Freudian slip of the lip; Democrat unwittingly tells the truth

Mark “Uterus” is right. Democrats do judge people by the color of their skin.

Martim Luther King did not say that we judge people by the content of their character. He said he had a dream that one day his little children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. He was recognizing that, in those days, they were being judged by the color of their skin and he had a dream that one day in America this would be changed. It has changed, by everyone except liberal Democrats. They’re the only ones still judging people by the color of their skin.

Push to turn Colorado into a blue state may stall in 11 days

As long as liberals’ hunger for power is stronger than conservatives’ desire to be left [alone], the Left will continue to dominate our public life.

John Hinderaker, commenting on The Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado (and Why Republicans Everywhere Should Care). That book was published in 2010 and written by Rob Witwer, a Denver lawyer, former legal counsel to the Colorado Republican party, and former member of the Colorado House of Representative, and Adam Schrager, a reporter for the NBC affiliate in Denver.

Democrats won Colorado because, as John Hinderaker’s quote from above says, they care a lot more about winning power than Republicans care about keeping them from winning power.  The Blueprint has this revealing quote from Rob Stein, founder of Democracy Alliance:

“The reason it is so important to control government is because government is the source of enormous power,” Stein continued. “One president in this country, when he or she takes office, appoints…5,000 people to run a bureaucracy, nonmilitary nonpostal service of 2 million people, who hire 10 million outside outsource contractors–a workforce of 12 million people–that spends $3 trillion a year. That number is larger than the gross domestic product of all but four countries on the face of the earth.”

“So the reason we’re doing what we’re doing…and the way we get progressive change, is to control government,” Stein said. “That’s what this is about.”

While 2010 was a good years for Republicans nationally, Colorado did not come through for Republicans. Obama again won Colorado in 2012. This year promises to be different, but of course that remains to be seen.

The polls presently show Cory Gardner ahead of Mark Udall in the U.S. Senate race (some are calling Udall Mark “Uterus” for basing his whole campaign on birth control and abortion.  Bob Beauprez is also slightly ahead of John Hickenlooper to be the next Governor of Colorado. So, there is reason to be hopeful that the Gang of Four’s success may be halted in 11 days. See, Kimberly Strassel on Page A11 of today’s Wall Street Journal, The Colorado Model Goes “Thud”

For more background on how it all happened, and who financed it, See Michelle Malkins’ new movie Rocky Mountain Heist. Supposedly, this movie will be shown on Television this weekend and/or in theaters, but I can’t find it anywhere. The website is supposed to give theater and showtime info, but it doesn’t.  The movie supposedly covers how the “Gang of Four” billionaires [Pat Stryker, Rutt Bridges, Tim Gill, and Jared Polis] provided the financial backing for the plan to turn Colorado into a solid blue state.

A taste of the fervor with which these Lefties operate was given by Tim Gill who explained his financial backing as, “getting rid of evil.”  He was referring to the Republicans he hoped to defeat, not the money he was giving.  It is a basic principle of American politics that cannot be credibly denied that one of the big differences between liberals and conservatives is that while conservatives believe liberals are misguided, they do not believe they are evil.  A clear majority of liberals do believe that conservatives are evil, and the most dedicated liberals do harbor a visceral hatred of conservatives.  Conservatives in general have no such animus toward liberals.

I’m the exception.  I want so much to be left alone I believe those who refuse to leave me alone are evil and should be eradicated. Politically I mean.  At the ballot box.

This book cover will sell books

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 9.28.55 AM The book is not just a pretty cover but also gives a good history of the Second Amendment, why it was included in the Bill of Rights, and how Madison crafted the two independent clauses of the Amendment to satisfy both the anti-federalists who feared an American version of the British habit of disarming the militia when they found it convenient, and the Federalists who feared that a permanent standing army would be a menace to liberty if citizens were ever disarmed. The original understanding of the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was not merely to permit hunting, although that was one basis for it, but more importantly to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and for self defense of the people from attack by criminals and dangerous animals. The author also covers the history of “gun control” and how it has been used throughout history to control minority groups. Whites in America after the Civil War, especially in the South, desperately wanted to keep the newly freed Black population from having access to firearms. After all, it’s much easier to lynch an unarmed man.

The newly discovered blessings of owning a gun by the women of America is a hopeful harbinger of the future of liberty.

Click the image above to go to the book’s Amazon page.

Human Beings Are Extremists By Nature

People can become true believers in the cause du jour and turn what might have been a modest movement to reform some mistake or misjudgment into an insane crusade to upend all reason and logic. Examples abound, from the Salem witch trials in the 1690’s to the child sexual abuse hysteria of the 1980’s and the more recent manic idiocy over supposed man-made global warming. These and other examples have in common a push over the edge of truth to a foundation of false beliefs and manipulated facts. Only after much damage has been done do people come to their senses and halt further destruction.

Shrinkwrapped blog  (Not updated since 2012 but all the old posts remain online)  writes,

Human beings are not by nature moderates. When we incorporate a new belief or feel passionately about anything, we tend to embrace it with heated, and irrational, intensity. The history of human progress includes a tendency for all revolutions to go over-board; the French Revolution is far more the norm than the American revolution. Certainly not everyone grasps new paradigms with the full efflorescence of their passions but enough do to imprint the movement. Usually there is a plausible basis for such extremism. For example, if you follow the chain of associations from elevated CO2 in the atmosphere caused by man’s activity all the way through the dubious chain to catastrophic global warming (or climate disruption or whatever the prevailing environmentalist extremist meme of the day) then the planet’s biosphere is at stake and all measures must be considered to “save the planet.” Extremism is a natural default state for homo sapiens. It is built into our neurophysiology which demands that the world be divided into Manichean all-good and all-bad.

Drunk driving laws have become a raving, irrational battle to brand every social drinker with the stigma of a DUI conviction.  This is not to say that driving while intoxicated should be tolerated, only that one should actually be guilty before judgment is passed. That’s not the case now. The key words in this affair are “drunk”, “driving” and “vehicle.”  Driving a vehicle while drunk should be the operative criteria, but it no longer is that at all.

Driving

A man I know visited a night club and stayed until closing at 2:00 A.M.  He had too much to drink, and when he got to his car in the parking lot he realized that he was in no condition to drive.  He was almost the last one to leave that night, and there was no one around to give him a ride home.  He didn’t have his cell phone to call a cab, so he decided to just lie down in the back seat and sleep it off.  Around 4:00 A.M. a police officer patrolling the area noticed a lone vehicle in the parking lot and stopped to investigate.  He noticed the man sleeping in the back seat and tapped on the window.  The man emerged and explained to the officer that he didn’t feel safe to drive when he came out so decided to sleep long enough to metabolize the alcohol.  The officer gave the man roadside sobriety tests which he flunked, and he was arrested for DUI.  At the station the breathalyzer indicated a BAC above the legal limit.  He was charged with DUI and later convicted.

Some would say this man did the right thing by not driving, so how can he be convicted of DUI?  Because it’s no longer just driving that will get you convicted.  Sleeping in or even near a car with a BAC over the limit has been held by numerous courts to satisfy the prerequisites for a DUI conviction.

Vehicle

A vehicle would be a car or a truck, right?  Wrong.  You can be convicted of DUI for being over the limit while riding a bicycle, a riding lawn mower, riding a horse (yes, that’s right) or pushing by hand a non-functional motorcycle along side a dirt road in the country.

Drunk

It used to be that to convict one of DUI it was necessary to prove that they were intoxicated to the point that their coordination, reaction time, or other senses were sufficiently impaired that they could not safely operate a motor vehicle.  Now the law is a per se matter, if you have a breath test over .08 you are per se guilty.  Never mind that different people have different tolerances for alcohol and that one person might be impaired at a level lower that .08 and another might be perfectly fine at a higher level.  Also, never mind that The American Medical Association did studies in the 1930’s which established that .15 is the level at which most people become unsafe to operate a motor vehicle.  The object of DUI laws is no longer to get drunk drivers off the road, it is to convict as many people as possible.

Not only does a .08 or higher BAC as determined from a sample of your breath in a machine called a breathalyzer make you guilty without further proof, the machine has a long record of being unreliable by frequently giving inaccurate test results. In 2011 The Attorney General for the District of Columbia dismissed dozens of DUI cases, and later moved to vacate convictions in hundreds more, upon a discovery that the breathalyzer they use, the one most widely used around the country, has been giving inaccurate test results for the last three years.  This scenario is not an isolated incident. Conviction by machine, faulty machine that is, is all too common.  Lives are being destroyed for harmless behavior while the worst recidivist actual drunk drivers continue their mayhem on the highway.  Since all resources are finite and scarce, all that are devoted to arresting social drinkers who pose no risk to anyone are necessarily withdrawn from other more productive venues where they might actually make a difference.

There is so much more to say about this hysteria that is a blazing example of the remedy being worse that the disease.  For further reading on this subject I recommend Lawrence Taylor’s DUI Blog. Mr. Taylor is an acclaimed expert on DUI law and the pattern of injustice that follows from it. A post from 2011, Metamorphosis of a Crime, provides essential background for understanding the political implications of DUI laws in America.

Remembering an era when racial terror prevented witnesses from coming forward

A newspaper account of a white man under grand jury investigation in the death of a black man contains the following sentence:

Seven or eight ….eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none of them have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety…

This has to be from a Southern newspaper, Mississippi perhaps, regarding a killing in the 1950s or 1960s, right?  After all, that was the era when racial terror made witnesses with information about a white man killing a black man afraid to come forward and speak publicly, right? The witnesses were probably afraid that if they gave testimony that would convict the white man they might be visited by the Klu Klux Klan, right?

No, that sentence is from today’s Washington Post and it’s about the grand jury investigation of Ferguson, MO police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown.  The witnesses are all black and they are afraid to speak publicly about what they saw not because their testimony will prove Wilson is guilty of homicide, but because their testimony tends to show that Officer Wilson acted properly when Brown attacked him and placed him in mortal danger.

Now, who is responsible for this racial terror?  Bull Connor is long gone from the scene and there are none like him around anymore.  The Klu Klux Klan exists today only in micro form and it has no power to credibly threaten anyone. There’s just Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and a few hundred thousand of their black followers and a few more hundred thousand white liberals playing this race card to intimidate witnesses.

By the way and just for the record, Bull Connor was a Democrat.

Looking for an honest Democrat: two found

Diogenes_looking_for_honest_manGreek philosopher Diogenes lived 51 years, from 404 BC to 323 BC and founded the Greek philosophy of Cynicism. In his time he was thought of as a “crank” for his strange eccentricities. He would carry a lantern in the in the daytime and when asked why he would say, “I’m just looking for an honest man.”

Eating in the marketplace was a social taboo in ancient Greek, so that is where Diogenes liked to eat. Confronted for this he defended his habit by claiming it was the cheating and lying of the marketplace that made him long for sustanance. Diogenes’ quirks are apparently the source for the name given in 1966 to a present day psychological disorder called Diogenes Syndrome, characterized by extreme self-neglect, domestic squalor, social withdrawal, apathy, compulsive hoarding of trash, and lack of shame. It afflicts mainly the elderly.

So it must be with cautious trepidation that anyone would claim to be looking for an honest Democrat.  Were it not that Democrats have consistently chosen serial liars and cheats as their leaders since a least 1992 one would surely risk being dismissed as a kook for the implied accusation of sweeping and predominant dishonesty among Democrats.

“I did not have sex with that woman,” “If you like your insurance you can keep it,” “Benghazi was a spontaneous protest against a Youtube video”, and everything any Democrat says in regard to the ridiculous phony charge against Republicans for a supposed “war on women,” are only a few of the many examples of blatant Democrat mendacity that can be marshaled.  It won’t do to say Republicans are no better.  They aren’t boy scouts but they don’t misrepresent themselves with anywhere near the consistency of Democrats. The biggest charge to be made against Republicans is not that the lie about who they are, but that they don’t even know who they are and can’t figure out what they stand for.  Republicans appear to be on the cusp of winning big in the November election but if that happens it won’t be because they’ve given the American people any reason to favor them, but rather because people are fed up with Democrats at the moment.  A Republican win in November won’t be a win at all, it will just be that they were the ones left standing after the voters lodged their protest against Democrats.  But I digress.

There are at least two (2) Democrats who are smart, honest and decent and don’t want to put every man, woman and child in America on food stamps.  There are at least two Democrats in America who love liberty for themselves and don’t mind if the rest of us also enjoy some freedom.  It’s telling, however, that neither of them are elected politicians nor political insiders. One of them is 89 years old, however. Long may he live.

Nat Hentoff, born June 25, 1925, is an authority on the First Amendment. His books and articles regularly defend the rights of Americans to think and speak freely. He writes a column, Sweet Land of Liberty, that has been distributed by the United Feature Syndicate since 1992.  All of his recent columns can be found at Jewish World Review.

Hentoff was a columnist and staff writer with The Village Voice for 51 years, from 1957 until 2008. A jazz expert, Hentoff writes on music for The Wall Street Journal and Jazz Times.  Hs is currently much concerned with the attacks on free speech and due process on America’s college campuses. The “speech codes” that the Left is attempting to institute in the very place where freedom of thought and inquiry should reign supreme are anathema to Hentoff, as they should be to everyone.

Joel Kotkin is a lifelong Democrat and will no doubt stay that way, as untypical a Democrat that he is.  He is an authority on economic, political and social trends.  His books include The Next 100 Million: America In 2050 which explores how America will evolve in the next four decades; The City, a Global History, which examines the evolution of urban life over the millennia and attempts to explain what makes a city great; and his most recent that I am presently reading, The New Class Conflict, written from the point of view of those who are the losers in this class conflict: the middle class.  Kotkin’s most recent writing is a column in the Orange County Register last Friday, Thunder on the Left, in which he writes of the Leftward lurch among Democrats and their disenchantment with Obama’s fat-cat crony capitalism and his close ties with the moguls of Wall Street and Silicon Valley who have been the chief beneficiaries of his economic policies, while middle-class incomes have fallen.

Kotkin and Hentoff are two Democrats, Hentoff even calls himself a liberal, who care about much of the same things conservatives care about.  They care about (among other good things) liberty, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. They’re the only two Democrats I’ve found who care about those things. There used to be a lot more of them. My mother was one, until she died at age 100.

Gabby Giffords and The ad misericordiam logical fallacy

Screen Shot 2014-10-18 at 8.49.52 AMFormer Democratic Congressman from Arizona Gabby Giffords was shot in the head at a campaign rally in 2010.  We’re all glad she seems to have recovered from her physical wounds. We should not be glad she is now using that terrible experience in an attempt to force new gun control laws on law-abiding citizens who do not have any blame for what happened that day.  In fact, it was one of the those law-abiding citizens who was lawfully carrying a gun that stopped the shooter from hurting anyone else.

If she wanted to persuade anyone that gun control laws have merit, exploiting her horrific experience is the wrong way to go about it.  Public policy matters like gun rights should be open to deliberation and debate.  The politics of victimhood is always and everywhere an attempt to short circuit opposing argument.  It is an appeal to raw emotion in order to avoid the forces of reason and logic.  It reminds me of the old lawyer joke that goes like this: If the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither the facts nor the law support you, pound the table.

Gabby Giffords’ arguing from pity and misery is even worse than the lawyer pounding the table because she is appealing to everyone’s sympathy for her victim status to gain support for her position.  The lawyer pounding the table doesn’t elicit sympathy from anyone. Giffords’ indulgence in the charged emotions of compassion for her injuries is meant to browbeat people into accepting her desired policy change without having to do the hard labor of making a reasonable argument for it.

Other Democrats running campaigns based on infringing gun rights apparently have noticed that Giffords’ tactics are backfiring, and they are seeking to distance themselves from her and her sleazy attempt to bully and intimidate people into self reproach.

Democrat gun control candidate distances herself from “aggressive” Gabby Giffords. New Hampshire’s WMUR 9 ABC reports that though incumbent Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH 1st District) is thoroughly in favor of gun control, the tone of attack in Giffords’ new ad is simply too much for her. The video on the outlet’s website clearly demonstrates Shea-Porter’s desire to move away from being associated with the former representative’s ad.

According to the National Journal, Carol Shea-Porter has “flatly denied any association” with the ads against Republican challenger Frank Guinta (R). Giffords’ group–Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS)–is running the ad.

The ad attacks Guinta for his pro-Second Amendment stand in much the same way Giffords’ group has been attacking the pro-Second Amendment stand of Martha McSally (R) in Arizona’s District 2.

Guinta is leading in the polls.

Heh.

 

 

“Fast and Furious” revelations show you can’t be too cynical about Obama’s government

Eric Holder’s Top Deputy Resigns Amid Revelation Fast and Furious guns Used in Phoenix Crime

The revelation is that an illegally purchased gun, a transaction facilitated by the ATF pursuant to Fast and Furious, was used to commit a crime in Phoenix.  The revelation in contained in documents obtained through a lawsuit by Judicial Watch against the Phoenix Police Department to force compliance with a public records request.  [These are public records but it seems to always take a lawsuit to get the documents].

James Cole, the official who has resigned, doesn’t admit that his resignation is because of yesterday’s revelation, but I’d say this is a case where the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy is no fallacy at all.  Cole claims he’s resigning because he wants to work in the private sector.  Sure.

From the article cited above, here is a primer on Eric Holder’s “Fast and Furious,” operation:

In Operation Fast and Furious, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents, under the direction of their supervisors, orchestrated situations in which criminals known as “straw purchasers” were allowed to purchase firearms from Phoenix-area gun stores. Straw purchasers are people who buy guns for others, and are regularly employed by criminal enterprises and weapons smugglers for groups like the Mexican drug cartels. Normally, ATF agents arrest such people as they make straw purchases, but during Fast and Furious they did not. During Fast and Furious, the federal agents let the guns and their purchasers get away—and hundreds of guns ended up in the hands of cartel operatives in Mexico. The scandal broke wide open after one gun was used in the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in December 2010, but hundreds of Mexicans are thought to have been killed with the guns, and congressional leaders who have investigated the matter say they expect more violence in both Mexico and the U.S.—like this instance in Phoenix—with the Fast and Furious weapons.

Holder, the attorney general, has failed to cooperate with the Fast and Furious congressional investigation led by Issa and Grassley. Holder was voted, on a bipartisan basis, into both criminal and civil contempt of Congress—a first in the history of the United States for a Cabinet-level official—after he failed to provide documents to Issa’s committee pursuant to a congressional subpoena. President Obama himself has asserted executive privilege over many of the Fast and Furious documents, an executive privilege claim that Grassley and Issa say is invalid and unlawful that is currently being litigated in court pursuant to the civil contempt citation. Ron Machen, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, declined to prosecute Holder.

Grassley and Issa say Obama’s executive privilege claim is invalid because he is asserting the lower of two forms of privilege, deliberative process privilege rather than the higher form of presidential communications privilege. If he asserted the latter higher form, Obama would be admitting that either he or his top deputies knew of details of Operation Fast and Furious of which he and his senior advisers have vigorously denied knowledge—and the lower form of privilege, Grassley and Issa have noted, is considered immediately invalid with even the suspicion of government wrongdoing. In Fast and Furious, Obama, Holder, and the rest of the Obama administration have admitted there was not only a suspicion of government wrongdoing, but that government wrongdoing actually occurred.

We now know that Eric Holder and Obama have been lying all along about Fast and Furious. But why was this thing ever done in the first place? One simple reason, I believe. It was to make it appear that it was the Second Amendment that makes it impossible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  They believed that if the American people saw that guns from U.S. gun stores were regularly making their way to Mexico and the Mexican drug cartels, then the people would support draconian gun laws.  Of course, this depended on nobody discovering that it was the U.S. Government running the guns.

You can’t be too cynical about the Obama administration.