will treat you as one.  Given the means to do so, they are very good at making sure the ones dying are the bad guys.

Contrariwise, the only people with guns in Chicago are the bad guys.  Citizens of Chicago have virtually no ability to defend themselves from violence.  This weekend alone there were 7 gun-related deaths, and 6 more injuries, in Chicago.

But SCOAMT and his ilk think that Chicago is a model for the rest of the country.

Now, I already hear some of you say "but US Soldiers receive extensive training!"  Indeed they do.  However, the strict use of their weapon doesn't receive a whole lot of training.  Practice, yes.  Training, no.  They're taught myriad things, from weapon use, maintenance, and discipline, to the US Army field guide (I'm told they're supposed to memorize it), to battle discipline, and even tactics and strategy.  And that's just in Basic Training.

Those things are designed to let them fight wars.  A simple gun owner, carrying a weapon for his own protection "just in case," doesn't need "extensive training."  He (or she) needs to know how to use his weapon, how to clean and maintain it, and discipline ideas from where to point it, when to touch (let alone squeeze) the trigger, and (just as importantly) when not to pull it out, let alone aiming it at someone/something or touching the trigger.

That doesn't take that long to learn.  Most people can pick it up very quickly.  If you don't think you can, you have two options- elect not to carry yourself (if gun controls are loose enough, one of your neighbors will have a weapon and probably be willing to defend you), or take classes that let you pick it up anyway.  You can even find tactical training programs for civilians. 

Whatever the case, though, any supposed dangers have got to be better odds than simply living in Chicago with its current murder rate.  When an active war zone is safer (because self defense is not only allowed, but facilitated) than a major US city, I think it's fairly obvious that further restricting gun ownership is not the answer to make us safer.

Another I Told You So

Hmmm... what could possibly be wrong with diagnosing "grief and anxiety" as mental illnesses?  I mean, beyond the fact that's just stupid?

Oh, and over here I remember that the SCOAMT promised that his administration would crack down on the mentally ill getting guns.  Apropos of nothing, of course.

My mother often calls me a pessimist.  She says I look on the bad side of things and should really endeavor to see the good instead.  I tell her that Endeavour doesn't fly anymore.  After she rolls her eyes, I tell her that I'm not a pessimist.  It's not that I look at things as they are and say "Doom, gloom, and agony on me," rather I'm a cynic in that I always expect people to act in their own self-interest (that is: selfishly), and a realist in that I realize that is never going to change.

When I wrote that piece, I said this:

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

Okay, I know that diagnosing children as mentally ill is not exactly the same as calling any owner of multiple guns a psychopath, but they end up with the same result.  People who are not sick (most of them) being forever branded as "mentally ill."  Oh, and incidentally denied their second amendment rights as a result, at least potentially.

I do neither deny nor doubt that mental illness really exists, is a real thing, and that people with mental illnesses need treatment.  What I do reject is any so obviously fuzzy realm of science being given the authority of canon by way of a "manual."  Too many people look at the DSM-V as writ gospel regarding mental health, when we really know nothing about the brain.  We don't know why some medications work for some people, and not others.  Some medications for depression, if given to the wrong person, can actually make their depression worse.  Yet we are told by these same people that grief and anxiety (normal reactions to, say, the death of a loved one) are reason to be concerned about mental illness.

I'm not even going to say that there aren't times that someone's "grief" can go on too long and become a chronic thing that needs real help (though I'm guessing the times it needs to be treated with medication are few and far between).

What I am going to say is that this is proof that the DSM-V is a highly political manual.  It doesn't always and exclusively change because of advances in science; it frequently changes based on "best guesses" and, not infrequently, politics and a social agenda.

Which makes the SCOAMT's Imperial Pronouncements last week especially troubling.

Sometimes I'm Just Not Cynical Enough

Just two days ago, I said this:

     4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:

The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.

But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Yay us.

Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time.  In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle.  Jared Laughner, anyone?  How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?

I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter.  What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist.  In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."

(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).

Let it Burn.

That's Just Crazy Talk

Back in 2009/2010 when conservatives were pointing out the myriad problems with ObamaCare, one of the things we were assured would never happen would be that doctors would stop practicing or would move to fields which were less expensive to practice with similar repayments.  You know, like rational people.  "That's just crazy talk." 

Well, someone should tell the Windber Medical Center in Southwestern Pennsylvania that, because apparently they didn't get the memo.  As of March 31 they will stop delivering babies due to ObamaCare. 

The Windber Medical Center will stop delivering babies after March 31 because its obstetricians are either leaving or refocusing their practices, and because hospital officials believe they can't afford it based on projected reimbursements under looming federal health care reforms.

I'm surirpised by this.  Not that it is happening, but that this is the first one I've heard about.  I'm sure there will be more, and I would not be surprised to find out this isn't actually the first, just the first one to get national attention of any sort.  The fact is that ObamaCare is cripiling doctors and hospitals.  "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," was a lie.  The SCOAMT knew, or should have known, that doctors would leave the feild in droves.  Which will be just another arrow in the Trannie's quiver when they're ready to fully Nationalize healthcare.

And it is coming.  All tyrannical regimes do two things first.  They nationalize healthcare, making you dependent upon the state for your health.  They disarm the populace, making you easier to control and incidentally dependent upon the state for your protection.  We're seeing a push to disarm the populace in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.  ObamaCare is the vehicle by which the Trannies will nationalize health care.

Unfortunately, it may be too late to do anything about that.  So let it burn.

There He Goes Again.

So, the White House finally decided it had had enough of the plebes daring to voice their opinion, so SCOAMT changed the rules on the White House petitions.  Now, instead of having to get 25,000 signatures, a petition must receive 100,000 to reach the status that it must receive an "official response."

Now, this may seem like a mundane thing, but it really isn't.  This is, as our illustrious Vice President might say, a Big F'in Deal.  In fact, it's another step toward the Neo-Feudalism that I've mentioned in this space before.  You see, the President can't be bothered with responding to something a mere 25,000 of The People care about.  No, he can only bestir himself for something 100,000 sign onto.

But if he can set any number to trigger an "official response," then he is already circumventing the People's 1st Amendment Right to petition for redress of grievances.  How?  Because then nothing is preventing him from setting the number at 300,000, or 500,000, or 1,000,000 or... well, you get the idea.

That is, if the President gets to set minimum boundary on whether or not he will even consider a petition, then he is saying that only "enough" of the people have a right to petition for redress of grievances.  And it is only a step, and a quite small one, from "enough" to "certain."

So, I have started a petition, which I hope you will sign (yes, you'll have to give them an email address).  While I really wanted to say drop the requirement to 1, I figure there are some practical limits.  So I simply requested that the President reinstate the old rules.  To stop moving the goal posts, if you will.

If it gets enough signatures, and I actually get a response, I'll update with what that response is.

Tyranny in a Velvet Glove

Here, go read this.  Human Events has the list of the SCOAMT's Executive Orders on Gun Control.

At first glance, these don't look so bad.  They look like "propaganda" or "window dressing."  But on further review, they are a tyrannical government attempting to disarm its citizenry.

Let's take a look at just a few:

2.  Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Oh, good.  So now my private health information is an "unnecessary legal barrier" to the Government deciding if my 2nd Amendment Rights should be honored.

 4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

5.  Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Law enforcement already runs a background check on individuals before returning seized guns.  So the only purpose for this, that I can see, is that a "full background check" takes longer, which means yet more delay in retrieving your wrongfully seized gun.

10.  Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Guns reported lost are stole are already logged that way.  When someone runs a gun's serial number, it will come back as "lost" if it was reported lost, or "stolen" if it was reported stolen.  I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish if it's not more than that.  If it is more than that, expect DOJ officials to come "verify your report" of a lost or stolen gun.

14.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

 16.  Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Now he's just re-writing the law by fiat.  Not that that's new for him.

20.  Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Remember that point about the DSM-V I made earlier.  Yeah.

Now, this is not to say that all of this will happen.  It's possible that this was just done to make the SCOAMT feel good about himself.  But it is what could happen.  And that should be enough.  The President has just declared that he, through his Secretaries, has the ability to take your right to own a gun away from you by fiat.

This is tyranny in a velvet glove.  The fact that we even have to consider that he might do it is completely unacceptable.

All the while he hid behind children- children the policies he believes in so epically failed to protect- while declaring that pointing out that his own daughters have armed security 24/7 is somehow "Repugnant and Cowardly."

No.  From my cold, dead hands.