Lies and Damn Lies

It’s true, some people don’t like guns and can’t understand any legitimate reason for the law abiding to want them.  There is no point in debating or  arguing with these people, Their fears and opinions are a result of emotion and feelings, and logic and reasoning have no place in this opinion making process.  The problem with these people is that when they attempt to use logic and reasoning to make a point they tend use lousy data, and semi-facts. President Obama isn’t above using crappy data and quasi-facts.

Obama said in one of his speeches, ““Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check?”  If on e digs around to find where he gets his figures from.:

There are two key problems with the president’s use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to “purchases” or “sales” when in fact the original report concerned “gun acquisitions” and “transactions.”  Those are much broader categories of data.

As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.

This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 — meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.

Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.

Moreover, when asked whether the respondent bought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included “probably was/think so” and “probably not,” leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken. (The “probably not” answers were counted as “no.”)

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, that left 35.7 percent of respondents indicating they did not receive the gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Rounding up gets you to 40 percent, although as we noted before, the survey sample is so small it could also be rounded down to 30 percent.

While it is unlikely that that the real figure is anywhere near 40%, what isn’t addressed is; Who is acquiring these guns without a background check and what are the conditions?

There are lots of legitimate reasons people buy handguns without getting a background check each time.   Guns are a popular gift, A family member may buy a gun for a child or spouse, while they might have undergo the NICS background check it is in essence avoided by the the ultimate receiver.   Friends often trade, swap or loan guns with each other.   . We typically know our friends and are a better judge of charactor than the government will ever be..   Another method that guns may change hands without an invasive background check is through a bequeath.  Our guns will typically out last us.   If I drop dead my beloved Equality will dispose or keep any guns that I might have as she sees fit.  This is certainly more civilized than letting the probate courts and government NICS checks get involved.

The anti-gun zealots cry out. “Think of the lives it will save.” The thing is that no one has been able to prove that the NICS system as instituted has saved lives or reduced crime, but when it was instituted it made people feel good. It was then and is today an emotional reaction and not a reaction based on facts or real logic. Criminals will find a way to possess guns no matter how hard we make it for the legitimate gun owner.

In the recent well publicised masacres tightened background checks would have made no difference.

  • Adam Lanza wouldn’t bother with a background check to steal the guns, from his mother. He probably would have passed any background checks anyway, because apparently he had never been committed. and had a clean record.
  • James Holmes of the Aurora shooting went through the NICS background check. He had no criminal record and was never commited at any mental institution.
  • Seung-Hui Cho did purchase his guns and used the NICS system. He probably lied on the application though. It shouldn’t be a shock that a criminally insane man might lie on an appliction to buy a gun that he likely intended to murder a bunch of people with.

It may be worth noting that none of these guys bought their weapons at a gun show.

These guys typically have a clean criminal record but are known to have mental stability issues. While one could make an argument that  nuts and cooks should be always reported to the Feds, who makes the decisions on who is dangerous and who is not.

 

Tell Us How You Really Feel, Howie

Howie Carr of the Boston Herald unloaded big time in an editorial piece titled Moonbats Mourn Another Red Thug. The rant begins:

Say it ain’t so, Joe, or should I say Jose?

Poor Joe Kennedy, mourning the loss of his grand amigo, “El Comandante,” the tinpot Latin American thug who put the “profit” back in “non-profit” for the Kennedy kleptocracy.

How can Hugo be dead, Joe? He went to Cuba for medical treatment. They took him straight to the hospital from the airport in a DeSoto ambulance.

Let’s go right to the Joe K press release:

“President Chavez cared deeply about the poor … while some of the wealthiest people on our planet have more money than they can ever reasonably expect to spend.”

Damn right, comrade! Es verdad. For the 
record, according to 2011 tax filings, Comrade Joe made $901,236 from Citizens Energy and related corporations. His lovely bride, Beth, grabbed another $346,764.

Total: $1,248,000.

Howie is just winding up at this point, He takes shots at the Democratic leadership, The cities of Cambridge and Amherst, and a shot at the Heralds competion the Globe.:

Someone dimmed the lights at the Globe, causing an immediate panic in the newsroom, where the fops 
assumed the newspaper was finally being shut down.

Read the whole thing.

What Happened!!

We got our ass kicked. We are left scratching our heads and wondering, How could we lose? Obama has trashed the economy, discarded our international leadership, lead us into a $16 trillion debt. That is mostly owned to Communist Red China.  Why couldn’t we beat this president whom has screwed up everything he has touched?

The Republicans picked a guy whom might have been a good a president but was a lousy candidate. We picked him using a terrible process from a list of not so hot candidates. The series of Republican debates followed by the primaries assured that we picked the guy who was the least controversial  Unfortunately the least controversial is usually going to be the the least inspirational and dynamic.  The process served well in picking up the last two duds as candidates.

Romney was a terrible choice as a Republican candidate.

  • He co-authored signed and implemented the first all state run all inclusive health care program an the US. This was the pilot program for Obama care.  This program is very unpopular in America, Yet, Mitt did not, could not go on the offensive  on how terrible this program was, because he in fact helped invent it.
  • He was one of only a few governors who signed and took credit for signing a permanent assault weapons ban. Yet attempted to defend the second amendment. Most Americans understand that the second amendment is a statement of a fundamental right. Romney always sounded hypocritical in any attempt to discuss  gun rights.
  • He isn’t anyone’s favorite son.  He was never going to pull in any electoral votes from any of the states where he had any affiliation.  New Hampshire Massachusetts nor Michigan weren’t going to show him any love. Most in Massachusetts considers him an extremist and Obama the moderate and have no idea why this is so funny.
  • He takes an anti-abortion stance , an issue in which wins him no votes, alienates many, and of which he will has little effect on how he would govern as president.

OK, so we have a moderate trying to paint himself as a “severe conservative” and we are left wondering why this doesn’t work. I don’t mean to trash the guy I think he could have been a good president and no doubt better than what we elected, but he is a lousy candidate and did a terrible job  running for president.

After the first day never pushed the Benghazi scandal. He should have made an issue of the lying and contradictions from the White House and the State department. If he had pushed the issue just a bit, the MSM would have been forced to cover this embarrassing story.

He never explained and drove home to the electorate that 16 trillion dollars is $51,000 for every man woman and child and $141,000 in debt for every taxpayer. This is owed to the Red Chinese who are not our friends and are the the people who admit to having nuclear weapons aimed at our nation and its people.

He never explained that it is the very rich such as Spielberg  Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and Jack Welch that want to maintain the status quo. Most Republicans aren’t the rich, but folks who dream of being  rich someday. Regulations and steeper tax policies make starting a new business more difficult than it ever has been. Its the middle class that wants a fair shot that is losing its opportunities.

 

NBC and Twitter Conspire to Censorship.

Posting the email address Gary.zenkel@nbcuni.com cost Tweeter his account.

Guy Adams is pretty upset with NBCs Olympic coverage and the way it is handling the time shifted coverage, and hasn’t been shy about letting the world know.  He holds Gary Zenkel, the president of NBC Olympics, as the “moronic exec behind the time delay.” And he said Zenkel should be fired. When He posted Zenkel’s publicly known email address NBC complained to Twitter and Twitter cancelled his account.

Adams said in a column for The Independent that Twitter claimed he crossed the line by tweeting out Zenkel’s corporate email address and encouraging his followers to contact the executive directly.

The email address is easily identifiable, common with how thousands of NBC/Univision employees’ email addresses are determined.

Twitter soon suspended Adams’ account, he said. In a story he wrote in The Independent, Adams wrote that after filing an article critical of NBC’s coverage, he checked his Twitter account only to find it had been suspended. When he inquired why, he received the following response: “Your Twitter account has been suspended for posting an individual’s private information such as private email address.”

With that, the account was gone.

And a controversy was born.

Those who object to the heavy handed way that NBC handled this might wawwant to drop an email to. Gary.zenkel@nbcuni.com

Killing Freedom of Speech.

In Boston the Mayor Menino is positioning himself as the arbitor of political correctness and thought.  If one dares to believe differently or independently of proper leftist dogma, Menino has declared it proper and right to deny permits and and licences to do business within his  city. Chick-Fil-A’s crime is that they have spoken out against gay marriage.    While I can understand while some might find offence with some of  company president Dan Cathy’s remarks, there has not been any charges that he or his company have been discriminatory. As reported in the Boston Herald

… the company released a statement yesterday saying it has a history of applying “biblically-based principles” to managing its business, such as closing on Sundays, and it insisted it does not discriminate.

“The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,” the statement read. “Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

This isn’t about discriminating policy or practices, and is solely about a Chick-Fil-A and Cathys belief systems and things they have said.  What is treally ironic and strange are some of Meninos statements.

“It doesn’t send the right message to the country,” Menino said. “We’re a leader when it comes to social justice and opportunities for all.”

I guess the social justice and opportunities for all are for those who don’t utilize their 1st amendment rights, and don’t offend the Mayors delicate sensibilities.  I wonder if the Catholic Hospitals are in any danger of Menino’s retribution.

Its truly a shame that the historic Freedom Trail is where the right to freedom of speech is taking such a beating.

It looks like Chicago might be following in Boston’s footsteps.

A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A’s plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain’s top executive vocally opposes gay marriage.

Maybe a Battle Lost and a War Won

This morning the Supreme Court announced that Obamacare  is found to be constitutional.  Most observers were surprised to find that it was not Kennedy but Roberts that was the swing vote.  Libertarian and right thinking folks are outraged.

What happened? Is Roberts a traitor to the constitution and  its intention?

Conservatives gathering now for a low-tech lynching of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. need to take a quick breath of air and think about what he managed to accomplish by upholding President Obama’s highly unpopular, signature piece of legislation.

Though he shocked many by joining the left plank on the high court,Justice Roberts. pretty much did what he was supposed to do. He finally put a boundary on how much freedom the federal government can gobble up from states and individuals under the “commerce clause” — that most specious scheme for so much federal thievery.

Charles Hurt suggests that there are bigger more important issues at stake. While it seems as though Government takeover of the nations healthcare system is a pretty major issue. Some have claimed that there Roberts was handing over the battle to win the war.

 Here’s the Chief Justice’s opinion (italics in original):

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals preciselybecause they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

The business about “new and potentially vast” authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress’ regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts’ nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as “whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce.” Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.

Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

I don’t  claim to understand all of this, I am not a lawyer, I work for a living. Time will be the ultimate judge, Perhaps Obamacare will be tossed by Congress and the Commerce clause will be take on limited application.  Time will tell.

Obama Obtains Bipartisian Unity in Congress.

President Obama has achieved what was once thought of as the impossible. Both Houses rejected his budget unanimously.  Yup not a single vote. no president has done this much in the name of co-operation and unity in bi-partisian politics on Capital Hill.

Senate Democrats and Republicans unanimously rejected President Obama’s proposed budget this afternoon. The final vote tally was 99-0.

Likewise, the House also unanimously rejected the budget in March.

Prior to the vote, Senate Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions blasted the budget. “It was voted 414-0 in the House this year,” said Sessions. I suspect in an hour or so it will go down again on the floor of the Senate by unanimous vote. That speaks a lot. That says a lot. It indicates the sad state of affairs in which we are in. It’s deeply disappointing.”

Obama promised that Washington politics would be different.

Montgomerry TX, Militarized Zone

Montgomery County crashed a drone into their SWAT team tank. I suppose we should just be grateful that it was a tank they crashed into instead of an officer or even an innocent civillian.

As the sheriff’s SWAT team suited up with lots of firepower and their armored vehicle known as the “Bearcat,” a prototype drone from Vanguard Defense Industries took off for pictures of all the police action.   It was basically a photo opportunity, according to those in attendance.

Vanguard CEO Michael Buscher said his company’s prototype drone was flying about 18-feet off the ground when it lost contact with the controller’s console on the ground.   It’s designed to go into an auto shutdown mode, according to Buscher, but when it was coming down the drone crashed into the SWAT team’s armored vehicle.

The damage was not severe, according to Buscher, who described only some ‘blade strikes’ on the prototype drone that was being shown off to the Montgomery County Sheriff’s team.

Maybe Tom Kirkendall has a point when he questions whether the Montgomery County Sherriffs Department has too much money.  Montgomery County is just north of Houston’s Harris County and has some high value taxable lands in the Woodlands  and parts of  Kingwood.  Apparently the county received a Obaman TARP grant to buy one of these things.  So it isn’t just Montgomery county citizens paying for this thing, but all of us.  Do they really need tanks and drones?

Seems like they hold little regard for the people they are supposed to protect and serve. The safety of a drone will never achieve the safety of real piloted aircraft.  Pilots know that any chances taken with an aircraft endangers their life first. A drone operator has little at stake.  The  GAO has looked these droned with skeptism, and spoke of the risks involved.

In the 2008 GAO study, Gerald Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation for GAO said,

“The concern is that you could lose control of that aircraft and it could crash into something on the ground or, in fact, it could crash into another air vehicle.”

The GAO study found that 65% of drone crashes were caused by mechanical failures.  The study analyzed Pentagon and NASA data on 199 crashes of drones on battlefields.

Before this Montgomery County crash, the only crash of a law enforcement drone was recorded in 2006 in Nogales, Arizona.   The Customs & Border Protection flight crashed in the desert due to the same “lost link” scenario that sent the Montgomery County unit crashing into its SWAT team tank.

When the link between the drone and the control console on the ground is lost, all drones are designed to steady up and glide to a landing.   In some cases, the drones already have a location programmed in for landing in the event of a problem.  In others, there is no such pre-determined landing zone.

Dillingham said that’s another dangerous problem with drones in urban areas.  He said,

“If you’re onboard the aircraft, you can tell that you’re in turbulence and you can maneuver to get the plane or the aircraft out of the turbulence.   But if you’re using a UAV and there are no sensors aboard, you don’t really know that and, again, if you lose that communication link as a result of that turbulence or for any other reason, then you have an aircraft that is not in control and can, in fact, crash into something on the ground or another aircraft.”

Montgomery Sheriffs Department had no comment.

Harry Reid’s Secret Plot to Take over the Internets

You just can’t make up this crap.

Harry Reid is having secret meetings in a plot to have Homeland Security take over the Internet. Perhaps believing, “If the people didn’t like SOPA maybe they would like something worse”.

Details about the bill remain shrouded in secrecy. Clues available to the public suggest that the bill might be stronger than President Barack Obama’s cybersecurity proposal, which was released in May 2011. Reid said that he would bring the bill — expected to come out of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman — to the floor during the first Senate work period of 2012.

A classified meeting behind closed doors in October 2011 between key Senate committee leaders with jurisdiction over cybersecurity and White House officials, took place at the request of the Obama administration. Lieberman, in an interview with The Hill in October, said that past Senate cybersecurity bills were considerably stronger than the White House proposal.

I guess my question, “Is this about protecting real security interest or is this another powergrab to protect Hollywood from the teenager  downloading the latest tunes?” He shows little concern on how the voter, or the civilian experts and is prepared to move ahead, despite the peoples will.

“It is my firm hope that the working groups will be able to achieve an agreement on legislation by then, but I believe the cyber threat to be of such urgency that we must act whether or not such agreement can be reached,” Reid wrote.

 Some people never never learn.

Tugging on Supermans Cape.

There are a a couple of stories that surfaced this week. That illustrate what seems to be a trend with  gun control movements and their lack of understang of the folks they are trying to effect.

Starbucks Boycott

It was about 2 years ago, that Californians decided to make a statement by making use  of California’s open carry law. The were allowed to open carry their handguns as long as they were unloaded. Folks started taking their exposed guns into all sorts of restaurants and meeting places.

The fight for retailers heated up in early January when gun enthusiasts in northern California began walking into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. As it spread to other states, gun control groups quickly complained about the parade of firearms in local stores.

Some were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

The panty wetting gun banners got all upset at seeing guns just dangling of folks hips right out there in the open.  The gunbanners complained and one by one many of the establishments adopted a “No Guns Allowed” policy.  Starbucks stood their ground to continued their policy to allow folks who were legally carrying to exercise their right under the law. Continue reading