Tag Archives: government

An Illustration of Why…

Posted on by
Reply

…we have a 2nd Amendment and of why Government has no business, or legitimate authority, to dictate to us our needs for firearms or our purposes in keep[ing] and bear[ing] Arms of any type.

A report issued last year by the watchdog group Open The Books, The Militarization of The U.S. Executive Agencies, found that more than 200,000 federal bureaucrats now have been granted the authority to carry guns and make arrests—more than the 186,000 Americans serving in the US Marine Corps.

And [emphasis added]

One hundred three executive agencies outside of the Department of Defense spent $2.7 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between fiscal years 2006 and 2019 (inflation adjusted). Nearly $1 billion ($944.9 million) was spent between fiscal years 2015 and 2019 alone.

The Federal government has no business arming itself so heavily against the very citizens for whom that government works.

Full stop.

A Good Start

Posted on by
Reply

But a prerequisite needs to be added. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R, WA) is pushing legislation to beef up law enforcement and law enforcement agencies.

She said Republicans have introduced the Commitment to America plan that includes boosting the ranks of law enforcement by 200,000 more officers with bonuses and hiring incentives.

The perquisite is that the monies proposed under this legislation should be available only to those jurisdictions that do not have (not will promise to rescind) policies that include things like cashless bail, routine charge reduction to levels that would get cashless bail eligibility, decriminalization of drugs, reduced jurisdiction funding for law enforcement agencies, and the like.

Absent that caveat, too many jurisdictions will simply misuse the funds, applying them to other purposes.

National Digital ID

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate’s Progressive-Democratic Party-dominated Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (as are all Senate and House committees in this Congress so dominated) passed out of committee a plan to impose a national digital ID system for US citizens—the better for Government tracking of its subjects.

Supporters claim that such national IDs could be

the key to unlocking access to financial services, various government benefits and educational opportunities, as well as a number of other critical services.

What they ignore is that such things also could be key to freezing those same items when they’re held by those of whom Government disapprove—just as the Progressive-Democrat-run IRS targeted conservative political action entities, and as the Progressive-Democrat DoJ is (still!) targeting mothers who object to school board wokeness as domestic terrorists, and as the Progressive-Democrat-dominated FBI still is targeting Trump-supporters, and as the Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is naming half of us average Americans pseudo-fascists.

Jay Stanley, a Senior Policy Analyst for the ACLU on national digital IDs:

…digital IDs could prove to be a privacy nightmare. “But digital is not always better—especially when systems are exclusively digital.”
“There’s a reason that most jurisdictions have spurned electronic voting in favor of paper ballots, for example,”

That’s the best purpose that a national ID could serve—and it’s anathema to individual liberty. But it’s part and parcel of Party’s avowed purpose of “fundamentally transforming America.”

No.

We already have a national ID. It’s our passports. The critical difference is that generation of and possession of a passport is strictly voluntary and done solely on the initiative of each individual American citizen.

What’s next from the Progressive-Democrats? Internal travel documents? They tried that, after all, in some areas at the height of the Wuhan Virus situation, barring travel unless the traveler could present suitable vaccination papers to relevant authorities.

Here’s a Thought

Posted on by
Reply

Take a breath. I have those once in a while.

Anyway.

The Biden administration has just sent $530 million to two (count ’em, two) companies in deep Progressive-Democratic (I won’t say “blue;” that sullies the term used to describe our State and local police forces) Massachusetts so they can make batteries for battery-powered vehicles.

Ascend Elements and 6K Inc were recipients Wednesday [19 October] of more than $530 million in federal funding through a program designed to support battery manufacturing, recycling, and material processing for the electric vehicle market.

Massachusetts Progressive-Democrat Senators Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren and Congressmen Jim McGovern and Seth Moulton all think the taxpayer money transfer is just peachy-keen.

Which brings me to my thought. The money has flowed. When the new Congressional session begins, Ascend and 6K will have had 2½ months by which to have committed at least some of that money. Of course, as serious companies, they already have had a year, or two, or more in which to plan their use of all that taxpayer money as they lobbied for it with their Massachusetts Congressional delegation.

If the Republican Party wins a majority in the House, and especially if it wins a majority in the Senate also, then by the end of January 2023, they should hale Mike O’Kronley and Andrew Aberdale, Ascend’s CEO and CFO respectively, before the relevant committees to testify, under oath, concerning the disposition of those moneys so far, and the concrete results obtained with those expenditures. The two should appear on the same day, but in separate committees, cycling through all of them separately so as to be unable to coordinate their responses in real time.

The same should be done with Aaron Bent and Gary Hall, 6K’s CEO and CFO, respectively.

Following that, House auditors to visit the two companies to audit their performance under the contracts. Such testimony and auditing subsequently should be done annually.

It’s a new concept—Congress exercising its oversight responsibility by actually monitoring private contractor performance rather than just paying lip service to the obligation—but it’s one that needs to be put into effect.

Progressive-Democratic Party Payback?

Posted on by
Reply

Or is it Big Tech payback? Or both?

Recall Elon Musk’s renewed commitment to buy Twitter, and recall also his commitment to free speech and to ending Twitter’s bias and censorship.

Now the Biden administration is “reviewing” the proposal for its national security implications.

US officials have grown uncomfortable over Musk’s recent threat to stop supplying the Starlink satellite service to Ukraine—he said it had cost him $80 million so far—and what they see as his increasingly Russia-friendly stance following a series of tweets that outlined peace proposals favorable to President Vladimir Putin. They are also concerned by his plans to buy Twitter with a group of foreign investors.

Of course there was no threat to stop the Ukraine-Starlink facility; Musk only said he wasn’t sure he could continue to cover the cost alone. The Biden administration objected to the idea of no longer having that freebie.

How dare Musk propose peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. That’s President Joe Biden’s (D) and SecState Antony Blinken’s (D) job. Private citizens should just sit down and shut up.

How dare Musk put together an international consortium to buy a company with global reach? Neither Progressive-Democrats nor the Precious Ones of Twitter approve.

Need to do that “security” evaluation.