Monthly Archives: September 2020

“You Do Not Need….”

Posted on by
Reply

In Canada, too. There’s a petition—one that drew a record number of signatures—in Canada calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to withdraw his Order in Council (roughly analogous to our Presidents’ Executive Orders) regarding his gun control overreach [emphasis added, but that’s a side issue].

We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada, call upon the Prime Minister to immediately scrap his government’s May 1, 2020, Order in Council decision related to confiscating legally owned firearms and instead pass legislation that will target criminals, stop the smuggling of firearms into Canada, go after those who illegally acquire firearms, and apologize to legal firearms owners in Canada[.]

Trudeau’s Order was instituted through taking cynical advantage of the upset over a mass murder in Nova Scotia a short time earlier, and he executed it in the absence of Parliament, which was not sitting due to the Wuhan Virus situation in Canada. His Order banned more than 1,500 models and variants of rifles, including AR-15s, Mini-14s, and firearms that the Nova Scotia gunman used. Trudeau, in the arrogance of government, rationalized his Order:

You do not need an AR-15 to take down a deer[.]

Those in government can’t conceive of the need for those being ruled over to defend themselves against criminals, including home invaders, rioters, looters—and crazed gunmen—when it’s so plainly the government’s police who are solely responsible for such defense, and it’s the responsibility of the attacked citizens to wait patiently on the government’s police’s arrival.

Those in government can’t conceive of the need for those being ruled over to defend themselves against that very government.

Those in power are oblivious to their own arrogance. That obliviousness itself creates an entirely separate need for the citizenry to define for themselves their need for and their purpose in having weapons.

That obliviousness itself creates an entirely separate need for an armed citizenry, one armed with the weapons of their individual choice, not those permitted by government.

He Misspoke?

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden spoke to a few reporters who, along with a few union bigwigs, were his entire audience (carefully unfilmed by the press, in contrast to the frequently done panning across President Donald Trump’s audiences with a view to “worrying” about masks and social distancing) at his Warren, MI, campaign stop the other day.

At that campaign event, Biden said that our armed forces had seen 118,984 cases and 6,114 deaths.

Stop and think about that. The context of that particular claim was Biden taking Trump to task for the latter’s alleged mishandling of our nation’s Wuhan Virus situation, haranguing him over the deaths that have resulted and how Trump should have done better. It was within that, that Biden made his charge of hundreds of thousands of Wuhan Virus cases and thousands of Wuhan Virus deaths in our military.

Shortly after Biden made that charge, his Deputy Rapid Response Director, Michael Gwin, “clarified” Biden’s remarks: the military has had only 7 deaths from the virus; Biden mistakenly had read the wrong datum from his notes and had read off Michigan’s virus statistics.

Now think about that. Biden, knowing full well the vanishingly small number of virus-generated deaths in our military, accidentally and unquestioningly read off Michigan’s far larger numbers in support of his castigation?

That’s what Gwin would have us believe. Never mind that Biden had those data written down in his notes.

No.

Biden’s error was not a misspeak, nor was it a “senior moment,” as others might think.

Biden’s error was in his thinking he could utter such an obvious lie and get away with it.

On the other hand, maybe I can interest Gwin’s audience in investing in a bridge across Lake St Clair that I hear the Biden Infrastructure Program is planning on building.

Lies of the Progressive-Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden claimed in a recent “press conference” in Pennsylvania’s oil and gas country that

I am not banning fracking… no matter how many times Donald Trump lies about me[.]

Let’s review the bidding here.

During a primary debate in March against Senator Bernie Sanders [I, VT] when his audience was not Western Pennsylvania, Biden agreed with Sanders’s fracking ban legislation. “No more—no new fracking”

Those carefully selected weasel words—”new fracking.” Of course, that’s a ban on fracking: the currently fracked fields will play out—pretty quickly, in fact, since the fracking only affects small regions of the oil/gas bearing fields. When they’re played out, no new fracking means just that: a ban on fracking. All the new part means is that existing fracking facilities wouldn’t be torn down under a Biden reign.

That’s not all, though.  Biden guaranteed a New Hampshire woman—pre-Wuhan Virus situation, when he wasn’t afraid to mingle with ordinary folks—that

he would “end fossil fuels” if he became president.

Clearly, subsumed in that ending is a ban on fracking.

The Vice President candidate whom Party picked for Biden isn’t any better. Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) said when she was still running for Party’s Presidential nomination,

There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.

Biden—his entire ticket—is adamantly and on record as enthusiastically supporting a ban on fracking. Then, in a section of oil/gas country, speaking to that oil/gas labor audience, Biden claims to not wanting to ban fracking.

And we’re supposed to believe him. Those oil/gas laborers are supposed to believe him.

In addition to blatantly lying, Biden is insulting the intelligence of those folks.

Funding the Police

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Josh Hawley (R, MO) wants to do that, so he’s introducing the David Dorn Back the Blue Act that would authorize DoJ to

raise the salaries of state and local police forces all across the country—except in cities that have chosen to defund law enforcement in the wake of nationwide protests and riots.

And

If the bill becomes law, police departments will have new federal funding at their disposal allowing them to increase the salaries of officers “up to 110 percent of the local median earnings, and would exclude cities that defund their police[.]”

Hawley is on the right track, but there needs to be an important adjustment to his bill. Rather than simply providing Federal funding to those cities, those funds should be matching funds, requiring the cities to put up their own salary-increasing funds before getting any Federal monies (I claim the matching ratio should require the receiving city to put up at least 50% of the increase). Otherwise, the city would simply shift the cost of the increase onto taxpayers from other States, taxpayers who have their own police departments to support.

Manifest Duplicity

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a demonstration of it by the European Union as it pretends to resume final negotiations with Great Britain over the latter’s going out from the EU.

EU officials say the bloc remains intent on striking a deal but that Mr Johnson’s government will need to make some major concessions.

The deal must be on the EU’s terms, and no others.

This is the contempt with which the EU has treated those uppity Brits ever since they began debating the very idea of leaving the EU.

It’s clear that Great Britain should simply walk away: a clean, no-deal break in January will be far better than anything the EU is willing to agree.