The lamestream media told you:

President Obama hasn't turned out to be nearly as bad on firearms as gun owners and the powerful gun lobby feared. This proves once again that these paranoid gun toters are full of baloney and afraid of their shadows. In fact, Mr. Obama has signed some pro-gun bills and basically left the Second Amendment alone, to the chagrin of huge swaths of his supporters.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Obama's record on gun-rights is atrocious, as a simple look at the facts shows. While some issues sit in near-permanent limbo, like interstate recognition of permits or rights restoration, the current occupant of the White House has allowed his administration to attack gun ownership in subtle and low visibility ways. Sarah Brady, as you probably already know, said he told her this was his "under the radar" approach. Why would he lie to someone like her?

-- A million or more fine M1 Korean-era carbines are available for shipment to collectors and enthusiasts in the United States. These are in Cold-War stockpiles in Korea, which would like to unload the valuable merchandise. The White House and State Dept. have stonewalled the effort.

-- Congress just passed an omnibus bill that prohibits spending money on lobbying for gun control and funding gun-control studies through the National Institute of Health. The president, in a signing statement, basically said these provisions do not apply to him. ("I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient" (referring to himself four times in one sentence).

-- He moved to ban target practice on huge tracts of deserted public land, where outdoor marksmanship had been practiced safely for as long as anyone can remember. He was rebuffed only by enormous and swift public outcry, showing that your voice does matter when it's used quickly and loudly enough. The fact that he "didn't" ban shooting does not make him pro rights on the issue.

-- Obama and Hillary (watch out for people who prefer not to use their full names) were both vigorously promoting the need for more gun-control laws, because of the "iron river" of guns causing mayhem in Mexico. Then just by coincidence, after it turned out that 90% of the drug cartel hardware did not come from the U.S., thoroughly undermining the claim, the Justice Department began a campaign of supplying guns to the cartels, which helped "improve" the numbers (from the administration's twisted standpoint). Caught red handed, the administration has circled the wagons and refused to let real information seep out (but that didn't work real well, it's now a matter of time to see who is taken down by GunSmuggleGate). The next congressional interrogation of AG Eric Holder is set for Feb. 2.

-- When fury over Fast and Furious grew large enough to float a vote of no confidence in Congress with 90 co-sponsors, Holder declared it's because he and his boss are black, refusing to acknowledge the crimes that led to the ongoing reprimand.

-- Hillary, with full support from the White House, is pursuing a massive gun-rights grab by the UN, being drafted in secret (because people will enjoy it so). This is not what you call standing up for your rights, even if the "news" media tells you it is. We have people working on the inside scoop, will hopefully have news on this before the draft is released. Expect the scat to hit the air circulator when it does.

-- The newly named nominee for the BATFE is a long time gun-control advocate, Andrew Traver.

-- Two Supreme Court nominees, now confirmed for life to the Bench, are ardent advocates of gun control. One of them, Sonia Sotomayor,  signed on to the dissent in McDonald v. Chicago that basically says you have no right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

-- According to FOX News, "Administration officials say they are working to develop the gun-safety measures promised" after a maniac killed people at a Tucson political rally. No one knows what these might be, and the administration isn't saying.

The Uninvited Ombudsman remains skeptical, when the lamestream media repeats its mantra that the man in the White House is moderate on guns. He's a moderate all right, but only if "yes" means "no." And since turning meaning upside down is a tactic of the international communists, who we already defeated, it can't be so.

The head of communist Korea, communist China, communist Cuba, the four countries in South America led by avowed communists, the avowed communists working with the current administration who did not undergo FBI background checks before getting their positions, and the 1.5 billion people currently living under socialism around the globe could not be reached for comment.

Thanks to scholar and author John Lott for so many leads for this story. Get on his FOX News blog for some of the most intelligent news and commentary you are likely to find.
http://www.foxnews.com/archive/author/john-lott/index.html

The lamestream media told you:

The movement afoot to allow people to hunt with silencers is a bad idea. A bill has been introduced in at least Arizona to allow such dangerous activity. Risks include no warning to other people in the woods if guns make no noise, it does not give wild game a fighting chance, and more.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Once again we can see where, if government would just get out of the way, an entire industry can blossom. If the ban on your freedom to buy and use these devices is lifted, sales of the tools will expand, manufacturers will have more work, new models will be created and produced to meet demand... business will flourish if government just gets out of the way. The market is between 10 and 20 million Americans who hunt for sport and food. Even the government will get money, since they extract a $200 tax on each item sold. Who else tolerates a tax as large as a (basic model) ought to cost?

To set the record straight, Larry Grupp, author of The Worldwide Gun Owner's Guide, notes:

England, the UK, New Zealand, Finland, Falkland Islands and France all
encourage hunters to use silencers.  Mostly it's a health issue, they don't want
shooters to go deaf.  France's encouragement principally centers
around using silencers on the range -- as a courtesy to other shooters.

Please keep in mind that silencer is a poor word choice.  These devices
do not really silence.  Firing anything with a silencer past a .22 cal rimfire
produces a loud, noticeable pneumatic thump.  Won't damage hearing but
definitely recognizable to folks around the shooter.

Also, bullets past the speed of sound (c. 1,126 ft. per second, in dry air at 68 °F,
which is 768 mph, or about one mile in five seconds*, thanks Wikipedia) "crack"
as they pass stationary objects.  As a young man on the farm, I recall a
demonstration of a military grade modifier on an '03 30-06 Springfield rifle
fired down a rail siding past rows of old telegraph poles.

Strange, as the bullet passed various wooden poles creating a loud crack till
about 500 yards out when the bullet fell to below the speed of sound and
became silent.

Larry

*You can use this to calculate the distance of lightning -- start timing when you see the flash, stop timing when you hear the thunder, divide the number of seconds by five, and the result is the mileage from the lightning to you.

The lamestream media told you:

Two students charged with bringing weapons to school
By Jim Jaworski, Tribune reporter

Police arrested two Julian Middle School students who were found in possession of weapons on school property, Oak Park Elementary District 97 officials said this week.

A sixth-grade boy on Thursday reportedly brought a small metal cap gun to school. School staff and the police resource officer confiscated the weapon after other students notified them, district officials said. The 12-year-old was arrested at Julian and charged with misdemeanor aggravated assault.

“He showed it to some students and displayed it in a threatening manner to others,” said Cmdr. LaDon Reynolds.

While both the district and police initially reported that the item was a starter pistol, a small firearm that shoots blanks, Reynolds said that, after they were able to examine the item, it was actually a metal cap gun that closely resembles a firearm. The gun only uses caps that create noise and was not loaded, so Reynolds said no one was in any danger.

“While I am incredibly disappointed by the news of these incidents, I am pleased to report that nobody was harmed in either one,” Superintendent Al Roberts said in a statement. “I also want to applaud everyone involved for the effective way they handled these matters. Their quick, decisive action helped ensure the continued safety of our students, staff and community.”

School officials also are conducting their own investigation into the incidents.

“The district is expected to hand down the strictest discipline allowed by board policy,” district spokesman Chris Jasculca said.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Dear Mr. Jaworski,

I have no doubt that the officials you quote in your story referred repeatedly to the "weapon" this child had, but as a reporter, you have a duty to accuracy. Accurately reporting false statements is not accuracy, and misleads your readers. A cap gun is a toy, not a weapon, by any definition you can find. A weapon can harm a person. A toy is for child's play. A cap gun is no more dangerous than a football.

With news distortion on firearms issues so high, it behooves you to be especially careful when covering such stories, to avoid the appearance of or actual bias. In the interest of journalistic integrity, you should ask your editors to run a short correction, such as, "[Ref: the article] The paper mistakenly referred to a child's cap-gun toy, as did people quoted in the story, as a weapon. It is a toy. We regret the error."

Erroneous tales like this one only serve to support the now widely circulating rumor that communists -- the old hobgoblin we all thought we defeated -- are actually at work quietly subverting American values, by attacking traditions like firearms ownership to further their goals, and capturing the minds of educators, police, the news media and others with mindless propaganda like this. Please don't support such nonsense. You know a cap gun is a toy. Make the correction.

Alan.

No reply has been received.
jjaworski@tribune.com
Permission to pile on granted

Discretionary carry

May issue carry

Shall issue carry

Right to Carry

Discreet Carry

Freedom to Carry

Constitutional Carry

Diplomatic Carry


The Second Second Amendment


by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman


Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms manner. Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a moral imperative. So they go armed. It's only rational. Hillary and similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go one way while some head off in another, they're both covered.

The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the party at all times, "laws to the contrary notwithstanding." That's lawyer-speak for "their right to carry supersedes any other rules," or in plainer English, "We're above those laws." The ambassador might decide to personally carry too. I'm guessing Hillary does not.

There's this whole "second system" of gun possession and carry here domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating.

Where are the laws for this exception to every gun law on the U.S. books? How does this special class of people exempt themselves from laws controlling the rest of us?

No one is harmed by their exemption. In fact, community safety increases, because assaults on those armed people are naturally deterred, even defensible if needed. Should we the people maybe have Diplomatic Carry too? Is a diplomat's life truly at more risk -- or worth more -- than any "commoner"? How does this comply with equal protection under the law?

Local authorities understand implicitly that these armed folks aren't going to randomly shoot people, or settle arguments with gunfire, the same as you and me when we're armed. They enjoy proper respect (even if they come from regimes that don't deserve it). We on the other hand have rights denied haphazardly, even with Constitutional Carry. As good as it is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.

Americans need and deserve the next step, Diplomatic Carry.

The body politic moves slowly. After several decades of experience, police nationwide understand and operate just fine within a framework of millions of people traveling armed. As the number of people carrying arms for crime control has increased, assaultive crimes have decreased. The media generally calls this "a surprising decrease in crime that has the experts baffled." All these people are walking around armed, expressly to forestall crime, and the media can't understand why crime has dropped. But I digress.

Oh sure, armed forces within the U.S. -- from local police to secretive agents our government is now filled with -- keep a watchful eye on the armed diplomats, as well they should. They also provide backup in the event of need. The same as for us.

But in the big picture, diplomats have less need for an ever-present armed escort than the public. A rare few diplomats face death at the hands of the mobs. Thousands of citizens are murdered each year. Who needs protection more?

The freedom of Diplomatic Carry, a concept many of us can easily grasp, is mind boggling to the great unwashed. So insulated from any truth about firearms, victims of television and the government-run school system, they have imbedded ignorance that is hard to shake. Destructively misinformed kids and teachers compound the problem. I digress again.

Now, Diplomatic Carry is not going to happen overnight. Many voices will be raised in objection to such freedom.
And unfortunately, some opposition will come from people who consider themselves firearms enthusiasts. Establishing everyone's uninfringed freedom to carry is scary, at least to some. But that's OK. Real freedom is a house high on a hill.

Diplomatic Carry is a paradigm shift. A window into a world that could be, and ought to be, a lofty goal. Your right to your life and its protection cannot morally be denied. It is denied only by force, and there is only one viable countermeasure to force unfortunately, in this best of all possible worlds, and that's countervailing force. I don't like it, but there it is.

Diplomatic Carry is a new level of autonomy, of personal sovereignty. It raises the bar. In this country, the people are the sovereigns and the government is the servant. How do you justify the servants carrying arms if the masters cannot?
The only consistent position for free people to take is this:

Anything short of Diplomatic Carry is infringement.

I am in the process of dissecting the legal framework that enables Diplomatic Carry, and modeling an approach for extending those principles to the public. Conceptually this is sound. Pragmatically it is an uphill climb, but as Americans we know that anything can be climbed. I'll have early results soon in my blog, PageNine.org. Sign up to stay informed.

Copyright 2012 Alan Korwin
http://www.gunlaws.com
Permission to circulate granted

The lamestream media told you:

"Associated Press --DURBAN, South Africa -- Brighten clouds with sea water? Spray aerosols high in the stratosphere? Paint roofs white and plant light-colored crops? How about positioning "sun shades" over the Earth?

"At a time of deep concern over global warming, a group of scientists, philosophers and legal scholars examined whether human intervention could artificially cool the Earth -- and what would happen if it did.

"A report released this month in London and discussed at the U.N. climate conference in South Africa said that, in theory, reflecting a small amount of sunlight back into space before it strikes the Earth's surface would have an immediate and dramatic effect... but no one knows what the side effects would be.

"Within a few years, global temperatures would return to levels of 250 years ago, before the industrial revolution began dumping carbon dioxide into the air, trapping heat and causing temperatures to rise." http://tinyurl.com/7mg6aya

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Howard Maccabee, Ph.D., M.D., writing for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, notes, "Allegations of harmful effects of climate warming on health are based on increased deaths observed in heat waves, especially in European cities. Year-round mortality data show, however, that death rates during cold weather are seven to nine times greater than during warm weather.

"If the predictions of the climate modelers based on the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming were true, rising temperatures in the 21st century would save millions of lives and improve human health directly."

Download the article, with its charts and graphs:
http://www.jpands.org/jpands1502.htm

The lamestream media told you:

According to the AP:
"WASHINGTON — Arrests of illegal immigrants along the U.S. border with Mexico are at the lowest level since the Nixon administration, indicating that fewer people are attempting to cross the border to live or work in the U.S. The development could change the debate on illegal immigration from securing the border to handling the people who are already here. It's the sixth straight year apprehensions have dropped. In the fiscal year that ended Sept.30, the Border Patrol arrested 327,577 people trying to cross the southern U.S. border.

"Arrests of people trying to sneak across the border have been steadily declining since 2006 after an all-time high of more than 1.6 million apprehensions in 2000." [If the all time high was in 2000 but numbers are declining since 2006, does that add up?]

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

1. For the umpteenth time: Decreased border arrests do not equate to fewer border crossers, it simply means authorities are catching fewer people.

2. Catching 327,000 people invading the U.S. is not a good thing, as AP implies. No accounting of the people who snuck in was included in the report because it is not known, could be much larger than the number of captures, as it has been in the past, and is also not a good thing.

3. The AP's suggestion in its second sentence that this, "could change the debate on illegal immigration from securing the border to handling the people who are already here," is blatant editorializing right where the news is supposed to go. A third of a million invaders implies no such suggestion, except perhaps to the AP, a now well-recognized frequent propaganda arm of government.

4. Peak apprehensions of 1.6 million, several years ago (implying that at least an equal number snuck in) does nothing to justify the nearly 1,000 people this year caught trying to sneak in every day.

5. If indeed the lower captures are somehow related to a reduced number of invaders, the most likely explanation has been unmentioned -- after sneaking more than 20 million illegals into the country, they're running out of people to send. Who is "they"? Good question.

Visit Arizona. See what real freedom feels like.
http://www.trainmeaz.com




Click the billboard and visit the TrainMeAZ state training site.

1. The lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, for censoring 50 of our advertisements at public bus stops (by claiming they are non-public spaces, and our ads don't meet their speech guidelines) is proceeding, but has thrown a wrench into our plans obviously. The suit is going well, fast (as these things go, it's been a year now), and we are cautiously optimistic about a positive outcome.

2. Although the majority of the campaign is on hold while the lawsuit proceeds, trainers who bought ad listings are getting some free "override" time, still posted without an additional fee. The Contributing Sponsors are still standing firm in support of the campaign, which will kick into high gear when the dust settles. http://www.trainmeaz.com

3. THE BIG NEWS is that, as promised, we have developed a tourist map for air travelers who arrive at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport -- they get the billboard shown above smack dab in the middle of the page! We're in good company with other advertisers including Bass Pro Shops and Casino Arizona. Maps are on pads and available from every staffed information kiosk in the airport (all nine), and at both info booths at the car-rental facility. Rental companies are cutting expenses, so the TrainMeAZ map is often the only map everyone uses.

The lamestream media told you:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9Q8TV3O1.htm

Connecticut officials are not giving up on requiring Internet sellers to collect state sales taxes, despite signs from online retailer Amazon.com that it has no immediate plans to abide by the state's new Internet tax law.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) estimates that all states are losing $23 billion each year ($152 million in Conn.), a figure that climbs annually as more people shop on the Internet instead of their local stores, according to Neil Osten, director of NCSL's Washington, D.C., office.

"All we have to do is get in the door. Once we get in the door, there are some more opportunities that come," Dept. of Revenue Services Commissioner Kevin Sullivan said.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Associated Press, working closely with the state governments for a change, is campaigning to suck more money out of the economy and into government hands, according to a recent report released by AP itself. Freedom from such taxes has contributed to astronomic economic growth in the Internet sales sector.

AP reporter Susan Haigh says, "states are losing $23 billion each year, a figure that climbs each year..." She fails to note that otherwise, the working people who earned that money would be the ones losing it. This way, we the people get to to keep the $23 billion of hard-earned cash, instead of forking it over to ever more hungry government tax czars, and in this case, to states where we don't even live. "If bureaucrats succeed in adding a gigantic new tax on the only vibrant star in the economic universe, the Internet, they will have again succeeded in making everyone poorer, in the name of government growth."

This is how government kills jobs. Economists and morons have long known that if taxes increase, people have less of their own money to spend and are poorer, and that's not rocket science.

The phrase "capture the sales tax revenue that goes uncollected" is how the states frame it, and the reporter parrots. "Keep huge piles of our earned cash in the economy, out of government hands, and let it work for us," is how increasingly disgruntled taxpayers generally see the effort to seize the funds. Reporters appear incapable of seeing this distinction and its huge bias.

Rewrite: "The public is saving $23 billion annually, a figure that climbs each year, by shopping on the Internet, according to information released by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), a lobbying group representing state governments. Government agents, with NCSL backing, are now drawing up plans to take that money by creating a new tax, claiming they are "losing" revenue without the new tax.

According to leading bipartisan experts, increasing taxes at a time when government is already too large and needs to shrink, is exactly the direction you do NOT want to go, according to leading bipartisan experts."

Armed American Radio talk-show host and author Mark Walters, in the latest issue of Concealed Carry Magazine, asks, "Have you ever heard the statement from someone, maybe a friend, a relative, or someone in the news, 'I support the Second Amendment, but...' ? Sure you have. Don't be fooled."

"No one who supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms ever, and I do mean ever, puts the words 'but' or 'however' in the same sentence. And if you do hear those words together in conversation, as a gun owner and freedom fighter you have a responsibility to confront the speaker or writer and correct them. They need to be called out and you need to be the one to do it. This is not a task to be taken lightly." Mark's mild-mannered approach appeals to me.

I had scoped out the underlying principle here waaaay back and have used it to this day:

A "but" statement openly reveals a person's true intentions.

You know it instinctively: "I really like your boots, but the green is awful."
Now you can know it consciously.
To see through any "but" statement:

Reverse the first phrase, and change "but" to "and."

So the above line becomes "I really don't like your boots, and the green is awful."
In poker this is called a "tell."
In real life, it's just an advantage.

Next time you hear a "but" statement,
and inflection always tells you it's coming, try it --
reverse the first part, and change "but" to "and."
Works like a charm.

Politicians reveal themselves in "but" statements all the time.
Newscasters use "but" statements constantly to reveal their biases.
They don't realize it.
Now, you do.

The lamestream media told you:

"WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers told Attorney General Eric Holder on Thursday to fire some Justice Department subordinates over the flawed arms-trafficking investigation called Operation Fast and Furious," according to Pete Yost, writing for the Associated Press, about Holder's testimony to Congress in early December. [Democrats, by implication and omission, see no problem here and have asked for no action.)

"Why haven't you terminated the people involved?" asked Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that is investigating the arms-tracking operation.

"The operation's goal was to follow the gun supply chain from small-time gun buyers at a number of Phoenix-area gun shops and make cases against major weapons traffickers," AP writer Yost claims.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

It is widely recognized that the BATFE claims in Fast and Furious do not match the facts. There was a concerted effort NOT "to follow the gun supply chain" which BATFE helped smuggle out of the country. The conclusion, if facts matter, is that the smuggling operation increased the number of U.S.-supplied firearms to drug cartels, which were then found at crime scenes domestically and abroad. This manufactured increase was then used publicly to advance an imaginary threat, to justify increased government power, controls, and infringing on the Second Amendment.

The congressional committee, after an initial flurry of remarks and verbal jousting, stunningly refused to place Holder under oath, since he more than once said, "I'm here to tell the truth," instead of taking an oath. That made my mouth hang open. This helps insulate him from a potential charge of felony perjury before Congress. He failed to testify under oath. The "news" media failed to report this tiny insignificant fact.

What the "news" also failed to report was only the most significant parts of the hearings. Holder, who repeatedly claims he is not stonewalling, performed a "document dump" on Congress, delivering more than 5,000 documents, most of them emails, and not a single one came from or was sent by Mr. Holder, the main unindicted conspirator in the smuggling scheme and the main target of the investigation. Actually no one has been indicted, thanks to Holder's stonewalling.

That became obvious during questioning by Ben Quayle, who happens to be my representative. After noting that many in Congress seek Holder's resignation, Quayle asked, "Will you resign?" Holder said, "No." Naming and asking if the underlings just below him would resign, Holder replied "No." Naming the underlings under them with the same question, Holder said, "No," the three shortest answers he gave in the whole charade. Time ran out for Mr. Quayle, so the Chair of the committee asked the obvious last question, will anyone be forced out, and Holder continued with his terse replies, saying, "No." In the AG's opinion, as delivered to Congress, no one should be held accountable for these gross violations of law and multiple murders. This is hard news, so was unreported for reasons that remain unclear.

Nearly a year after it began, Holder has refused to identify the person who authorized the operation, a very simple task, though it might implicate him or his boss, the current occupant of the White House.

A democrat at the hearing said that "2,000 automatic rifles" had walked. The AG said, "Yes, that's correct." No automatic weapons were involved, since these were retail store purchases. Hey, it's such a small point, what do you expect. A big thank you to Rep. Ted Poe of Texas for asking some really hard-as-nails questions. The AG though ducked every one.

Daryl Issa threatened the AG with Contempt of Congress for failure to turn over documents. Contempt of Congress! This extremely serious development was also not widely reported, though Mr. Sensenbrenner's vague allusion to an impeachment of someone (unnamed) did make the "news." The AG's omitted communiques in the document dump was perhaps dwarfed by the Justice Department's flat refusal to release anything after Feb. 2, 2011, probably the most significant material. A Feb. 4 email which was a blatant lie to Congress, now admitted, has been "withdrawn."

When Holder had previously said his 4-state long-gun registration scheme is a "reasonable requirement," none of the officials challenged him -- on the fact that it's strictly illegal, he is specifically denied authority to do it by law, and in fact such action has been specifically outlawed by Congress. Maybe they didn't know. And he didn't know.

Holder and his department's preposterous position that there is no statute against gun smuggling is a naked power grab without support. Not one official challenged that statement. Making each purchase is a separate federal felony, that's 2,000 right there; lying about the nature of the purchase is a federal felony; delivering the guns to the real buyer is a federal felony; smuggling the guns across state lines is a federal felony; delivering the guns to foreign nationals without an export license is a federal felony; using undeclared income to make the purchases is a federal felony; handling illegal obtained cash is a federal felony; conspiring to do any of this with anyone is a federal felony.

Holder has acknowledged that the mess is a fiasco, inexcusable and a prohibited policy, and of course, people have been murdered as a result. In his opinion, no one pays for it. Prediction: That shall not stand.

By Mencken’s Ghost


The USA isn’t bereft of ideas to supposedly fix what ails it:  raise taxes or cut spending, raise the debt limit or live within its means, reform Medicare or expand free medical care, invest in public education or offer choice in education, invest in green energy or drill for oil, invade other countries or defend the nation’s shores, pray to God in school or pray to the state in school, salute the flag or burn the flag, vote Democrat or vote Republican, watch CNBC or watch Fox News, and be fixated on Lady Gaga or on Weiner’s weenie.

 
None of these distractions will fix the country. They won’t fix it because they don’t address the root problem.
 

The root problem is theft.  Theft has become the main activity of the U.S. government (and state governments).  Instead of taking some money from all people to pay for the few public goods and services that cannot be provided by free markets and charities, the government now takes a lot of money from a minority of people for the unlimited benefit of a majority of people.  
 

This can’t end in anything but bankruptcy.
 

The list of larcenies would run for more than 50 pages.  Examples include crop subsidies given to farmers, subsidies of every description given to rent-seeking corporations (hello, General Electric), school lunches given to obese kids, handouts beyond imagination given to able-bodied and able-minded slackers, rich pensions given to avaricious public employees, and free medical care given to liars who say they can’t afford medical care as they drive expensive cars, gorge on unhealthy food, and mortgage their futures to buy every new gizmo and gadget.
 

Then there is the double-theft of Social Security and Medicare.  After making phony actuarial assumptions about the programs, the government committed the first theft by confiscating people’s lifetime FICA payments--which were inadequate to pay the promised benefits in retirement--and spending the payments on other things.  It is now committing the second theft by sending the bills for its lies and larceny to future generations.

 
All of this theft has created a feeding frenzy, where the objective is to steal from your neighbor before he steals from you.  It’s as if we’re all swimming in shark-infested waters with bloody hams tied to our backs.
 

The absurd justifications and rationalizations for eating our neighbors are an insult to whatever intelligence and morals are left in the nation.  The feeders speak of social justice, fairness, compassion, and, especially, the children, while they devour their neighbors’ hams.  And then the media, which never had much intelligence or morals, runs story after story sympathetic to the feeders instead of their victims.
 

Eggheads in academia teach a similar slant to college kids with yolks for brains, as they enjoy their tenured positions that depend on government grants, student indebtedness, and serf-like graduate assistants who do the work of the pampered professoriate for little pay.  Like their fellow egghead in the White House, these feeders despise the bourgeoisie, are steeped in leftist cant, and want to destroy what is left of the market economy that funds their privileged positions.

 
It’s no surprise, then, to hear students sniveling and demonstrating about the unfairness of tuition increases at state colleges.  Because no one has told them where money comes from, and because they have grown up in a kleptomaniac nation, it doesn’t dawn on them that much of their education is paid in taxes by working stiffs who don’t attend college and who earn less then what they will earn after graduation.  Nor does it dawn on reporters, who also didn’t learn much in college, to ask the whining students about the fairness of this. 
 

One has to watch voyeuristic shows like “Judge Judy” or “Judge Joe Brown” instead of the mainstream news to know what many of the feeders are like.  Ironically, such shows are a big hit with the feeders themselves, probably because they know the truth.    
 

The nation was doomed to bankruptcy the first time that Americans--and thus government--justified the taking of money from some people for the benefit of other people, instead of for the true general welfare.  Such original sin, which took place before the Founders had died, set a precedent and led to convoluted court decisions and purposeful misreading of the Constitution to justify an endless succession of theft.   
 

Unless Americans stop all theft, the government will have no choice but to resort to the biggest theft of all times.  Unable to cut the federal debt by honest means, politicians will cut it dishonestly.  They will debase the dollar even more than they have already, relying on the burglary rings of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the rest of the banking cartel to do the stealing in the middle of the night, unseen by citizens and the media, who will be too distracted by gagas and wieners to notice.
 

In the meantime, stay out of the water and try to hide your ham and wiener.

“Mencken’s Ghost” is the nom de plume of an Arizona writer who can be reached at ghost@menckensghost.com.

The lamestream media told you:

Both parties want a solution to illegal immigration, but they have very different approaches.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The "news" conjecture that the parties want to end illegal immigration is patently false, since many on the political right, including many businesses, love illegal immigration because it supplies a wonderfully large pool of low-priced labor.

The left is more overt in their support of illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration:

-- Helps fundamentally transform America

-- Serves social justice goals

-- Is fair, because we stole the land, now must give it back, to be fair

-- These people struggled to get here, they ought to have a right to stay

-- How can you be heartless and deny them medical care

-- What about the innocent children who are victims of their parents' abuse

-- Some have served in the military and deserve rewards

-- Some have gone to college, at in-state rates, which helps the colleges

-- Oppressors have to face the music and this is it

-- Americans want non-government drugs, the migrants just supply demand

-- The drug and illigration wars provide job support for thousands of federal workers

-- Those workers support grocers, dry cleaners, car dealers, the entire economy

-- If illegals stop sending cash back to Mexico, it would collapse, and that would be a bad thing

-- Their brethren here support the migration, and they vote

-- The illegal immigrants also vote

-- Legals simply won't pick lettuce

-- Checkpoints help get the public used to unconstitutional police-state tactics for future programs

-- Militarization of the police advances all sorts of federal policies

-- Buckets of money flow into states from the feds for immigration programs, whether it works or not

-- Without constant fear your need for government decreases

-- All the immigration crises are good for advancing multiple agendas

-- If you can keep the Reps and Dems at each others' throats over this, the Bilberbergs and company benefit

-- Controversy helps sell newspapers, though that isn't working very well, is it.

The lamestream media told you:

Soda Causes Gun Carry

Researchers said on Tuesday they had found a "shocking" association -- if only a statistical one -- between violence by teenagers and the amount of soda they drank. High-school students in inner-city Boston who consumed more than five cans of non-diet, fizzy soft drinks every week were between nine- and 15-percent likelier to engage in an aggressive act compared with counterparts who drank less...

"What we found was that there was a strong relationship between how many soft drinks that these inner-city kids consumed and how violent they were," said David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. The new study was based in the inner Boston area, where Hemenway said crime rates were much higher than in the wealthier suburbs. [See Uninvited Ombudsman report and maps on the geographic, demographic and economic realities of violent crime, http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm]. The overwhelming majority of respondents were Hispanic, African-American or mixed; few were Asian or white.

They were also asked whether they drank alcohol or smoked, carried a weapon or showed violence towards peers, family members and partner. What emerged, said Hemenway, was evidence of "dose response," in other words, the more soda was consumed, the likelier the tendency towards violence. Among those who drank one or no cans of soft drink a week, 23 percent carried a gun or a knife; 15 percent perpetrated violence towards a partner; and 35 percent had been violent towards peers. At the other end of the scale, among those who drank 14 cans a week, 43 percent carried a gun or a knife; 27 percent had been violent towards a partner; and more than 58 percent had been violent towards peers.

"This is one of the very first studies to examine" the question, said Hemenway. The study, published in a British journal, Injury Prevention, will revive memories of the "Twinkie Defence," a US legal landmark in which a killer successfully argued that his behaviour had been swayed by eating junk food.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Gun Carry Causes Soda

In a laughable affront to good science, Harvard's David Hemenway, a widely reviled anti-civil-rights activist, has gathered data and drawn a conclusion that just happens to support his long-time anti-gun-rights political agenda, at the expense of turning research on its head.

Hemenway implies that drinking soda is connected to illegal gun possession by youth. Unfortunately for the man, he has found that young people likely to illegally carry weapons are prone to drinking soda. Drawing a conclusion the other way around, that soda turns kids bad, is unsupportable, but does advance his anti-rights agenda.

"'Coincidence is not causation,' is a bedrock of scientific inquiry," said one commentator familiar with Harvard. "To ignore this and conclude that soda causes bad behavior, instead of recognizing that kids with bad behavior drink soda, is preposterous." It is unknown whether the test group also drank milk as children, which Hemenway could use to draw other flawed conclusions. It is well known that virtually all U.S. felony prisoners drank milk (and ate bread!) when they were young, pointing out the absurdity of such conclusions.

So-called "science" on the subject of firearms is frequently distorted by "researchers" whose main goal is to "prove" guns are somehow bad. They have completely blocked out any realization that guns save lives, guns protect you, guns stop crime, guns are why America is still free, or that we as a society give guns to police and the military because guns have indispensable social utility.

Blind seething hatred, or mere untreated hoplophobia, is often the driver on such junk-science "studies." A case in point is ASU professor Fabricious (his real name), who, with his 12-year old son, concluded guns are used more often in crime than in self-defense, by counting newspaper stories in a now defunct tabloid called the Mesa Tribune. Though even a cursory check of morgue records showed that far more deaths occurred than any newspaper ever reports, their study, for a high school assignment, was published by a marginal "science" journal, which refused to reject the silly study when confronted with the facts. http://gunlaws.com/FabriciusCase.html

"If gun use was accurately reported, and these agenda-driven so-called studies were scientifically valid, America's perspective on the subject would be totally pro rights," The Uninvited Ombudsman notes. "It shows how damaging the 'news' media is to righteous debate and our rights at this point," he said.

The best studies show that guns are used in legitimate self defense 2.5 million times per year (the 13 best studies are contained in this book, Armed, by Kleck and Kates). The total number of annual "gun" deaths is only in the thousands, with about half of those suicides related to lack of medical care for the impoverished elderly, and most of the rest actually war deaths in the war on some drugs.

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing (NBC). Very little (ABC). Nothing lately (CBS).

FOX News presented a one-hour special that all but called the BATFE Fast and Furious gun-smuggling scheme the Watergate for Mr. Obama. Special segment host Sean Hannity directly associated Nixon's illegal activities with this drug-cartel gun-smuggling operation. Comments that, "We will never run any stories like that because it could hurt our beloved president," from the three networks, could not be confirmed.




The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

A full-color brochure produced by BATFE in March of 2009 at the start of the federal gun-smuggling operation has resurfaced, and seems to implicate BATFE in illegal operations. The brochure clearly outlines known criminal activity, which congressional testimony and other evidence has confirmed BATFE knew about and in fact ran for an extended period of time.

According to the information published by BATFE itself: "Firearm trafficking is the movement of firearms from the legal to the illegal marketplace. It is one of the most pressing problems in the firearms industry today... Firearms originating in the United states have been used to murder U.S. citizens and foreign officials... In response to the violence on the U.S.-Mexican border, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (BATFE) is committed to denying the tools of the trade to drug trafficking organizations..."

The brochure explicitly acknowledges that what BATFE was doing was strictly illegal, against established policy, and that BATFE was engaging in these specifically known and outlawed acts. BATFE facilitated "the movement of firearms from the legal to the illegal marketplace." BATFE knowingly did this, aware that, "Firearms originating in the United states have been used to murder U.S. citizens and foreign officials." BATFE countermanded their stated policy by supplying, instead of denying, "the tools of the trade to drug trafficking organizations."

The lamestream media told you:

Whatever you saw, read or heard about the "occupy" movement,
compare it to this eyewitness report from the Phoenix event on Oct. 15, 2011.

There is a very GUN connection here, read on --





Comparisons with the Tea Party fall apart when you notice the average age of attendees was mid 20s. Average age at Tea Party rallies is somewhere between bald and pacemaker. My impression was of a bunch of youthful middle-class people filled with angst, politically uneducated or naive but angry at something, looking for a way to vent their rage. Check out the cool neck tattoo on the guy on the left looking left.




Some of the people were creative, and more than a little nutty, without any clear philosophical grounding, out for a good time. Many of the signs were bizarre. It seemed as if many of the "occupy" people were imitating The Tea Party by making handmade signs, they just didn't have poignant things to say.

That's all folks!