Just when you thought the socialist gun haters couldn’t get any crazier…

In my last two essays we explored Crazy Uncle Joe Biden’s loony advice on self defense: firing your double-barreled shotgun blindly in the air or through your front door.

Well, it turns out his grip on reality is pretty firm compared to Loony Aunt Diane Feinstein. In a meeting last Thursday of the Senate Judiciary Committee, she made the following profoundly amazing claim:

“We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds, and yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.”

And here I was dumb enough to think it wasn’t ever legal to hunt humans, regardless of what kind of weaponry one was using. Silly me…

When it comes to guns, the loons on the Left seem to come completely unglued.

See Her Craziness in action here.

© Brian Baker 2013

 If you’d like to comment on this essay click this link

Well, last week we discussed how Crazy Uncle Joe suggests that when you feel you may be in danger, you should take your loaded

double-barrel shotgun with you out to your balcony, and fire both barrels into the air, thereby rendering yourself exposed, vulnerable, out of ammo and defenseless.

Plus, of course, that load of shot blasted into the sky has to come down somewhere. An umbrella sure won’t be much help. Oh, well… who says it has to make any sense when you’re trying to disarm the public, right?

Anyway, proving that Crazy Uncle Joe can only be outdone by himself, he unveiled another startling self-defense strategy in an interview conducted by Field and Stream magazine (here).

V.P. BIDEN: “I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, ‘Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.’

“I said, ‘Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.’”

Whoa…….

I guess the pizza guy damned well better not hit Crazy Joe’s address by mistake…

Knock knock. BLAM! BLAM!

Where does he come up with this stuff? I have to wonder if he’s been drinking window cleaner or something.

If nothing else, he’s certainly convinced me that at the least we need to tighten up the reporting requirements of mental instability for gun ownership restrictions, if someone with these kinds of nutty ideas can legally own guns.

Goooood grief….

© Brian Baker 2013

If you’d like to comment, click this link

On 19 February, our nation’s favorite Crazy Uncle Joe participated in an online Facebook “townhall” hosted by Parent’s Magazine.

Of course, he pontificated on how an AR-15 isn’t very useful for self-defense purposes, recommending one use a double-barreled shotgun instead. Have a look at the short clip below; the fun starts at the 0.55 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rG_HLlC4oBQ#t=74s

Huh?... What?...

Instant replay, please…

“I said, ‘Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’”

So, let me see if I have this right. You load your double-barrel shotgun, walk outside the house in which you were safest, and fire both barrels into the air… leaving you exposed, defenseless, and out of ammo.

Sounds like a helluva plan to me.

I wonder if this is what he recommends to his Secret Service guardians. And if he does, how they manage to contain their gales of responding laughter…

© Brian Baker 2013

If you’d like to comment, click this link

You’ve really got to hand it to Commissar Obama. When it comes to going all in on his socialist agenda, he’s certainly wasting no time at all now that he never has to face the electorate again.

The latest example is the hysteria over the tragic shootings at the elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. There are several illustrative elements I think are worth considering. First, how is this incident any different from the one that took place in Aurora, Colorado in a movie theater during the premiere of the latest “Batman” movie (and of which I wrote a few essays ago)? Why didn’t that massacre, with a much higher body count, lead to these panicked Chicken Little gun control efforts from our socialist brethren?

I’ll tell you exactly why: that shooting took place only a month or two before the next national election, and the socialists know that gun control is an election-killer for them, whereas this event happened as absolutely far as possible from the next election, so they’re banking on the electorate’s short attention span in making this the most opportune time possible for them to try to realize their dream of imposing Draconian gun restrictions.

Then there’s the added benefit to Comrade Obama of using this event, and its headline-grabbing nature, to distract everyone from the very real and immediate problem that is facing this country, and his arrogance and ineptitude in dealing with it, namely our looming fiscal insolvency. It’s a classic case of presidential sleight-of-hand: “Hey, look! We need to save the kids and ban guns! Don’t pay any attention to what my other hand’s doing!”

It’s pure, sheer political cynicism, chicanery and hypocrisy of the first order.

Speaking of hypocrisy and chicanery, whatever happened to the investigation into “Operation Fast And Furious”, in which Eric Holder and the BATF ran thousands of full-auto assault weapons into Mexico in an effort to gin up a fraudulent case that American gun laws were too lax, resulting in the deaths of over 300 Mexican citizens and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?

Anyway, here are some points to consider. The Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings both took place in venues which are already under stringent gun restrictions. In fact, Connecticut already has an “assault weapon” ban in place ( Link ), as does Denver ( Link ), of which Aurora is a suburb and under its jurisdiction, under Municipal Code 38-130. So, in light of that, how would any new federal laws have prevented these killings? They wouldn’t have, plain and simple, as both shooters were already violating “assault weapon” bans.

I hear a lot blather about how the Second Amendment was written in the 18th Century and therefore only covers the technology of the time, i.e. flintlocks. Using that rationale, I guess the First Amendment right of free speech only covers hand-operated movable-type printing presses, then, and not the internet, TV, radio, movies, computers, automated printing presses, or telephones of any kind.

The blather continues with the usual nonsense that the Amendment only covers members of the active duty military and National Guard because it mentions a “well-regulated militia”. Here’s the complete text:

“Amendment II

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

And what is the "militia"? It is the body of the whole populace of able-bodied law-abiding citizens, as defined by the Founders in their contemporary writings and encoded by Title 10 US Code, Section 311. And, as mentioned in the Amendment, this is an issue of “a free state”; it doesn’t mention deer hunting anywhere. It’s about freedom from government tyranny, a condition assured by an armed populace capable of resisting oppression.

This is a country founded on the principle of equality, with no "privileged classes", and the cops and soldiers are just citizens like everybody else. EVERY citizen has an equal right to equal weaponry. If the cops and soldiers can have them, so can any other law-abiding citizen.

Otherwise, we don't have an "equal society"; we have a ruling class – the "privileged" – and a subject class – all the rest of us.

Thanks, but I think I'll pass. I'm not anyone's "subject". I'm a free man, and citizen with full rights.

Um… wow… I’m so relieved, I’m sure. The world has been saved from a return to the Dark Ages.

Or not.

I’m sick to death of hearing about the ginned-up non-emergency of the “fiscal cliff”. As a matter of fact, the term tops the annual list published by Lake Superior State University of words that should be "Banished from the Queen's English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness" ( Link ).

I read an article today ( here ) entitled "How Much Should We Really Fear the Next Budget Fight?"

And my reaction was: We shouldn't FEAR it at all. We conservatives should WELCOME it as an opportunity to take this battle to where it needs to be: about profligate and insane SPENDING. No country in history ever taxed and spent its way to prosperity. We're squandering the next couple of generations' inheritance and chance at prosperity, and dooming them to poverty and government dependency, AT BEST.

Is that what "the land of the free and the home of the brave" is supposed to mean? The populace chained to and enslaved by the government's dependency plantation, slaves to whatever "largesse" our government masters deign to let us keep of our own earnings?

Really? THIS is what we fought a Revolution for? To trade in a tyrannical King George for a tyrannical Commissar Obama and Slavemaster Reid, aided and abetted by Quislings Boehner and McConnell?

I say no! By God, I hope not!

© Brian Baker 2013

If you wish to comment on this essay, Click Here

We’ve all heard about the tragic and horrible killings at an elementary school in Connecticut carried out by a nutjob who also killed his mother, all the killings carried out using guns he stole from her. It turns out he’d actually tried to legally buy at least one gun prior to the event and was turned down by the appropriate authorities.

As predictably as the sun rising in the east, the “usual suspects” in the gun-banning crowd swoop onto the still-warm corpses with opportunistic shrieks of glee at their good fortune in finding another excuse to try to somehow stop madmen from carrying out their deranged acts, evidently under the illusion that curtailing gun rights is a magic panacea for insanity.

Democrat Senators Joe Lieberman, Diane Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer (of course) and D_ick Durbin, as well as New York Mayor Michael “Big Gulp” Bloomberg, have already taken the lead in exploiting this mess to advance their leftist/socialist agenda of banning guns, Feinstein vowing to introduce her same old, tired “assault weapon ban” yet again when the Senate reconvenes next year.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the fact-checker. It turns out that “mass shootings” aren’t exactly the rising phenomenon those zealots claim they are. In fact, according to criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, and Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, there has been no increase in these incidents, and in fact “while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s.” ( Link )

Democrats have avoided gun control like the plague in recent years because they know it’s a political loser for them. I won’t go into all the stats; suffice it to say that the anti-gun sentiment in the country that peaked in about the 1970s has completely reversed itself in the last couple of decades.

 I think the only reasons these socialists are trying again now are twofold: first, this is an especially terrible event, as it involved little kids. They’re hoping for an emotional backlash. And secondly, it’s a couple of years until the next election, and they’re banking on the electorate having a short memory. Of course, they’ve made that particular miscalculation with great regularity in the past. But then, the socialists definitely aren’t the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.

Another thing to bear in mind: the killer tried to buy a gun, and the current system worked. He was prevented from doing so, and had to steal the guns he used. So… what law, exactly, do the gun-haters think is going to “solve” this problem? Logically, the only thing that could work would be for all the guns in the country to magically vanish. How would that be accomplished?

Any law banning gun ownership is already deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Heller and McDonald cases. Further, just a week ago 7th District Court Justice Posner held that Illinois’s total ban on public gun carry was also unconstitutional.

We’ve also had quite a bit of experience on the efficacy of bans in general. If “bans” were effective, we wouldn’t have a drug problem in this country, nor would there be any illegal aliens. How’s that been working out?

Let’s also not forget the mass murderer in Norway, Anders Breivik, who last year killed 77 people during his rampage, using a bomb to kill 8 and guns to kill 69 more, most of them young teens. Compared to this country Norway has very strict gun laws, and yet…

I think it’s funny – as in “hypocritical” – how so many on the Left are using this event as a vehicle to advance their gun control agenda while at the same time they’ve remained absolutely mute on Obama’s and Holder’s Operation Fast & Furious, the gun-running scheme which resulted in the deaths of over 300 Mexican citizens and one US Border Patrol agent named Brian Terry. That operation was very possibly conceived to gin up a case for arguing that our domestic gun laws were too lax, a political exercise in every way, and it backfired when they lost control of it. Where was the outrage then?

I guess “outrage” is very selective in nature.

Well, it looks like the Golfer-in-Chief won a second term, much to the country’s detriment. It’s been an interesting election, to say the least. Here are some thoughts.

I have to admit, I called this one wrong. Even though the dynamic was very similar to the Reagan/Carter race of 1980, the outcome was completely reversed. I think several factors came into play. First, of course, is that Romney’s no Reagan as far as political skill and presentation. I also think that Romney made a very bad call in not making Benghazi-Gate a very major election issue, right along with Fast & Furious.

But there’s another issue that’s developed in the intervening 32 years that doesn’t portend at all well for the future of this country: the emergence of class warfare as a major political football, and the fact that almost 50% of this country’s populace is on some form of the government dole. I’ve written several times that when that percentage hits 50%+1 vote, this country’s doomed. I’ve seen nothing to change my mind. We’re in very serious trouble.

* * *

Now that The Amateur has won re-election, is he going to continue to Blame Bush for all this country’s problems? At what point will he start to accept responsibility for this lousy economy… if ever? Or will Biden, if he runs to replace Obama, decide to start blaming… Obama? How long can they keep pointing at Bush? They’ve already set a new world’s record in that event.

* * *

Fortunately, the GOP has retained control of the House. That means Darryl Issa is still his committee’s chairman. I predict that when the new Congress is seated in January, he’ll be aggressively pursuing AG Holder on the Fast & Furious debacle, and giving Obama some real problems on the Benghazi-Gate mess. I know Obama wanted to run out the election clock on that problem – and with the help of the lamestream media, he did – but it hasn’t gone away. I think it’s barely started.

And again, with the GOP retaining control of the House it’s going to be pretty hard for him to enact what’s sure to be an even more radical socialist agenda, now that he no longer has to answer to an electorate.

* * *

The destructive effect of “identity politics” and polarization can’t be overstated, and it’s a pernicious and cynical aspect that the leftists have used to full effect. The “Hispanic bloc” and the “black vote” are glaring examples of groups that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, even to their own detriment.

Frankly, I don’t see this situation improving in the foreseeable future; if anything, it’s going to get worse. The welfare policies of the Democrats as initiated by LBJ have essentially enslaved the blacks on the new plantation of government dependency. The devil’s bargain Reagan entered into in 1986 when he signed into law the Simpson-Mazzoli “one time, never to be repeated” amnesty for illegal aliens didn’t solve our illegal alien problem; it merely opened the door even wider with the implied promise to new border-crossers that if they can somehow merely wait out the clock they, too, will be rewarded with citizenship and all the government freebies that come with it.

* * *

The biggest danger regarding the Judiciary is that Scalia – the oldest of the conservatives – will either retire or die. I think he’s too motivated to retire for anything other than health reasons, so we have to pray for his continued good health. The re-elected Commissar will be making other judicial appointments, though, giving him the opportunity to pack the lower courts with like-minded socialists.

That leaves it up to the Senate GOPers to finally – FINALLY – start playing the confirmation game by the same “rules” that their Dem counterparts use, meaning there are none. Time to take off the gloves and play hardball!

Will they do it? Who knows? The jury’s out on that one.

* * *

True and effective democracy is hard work. Over the years I’ve written several essays on the topic, including "Bread and Circuses", in which I’ve pointed out that we’re heading on a fatal course that, if uncorrected, will lead to the demise of this country as we know it as our freedoms and independence are whittled away. This election is a confirmation of those predictions.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the problem. In 1814 John Adams wrote: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

I’ll leave it at that.

© Brian Baker 2012

If you’d like to comment on this essay, click here.

At last! A “shovel-ready” job! What is it, you ask? Why, it’s moving the mountain of bovine excrement Obama & Company are trying to use to cover the magnitude of his ineptitude and the depth of his dereliction, as well as the cost in lives, in the Beghazi-Gate and Fast And Furious debacles.

The Benghazi fiasco continues to escalate. Check out this article. Turns out Ambassador Chris Stevens and his security team (now all dead) had known for quite some time there was a lot of danger. They’d asked for security reinforcements. Turns out that during the day of, they’d radioed for help, and someone somewhere – the CIA claiming it wasn’t in THEIR chain of command – denied or refused to act on the SOS. Turns out American air and commando forces were only an hour away, but weren’t sent to the scene in spite of repeated radio requests for help during the several-hours-long attack by armed insurgents. Turns out there was a real-time info stream being transmitted, at least audio and perhaps video. People in DC knew what was happening while it was happening. But the folks in Benghazi were left hanging out to die. Uh-uh. No cavalry for YOU guys, Chris!

Now we know Obama’s response to the fabled “3 AM phone call”. Evidently, an event like this is a “not optimal … bump in the road” that can’t be allowed to interfere with Mr. Fundraiser’s campaign events, as within hours he was on his jet winging his way to Nevada to haul in the money.

After all, we do have our priorities…

Then the next couple of weeks were spent trying to bury the facts under the excrement pile by blaming the attack on a YouTube video that no one had ever heard of or seen. After all, Obama was the guy who “killed bin Laden”, right? And hadn’t that solved all our problems with Islamic jihadists?

Maybe not so much…

This episode is the perfect companion piece to the Fast & Furious mess, in which Obama’s ATF goons shipped a couple thousand guns – including full-auto submachine guns – to the Mexican drug cartels in an effort to gin up a case for the idea that American gun shops were the source for the illegal gun trade in Mexico, thereby justifying tougher gun control laws.

Unfortunately for The One, one US Border Patrol Agent named Brian Terry was killed by one of those guns, along with over 300 Mexican citizens. And the cover-up on that “program” continues, with Obama’s AG Eric Holder stonewalling Congress and a federal subpoena demanding the documents in the case.

What do these episodes have in common, other than piles of dead bodies? The refusal by Obama or any of his political cronies to accept any responsibility at all for what happened. Apparently, things just happen in a vacuum, with underlings somewhere in the chain of command making decisions that have costs in lives, and it all takes place without the Incompetent-in-Chief having any knowledge of what those people are doing.

So, let me see if I have this right. Obama is the guy who “killed bin Laden”, even though the actual mission was carried out by a SEAL team, a tactical unit pretty far down the chain of command. Yet at the same time, he’s also the guy who didn’t know anything about illegally shipping thousands of guns into a foreign sovereign nation, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of that country’s citizens and setting up a major international diplomacy problem; and he’s also the guy who didn’t know anything about an attack on our consulate – sovereign American soil in Libya – and the murder of our Ambassador and other personnel.

Well… which is it? Is he a stud, or a dud?

© Brian Baker 2012

If you’d like to comment on this essay, click this link