• Archives

  • Topics

  • Meta

  • The Boogeyman - Working Vacation
  • Coming Home
  • Via Serica

Ummm, no

On his latest podcast, Ben Howe devoted his first segment to discussing why he believes that now that the primaries are over, it is time for those who do not want President Obama reelected to ‘get in line’ and support Mitt Romney’s candidacy.  He said that this is necessary because unseating Obama is more important than anything else. While I don’t agree with him on all of his points, I must say that he was respectful and his arguments were well thought out.  But he did have a bit of the “Vote for Romney, or the bunny gets it” in his reasoning.

Like I said, I disagree with him.  Yes, if Obama is re-elected, what little restraint he has will be gone, especially if the Democrats continue to control the Senate and a Republican majority in the House is shaved or even destroyed.

But I’m not being asked to vote against Barack Obama, I’m being asked to vote for Mitt Romney, and he hasn’t earned my vote just because he was able to convince a majority of the registered Republicans who got off their asses and voted in the primaries that he was the least ugly elephant in the pen.

If Mr. Romney wants my vote, he’s going to have to address a lot of the concerns I have, including his stance on 2nd Amendment rights, what he will do to dismantle Obamacare, how he will lessen the intrusion of the government in our everyday lives, and how he will dismantle the overly aggressive security bureaucracy that Presidents Bush and Obama have built over the last decade.  I want to see his detailed plan on how and what he is going to cut in order to save money, what he is going to do to encourage business development in this country (The right answer is to cut taxes and get the heck out of the way), and how he is going to reduce American engagement in every nook and cranny of the third world while still defending the country and its interests.

Mitt Romney signed an assault weapons ban and a government health care plan that was the model for Obamacare, and I want to hear how he has changed since then.  I want more than sound bites.  I want a public and explicit mea culpa, and I want to know how and why he came to see the error in his ways.

Yes, I want a lot.  I’m being asked to give a lot.  I’m being asked to give the reins of power of the country that I love and that my children will be living in for decades to come to a man who hasn’t convinced me that he will be a wise steward of our republic.  If Mr. Romney wants my vote, he’s going to have to convince me that he is not only electable, but will be a good president, and he hasn’t done that yet.  I am not an automatic vote, I am not a party drone, and I am not to be told to get in line because the time for discussion is over.  I truly believe in the Eleventh Commandment, but I also believe that my vote is mine and mine alone, and I will not be taken for granted because the primary season is over and the general election is getting cranked up.

He missed a few

President Obama recently added his contributions to the biographies of his predecessors.   I’ve taken a look, and I think he missed a few:

  • 1802 – President Jefferson requests authorization from Congress to deal with the Barbary Pirates of Libya and Morocco.  President Obama carries on his legacy by waging a war against the Quaddafi regime in Libya without getting authorization from Congress.
  • 1863 – President Lincoln signs the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in territory that has been taken from the Confederacy.  This is a prelude to the eventual emancipation of all slaves in the United States.  President Obama honors this act by continuing and extending policies that keep black Americans on the plantation of poverty.
  • 1962 – President Kennedy challenges the nation to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.  President Obama honors this legacy by telling NASA leadership that their biggest task was to reach out to Muslim countries and improve their self-esteem about the contributions to science and mathematics done by Muslims 1000 years ago.
  • 1964 – President Johnson calls on the nation to wage a War on Poverty.  President Obama is doing his part by pursuing policies that put almost three million additional people under the federal poverty line, with minorities being hardest hit.
  • 1970 – President Nixon signs the Controlled Substances Act, kicking off the war on drugs in the United States.  President Obama continues this fight against personal responsibility by using federal agents to suppress the use of marijuana as a pharmaceutical in the states that have legalized the practice.

Can y’all think of any more?  I’d hate for the President’s glorious record to be uncelebrated.

Thought for the Day

Gingrich has bowed out of the presidential race.  All that is left in the Republican field are Romney and Paul.

Our choice is now down to the RINO or the gyno.

Classy

Let’s say there are two grocery stores in your neighborhood.  To be honest, there isn’t much difference between them, except for the signs over the door and one has a few more organic vegetables than the other.  One of them is the dominant store in your town, and you’ve been buying your groceries from them for a few years.  To be honest, you aren’t happy with the quality of their wares or the service you get.

So when the other store gives itself a makeover and has a bit of publicity, you decide to go over there one morning.  You buy a few things, and while things are pretty much the same as at the other store, your experience is marginally better, so you start doing regular business with them.  You notice that there are a lot of people who start shopping at the second shop at about the same time you do.

A few weeks later, you get an email from a friend.  It’s basically asking “Have you seen this?”.  The first store, the one you left because of service, price, and quality, has put up a big billboard in front of their store.  On the billboard is your name, your picture, the times you went to the other store, and the amount you spent.  It also details the things you bought, and even goes so far as to make aspersions about your character based on any run-ins you’d had with store management over the years.  They have a little section for each person who has stopped doing business with them in favor of the new store.

For a grocery store, this is pretty crass and classless. For a President of the United States, it’s shameful.

President Obama and his re-election campaign are doing something very similar when it comes to people who are donating money to the Romney campaign.  The campaign’s website is singling out individual donors to Mr. Romney and impugning their motivations and character for committing the sin of supporting Obama’s opponent. 

These are not the actions of a man and an administration that recognize the rights of citizens to support whatever political candidate or cause they want.  This is voter intimidation just as certainly as if he had posted thugs at the polls with cudgels. 

I don’t think it’s a surprise to anyone reading this that I don’t care for Mr. Obama, his politics, his values, or his work ethic.  I don’t have a much better opinion of Mr. Romney.  I’ve been very torn as to whether to vote for Romney this year.  I don’t like his record as governor of Massachusetts.  Nothing he has said during the primaries has convinced me that he has changed enough since then to make me want to support him.

But I will be damned if I will be intimidated by some Chicago machine thug from questioning and opposing President Obama, no matter who I vote for in November.  Things like this make me want to vote for Romney if for no other reason than to spit in the eye of the President’s campaign. 

Want to see me cut my nose to spite my face, President Obama?  Keep pulling stuff like this.

Conflicted

Californians will be voting this fall on whether or not to continue the death penalty in their state.  Proponents of the change in the law cite the cost in time and money to carry out an execution and possible racial issues with who gets the death penalty. 

I’m conflicted.  At a gut level, I believe that if you intentionally take the life of another human being without mitigating circumstances such as self-defense, then you should pay with your life.  The death penalty in the United States has become rare and used for only a very narrow range of crimes, and the restrictive manner in which a person can be condemned helps to ensure that it will only be used in the most egregious circumstances.

But if the point of the death penalty is to punish the offender and deter crime, it’s a failure.  If someone commits murder today,  and is then arrested, tried, convicted, and condemned to death, they’re almost as likely to die of old age as they are to get a needle in their arm.  How do decades of time spent in a special wing of a prison, with food, shelter, health care, and entertainment taken care of, punish someone?*  How does the occasional news report or celebrity protest against an execution deter someone who has absolutely no connection to either a crime that happened years ago or an execution that is done behind concrete walls and out of the public square.   If the purpose is to punish and deter, then executions should be done in public in the community where the crime happened and done as soon after the crime as possible.

Another issue is the small, but not insignificant, number of people who are exonerated** years after their conviction, sometimes after spending years on death row.  I know that they are a small percentage of those who are convicted of crimes, but I still believe in “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer“.  Add to that the fact that once a person is executed, no amount of new DNA evidence or confessions by the actual killer can bring bring them back.  Giving the state the power to take a citizen’s life puts the most critical responsibility in the world, the responsibility to only take the life of those who truly deserve it, in the hands of a group of people who couldn’t make a profit with a whorehouse. 

So to make a long blog post short, I have mixed feelings about the death penalty.  My emotions and values tell me that there are indeed those who deserve to have their lives ended because of their crimes.  I don’t believe that the way we do it currently is the correct way to do it if we are going to do it at all.  I don’t think it’s effective as a deterrent for others, and I don’t believe that the state does a good enough job in making sure that those who get the death penalty truly deserve it.

If I still lived in California, I’d probably vote for this measure.  If the way we administer the death penalty in this country was more effective and better at sorting the sheep from the goats, I would probably feel different.

*Of course, the same could be said about life in prison with no parole as it is practiced today.

**Yes, I know that that website is horribly biased in this debate, but that particular page seems to have empirical data as opposed to emotion and opinion.

Thoughts on Mitt Romney’s Speech – NRA Annual Meeting, 2012

Mitt Romney gave a speech to the NRA Annual Meeting yesterday.  I watched it on the live feed, and then re-watched it on-line today to try to get a good idea of where he stands on the Second Amendment and other rights.

Sitting and talking with JayG and others who have lived under a Romney administration tells me that he has a lot of work to come back from where he stood as governor of Massachusetts and as a candidate in years past.  Here are my impressions of what he had to say yesterday:

Quotes:

  • “Congress does not need more money to spend, it needs to spend only what it has.”
  • “We once built the Interstate Highway System and the Hoover Dam.  Today we can’t even build a pipeline.”
  • “The truth is, we’re struggling because our government is too big!”
  • “The answer to a weak economy is not more government, it is more freedom”
  • “I will protect the second amendment rights of the American people”
  • “He (President Obama)  thinks our nation’s highest court is to be revered and respected, as long as it remains faithful to the original intent of Barack Obama.”
  • “We’ll stop the days of apologizing for success at home and never again will we apologize for America abroad.”
As you can see, not a lot of what he said that was memorable had a lot to do with the Second Amendment.  Not that it wasn’t a good speech, but it didn’t lean hard on gun rights as a theme.  It was a good stump speech about freedom in general, especially economic freedom, with a few pokes at President Obama thrown in for good measure.

Other thoughts:

  • You have to give Mr. Romney credit for making a speech in front of a large crowd, that he has no control over, and that is, at best, lukewarm to him and his politics.
  • Ann Romney, his wife, took a few minutes early in the speech to say a few words.  I have to say, she’s at least as good a speaker as he is.  She at least connected the theme of her involvement in the campaign with the Battles of Lexington and Concord and did a decent job doing it.
  • Romney made a good point that we are a nation of laws, not men.  He invoked Truman when saying that the Constitution is more than a piece of paper, which is a nice rhetorical touch.  
  • He contrasted himself with Obama by asserting that he wants to limit government, while Obama has sought to expand its role.
  • Romney says he plans to use the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as guiding documents if he is elected.  It’s nice to hear a candidate at least use those words so we can call him on it when he fails to do it after the election.
  • Mr. Romney spoke a lot about economic freedom.  He asserted that while some regulation of economic activity is necessary, the Obama administration and his allies in Congress have taken it too far.  He brought up several examples of government interference in people’s lives that have come up in the past few years, including the couple that had to take the EPA to the Supreme Court because the EPA told them they were building on wetlands.
  • He spoke a bit about how the administration has interfered with the ability of Americans to do business in accordance with their own conscience.  He specifically brought up how religious communities, such as the Catholic Church, are being forced to do things that are against the tenets of their faith.
  • Mr. Romney didn’t start speaking about the Second Amendment until about minute 18 of a 27 minute speech.  That indicates to me that gun rights aren’t in his list of priorities.  The speech was a good general overview of Mr. Romney’s views on freedom, but didn’t specialize on the subject of gun rights. 
  • Mr. Romney got his first standing ovation when he called for Attorney General Holder to either resign or be fired. 
  • He pledged to enforce current gun laws, and to oppose any new ones.  I would have been interested to know where he stood on reducing the number and complexity of existing laws.
  • Mr. Romney took the opportunity to take shots at President Obama and his recent remarks about the Supreme Court.  He stressed several times that judicial review was an essential part of our nation’s make-up, which I will be curious to hear about if he is elected and runs afoul of the Supreme Court.
  • He also brought up the probability that President Obama will probably be making a couple more nominations to the Supreme Court if he is re-elected. His assertions were that given that chance, we will be living with the consequences of the Obama administration for decades to come.  I tend to agree with him.  The only real legacy I see for modern presidents is how they approach choices for the courts, and I have found President Obama lacking in his choices so far.
  • Mr. Romney ended his speech by relating how, as governor of Massachusetts, he went to Logan Airport in Boston to meet the remains of a service member who had died overseas, and how when he looked back at the terminal, he saw people from all backgrounds also giving respect.  He used that to illustrate how he wished to be a uniter of the nation rather than a divider.
Like I said, it was a good speech, but didn’t speak about the Second Amendment except as an example of a freedom among other freedoms.  I think that speech might have been good at another pro-gun venue, but a speech more focused on gun rights might have played better here.   The crowd wasn’t exactly hostile, but they certainly weren’t exuberant in their applause, and I didn’t hear Mr. Romney have to stop to let the applause die down very often.  
If Mr. Romney was looking to use this speech to bring pro-gun and pro-rights people firmly into his camp, I think he missed.  However, if the speech was a way for him to re-introduce himself to that crowd so they could see where he is today, I think he succeeded.  He didn’t make the mistake of trying to be a staunch supporter of gun rights, because I think he knows he won’t be able to pull that one off. He also didn’t fall into the “I have a really nice shotgun, and I love going out and shooting pheasants with it” trap that got John Kerry lampooned in 2004.  However, if he can keep beating on the pro-freedom drum, he might be able to allay the fear that he will be hostile or limp on gun rights. 
But heaven help him if he is able to get pro-gun citizens to accept him enough to elect him, and he shoves us under the bus of political expediency.  

An Open Letter

To the Honorable President Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Charles Schumer of New York

Gentlemen,

I, along with you and the rest of the country, have been shocked by the incident in Florida in which a young man died after being shot by another man.  Depending on which side of the argument you listen to, the young man was either murdered in the streets or was shot because he caused another man to fear for his life.  The facts of what happened are still being investigated by the police and a grand jury in Florida is going to decide if charges should be filed against the shooter in this case. 

Both of you have made public statements calling for federal investigations of the incident and to use it as a bludgeon against your political and ideological foes.

Neither of you is from Florida.  Florida has two senators who are quite capable of looking into the incident on their own, as is the representative of the district in which the incident occurred, if, in fact, a federal investigation is warranted.  The local authorities, including police and prosecutors, are investigating what happened and are presenting their findings to a grand jury, who will hopefully look at the facts of the case dispassionately and either order that charges be filed or decide that the shooter was right with the law.

That is how the system is supposed to work.  Justice is supposed to be deliberate, thoughtful, thorough, and dispassionate.  Fast justice is bad justice.  Both of you are lawyers, so you should know better than to try to influence the process by making public statements such as the ones I have seen in the past few days from both of you.

No-one is saying that it’s not a tragedy that a young man is dead.  Either because he didn’t act right or because someone else made a mistake, his life is over and the life of his family has been shattered.  Our society has lost another son, regardless of the person that son was at the time of his death.  No matter if he was a good young man who was staying out of trouble or if he was a young man who had lost his way and was heading for trouble, we have lost the potential good he could have brought to us all. 

At the same time, we must remember that the man who shot him is a citizen who has rights.  He has the right to defend his life if he fears for it.  If a grand jury decides that he should be charged with a crime, he has the right to be tried by an impartial jury of his peers in a fair trial with good representation.  He has the right to not fear that the mob in the street will hunt him or his family down and extract vigilante justice.  If he broke the law, the process will discover that and deal with him according to the laws of the state of Florida and the Constitution.  If he did not, then all of this discussion is moot.

Please, for the sake of the Constitution you both swore to uphold and the system of justice that Constitution and the Constitution of the state of Florida provide, stop making inflammatory remarks in the public square in order to score political points.  Please use whatever influence you have with those who are whipping up hatred in our streets to get them to tone it down and let the system do its job.  If you have issues with laws such as the “Stand Your Ground” law that is being lambasted by politicians, demagogues, and the press right now, do it after the family of Mr. Martin has had time to grieve and for justice to be served either by trying Mr. Zimmermann or by clearing him of wrongdoing.  Making law in the heat of the moment will guarantee that bad law will be produced. 

You are both consummate politicians.  I ask you now to start being statesmen.

Respectfully yours,

Daddy J. Bear
Louisville, Kentucky
Citizen

Figured It Out

Recently, President Obama moved the upcoming G8 meeting from its original location of Chicago to Camp David, the presidential retreat in rural Maryland.  No reason for the move has been given by the White House.

But I think I know why:

President Obama wants to get the conference away from the inevitable protests and security nightmare so that he and the rest of the G8 leaders can have peace and quiet to rehearse “Nearer My God To Thee“, which will be recorded at the end of the conference.  Copies of the performance and the corresponding music video will be sold on the White House website to raise money for G8 countries in bad economic situations, meaning all of them.

Quote of the Day

At GM’s Hamtramck plant in Detroit . . . I got to get inside a brand new Chevy Volt fresh off the line, even though Secret Service wouldn’t let me drive it. But I liked sitting in it. It was nice. I bet it drives real good. And five years from now when I’m not president anymore, I’ll buy one and drive it myself. – President Barack Obama, 2011

GeneralMotors will suspend Chevrolet Volt production from March 19th to April 23rd in order to bring supply of the plug-in hybrid car in line with demand, according to the Detroit Free Press.   Chevrolet sold 1,023 Volts in February, which up from 603 in January, but far from the 60,000-unit annual output originally planned for when the car was launched in December, 2010. Less than 8,000 Volts were sold in all of 2011. Fox News, 2012

Watch the Hands

When I’ve talked to people who know more than I do about self-defense, the thing that I’ve heard more than one person say is “Watch the hands”.  Hands hold weapons, hands point guns, and hands are used to strike the first blow.  Mouths can say things that distract or incite you, eyes can fake you out about intentions.  If you pay attention to what the hands are doing, you have a better chance of knowing what someone is going to do in a confrontation.

President Obama and his supporters are cranking up the rhetoric machine to get their political base whipped up for the 2012 elections.  Their heads are making noises, and the mob is responding.  Maybe it’s promises to finish the work he wanted to do this term but couldn’t because of the evil opposition.  Maybe it’s igniting jealousy about those perceived to have more.

But that’s not what the hands are doing.

The hands are creating “Truth Squads” to disrupt and refute those who oppose the President.

The hands are describing people who prefer to pay cash or keep the government out of their lives as terrorists.

The hands are pushing the limits on constitutionality and decency to see just how far they can go to make us comply.

The hands are circumventing the Congress through executive fiat to do things that the representatives of the people won’t vote for.

The hands are negotiating with the U.N. on treaties that could potentially impinge on our civil rights if the President and Secretary of State can get them through the Senate.

The hands are organizing unions and a rabble to create the perception of mass demonstrations against the President’s opponents.

The hands are implementing economic and fiscal policies that will drive us to poverty and financial slavery for generations.

If we want to unseat President Obama in November, we need to stop listening to his rhetoric and start watching his actions.  We need to recognize and counteract them when they threaten the opposition and the integrity of the process.  We need to make sure that no matter who sits in the White House next January, there are enough Representatives and Senators who don’t belong to the Cult of Obama that they can slowdown or stop harmful things that Obama tries to do in the event that he has a second term.

Because it’s not his silver tongue that’s going to do damage to the Republic, it’s his hands.