It's Our Fault, So We'll Punish Ourselves Severely!

In my post, There Will Be Violence, I Humbly asserted that threats of coming violence would be used to justify government intrusion and revocation of civil rights. Perhaps I was being too optimistic. Reportedly, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in order to protect Americans, will work to disarm Americans.

Apparently (please correct me if I'm wrong, AG Holder) we are planning to reduce violence in Mexico by making it harder for Americans to protect themselves, because, apparently, some Americans are abusing their rights to keep and bear arms by selling guns to criminals in Mexico. In so doing, we are choosing to weaken the ability of Americans who obey the law (criminals will still be able to shoot civilians and law enforcement types just as they could before) to protect themselves from criminals, including those Mexicans who cross the border illegally. Uh, doesn't that give them an incentive to cross the border, knowing that they won't be facing armed citizens? Has anyone considered a less drastic way to stop sending arms to Mexico? Perhaps enforcing current law and border security?

We have a word for this: surrender. We'll lay down our arms, and you won't. Please don't hurt us.

Okay, some of you out there know this is just another cobblestone in the Liberal Plan to re-make this country into a Liberal paradise. Government (a Liberal-run government, that is) needs to control industry, expression, and education. The people need to toe the line, and that means only government employees should be armed. School children will be indoctrinated to report--er--discuss counter-revolutionary activities they see of their parents.

Normally, I view this kind of extreme prediction as alarmist "conspiracy theory" chatter. The thing is, it's happening.

They Say There Will Be Violence

I've seen a half dozen different articles claiming government officials are expecting a summer of violence. The latest one is the report that London Police are preparing for violent protests at the G-20 Summit in April. This is, imHo, about the same as saying "Go out and have a violent protest" to the discontented masses. Preparing for violent demonstrations is a sensible and realistic practice. Announcing plans for dealing with violent protests is idiotic. Why not just advise violent protesters to stock up on gas masks and body armor?

I can (Humbly) think of two reasons to talk about anticipated violence: to score points with fearful constituencies; and to start the process of enacting controlling legislation to "prevent" violence by preempting civil rights. Gun control legislation is the easiest to move following a spree of shocking violence. No need to come up with supporting facts, or to counter arguments that violence has actually decreased since the "Assault Weapons Ban" was repealed.

Local governments with "concealed carry" licensing have all seen a drop in murder and robbery rates. Local governments with restrictive gun laws tend to have much more violent crime, with and without guns.* One tragic school shooting later, however, where a minor steals a gun from a responsible adult, and guns suddenly become the "leading cause of death among children", and MUST be “controlled.” The NRA becomes the evil child killer enabler. Liberal pundits start raving that "the senseless slaughter of our children must end!" Never mind that ONE adult carrying a concealed handgun could have ended this heinous crime in its tracks. Voters who are irrational with fear know guns are evil!

This isn't a pro-gun-rights rant. It's an anti-liberal despotism rant. Think about the news not reported. Ever read ANY article, or hear ANY news story about how John Michael Doe, a concealed weapon license holder, shot and killed, yada yada yada? You know they would shout it to the rooftops if this happened!

This blog is not intended to be a gun rights rant. Really. It's my Humble intent to illuminate my Humble readership as to the value of a good scare, politically. The unofficial motto of the Obama administration is "Never let a good crisis go to waste." That's not a joke! Use every problem, disaster, protest, failure, and disappointment to move our agenda forward.

So, let's all predict a summer of escalating violence, encourage protesters to plan for normally effective countermeasures, and have liberal legislation drawn up and ready to throw onto the table after the "shocking" violent demonstrations take lives. Have a “gun show loophole” law that strips law-abiding citizens of their rights ready for when another school shooting takes place. Have a "Fairness Doctrine" ready to put in place after "rabid Conservative hate speech" is blamed for inciting a violent crime. That's not too cynical, is it?

Sadly, (and Humbly) it's only realistic.

1. The Bias Against Guns, and More Guns, Less Crime, by John R. Lott, Jr.

Those Who Ignore History

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it," the saying goes. Foolish people are most foolish when they believe themselves wise, and thus ignore wisdom. The lessons to be learned from the 2008 general election are out there, ready to be learned, but those who most need to learn them seem to be most ignoring them. The leadership of the Republican Party appear to be too entrenched in the Grand Old Way of doing things to consider the fact that they lost an election they should have easily won. The winners of the election also fall short of wisdom. Their leadership ignores the fact that they barely squeaked out a win, and an organized, effective opposition would have wiped the floor with them.

The Republican Party needs to just finally accept the fact that the Conservative movement has made them its home. Who disagrees with this??? Senator McCain did. You see where it got him. His running mate was more popular than he was. Since 2000 Senator McCain has been betraying the Conservative movement with moderate, compromising politics. This was no surprise to anyone who paid just a little attention to the news. Senator McCain betrayed his oath to defend the Constitution with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which forbids political free speech in certain circumstances, such as general elections.

It is arguable (I don't have the data, though) that McCain lost by a smaller margin of votes than those he himself lost with his own legislation. In other words, CFRA took away his own win. Poetic justice, but hardly best for the nation. In another irony, President-Elect Obama ignored and loop-holed his way through those same regulations, bringing more than three humdred million dollars into his campaign than Senator McCain did. A huge portion of his campaign donations were from "unidentified small contributors". The figure I saw was close to $360M. Since CFRA does not specifically require vetting of contributions of $200 or less, anyone on earth can contribute, including fictional characters, dead people, and foreign citizens. And they did.

Attempts to call attention to these dirty tricks were labelled "political propoganda", and hence were forbidden to all but the mass media, most of whom blithely ignored all news not advantageous to Senator Obama. Only talk radio and internet newsgatherers (bloggers and online publications) seemed at all interested in unbiased news reporting. Even FoxNews seemed to blow where the popular winds blew it. Talk radio, ironically, is not by any means obligated or considered to be unbiased. Yet, they were among the only ones to report the news stories that the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the alphabet networks seemed happy to bury.

So, the Republicans lost. It's not the first time. They ignored their conservative base. Again, it's not the first time. What is disappointing is that the last time, they said it would be the last time.

Here's a history lesson: Midway through President Clinton's first term, Speaker Newt Gingrich and the GOP caucus came up with their "Contract For America". They clearly spelled out their conservative agenda, and pratical goals for accomplishing this agenda. The liberals viciously attacked, calling it the "Contract ON America". The conservative people of the United States, however, said (collectively) "It's about time!", voted a House majority for the first time in 20 years or more, and a Senate majority in the next two elections. Then the Beltway mentality kicked in. Lobbyists and cocktail luncheons, gifts, favors, and LOTS of pork corrupted the movement. By 2002, the conservative base knew they had been betrayed. President Bush was talking about a "New Tone" while he was being savaged by the other side. McCain, and the Gang of Twelve derailed the "nuclear option" which would have forced a vote for a Supreme Court nominee by Constitutional means, increasing his own power at the expense of his party, and the wellbeing of conservatives. President Bush was so lost, he nominated Harriet Meyers. After the bitterly contested elections of 2000 and 2004, hardly a voice was to be heard saying it was all just a conspiracy theory (which it was). No one who claimed violations of federal campaign law either provided real evidence, or was called to task for a false accusation! Again, GOP voters were left hanging out to dry, unsupported by the diminishing numbers of elected Republicans.

Over and over, the GOP has regrouped, reinvented itself, and had an epiphany, showing the way to go in the future. Here's a thought: Stop being liberals, and start fighting for your constituents.

If I had to give some advice to the Democrat party, it would be to tell them to be fastidiously, fanatically in compliance with all federal law. Otherwise they may see some of their hard-earned wins reversed. Although, historically, that's pretty unlikely.