So, can we call it tyranny yet?

Actually, I know that as long as people are relatively comfortable, well fed and entertained, we won’t be seeing the bulk of Americans taking to the streets in protest, but damn…what do they have to do for us to just acknowledge that our government has become tyrannical?

As previously discussed, they blatantly stole a presidential election and possibly many congressional and senate elections as well; they are purging the military of anyone who doesn’t support the party line; they are redefining anyone who doesn’t support the leftist agenda as “domestic extremists” while enabling those who support their agenda to burn and loot and disrupt society at will; they’re freeing criminals, reducing sentences, eliminating bail and defunding police while insisting that the law abiding should not have the means of self defense; for going on two years now they’ve been setting nonsensical and arbitrary rules on where we can go, what businesses can be open, and how we must conduct ourselves in public over a virus with a 98+% survival rate.

The latest and greatest, the intelligence branch of the shadow government (you don’t really think a barely functional puppet like Biden is actually in charge do you?) is officially circumventing the fourth amendment by enlisting the aid of more than willing private businesses to assist them in ferreting out dissenting opinions.

Paypal just announced that they are now expanding their efforts and partnering with the ADL to remove the ability of organizations they don’t approve of to raise, save or spend money under the guise if “anti-hate” and “anti-white supremacy” and “anti-racist”. The problem is that for years the ADL’s just been arbitrarily declaring any group that doesn’t support their leftist agenda as a “hate group” or “racist” or “white supremacist”. Even as benign a group as the Patriot Guard Riders as made the lists of “racist” groups. Anyone who knows the history and purpose of the PGR knows that is complete and utter BS. I closed my account with Paypal years ago because of their anti-gun policies, but they’re now declaring financial war on any groups that they politically disagree with.

And state and federal government agencies are now beginning to mandate their employees accept a relatively new medical treatment that has still only received emergency authorization from the FDA.

Earlier today New York City Mayor De Blasio announced mandated vaccinations for all 340,000 city employees.

Hours later Joe Biden announced mandatory vaccinations for all 115,000 front-line employees of The Veterans Affairs department.

Immediately thereafter, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced all state employees and healthcare providers will be forced to vaccinate. None of these events are disconnected.

And this is in the face of serious concerns about the long term effects of these “vaccines” on the recipients.

If the above incidents as well as many others I’ve not bothered to mention here, don’t constitute Tyranny, then nothing does.

Put a fork in the American ideal of liberty…it’s done.

Share

NICS sleight of hand

Pretty much every year, the anti-gun lobby crows about how many firearms sales were denied due to rejected NICS checks.

Evidently last year, there were a record number of denials (conveniently commensurate with the record number of checks conducted) so of course they’ve got to make hay about it.  From “Everytown for Gun Safety Banning” (no link from me):

According to FBI data obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests made by Everytown for Gun Safety, the background check system blocked over 300,000 illegal firearm salesin 2020 — 42% of those to people with felony convictions. This represents the highest number of annual denials ever and almost double the nearly 169,000 denials reported by the FBI in 2019.

Of course, they use this claim to try to push for more restrictions…but doesn’t that mean the system as it exists is working? It’s denying all those criminals access to guns isn’t it?

What’s more, when they filled out the ATF Form 4473 to buy the gun, they had to have lied on the form because it specifically asks if any of the disqualifying factors are true before the gun retailer ever submits the information to NICS. So, the 300k criminals who tried to buy guns and were denied last year have all committed federal felonies, so they’re now off the street and no longer a threat to society, right?

Well…not so fast.

The most current analysis I could find was from 2017. In that year, there were 112k denials. Of those the ATF only investigated less than 13k. How many prosecutions were brought you may ask?

12.

Twelve.

two more than ten.

That’s a prosecution rate of .0107 percent. And that’s an improvement over past years.

I don’t even know how many of those resulted in a conviction, but the odds are the conviction rate was even smaller than that.

I’m wondering…why should we continue to pass ever more restrictive federal laws if they aren’t going to be enforced anyway? What’s the point?

Rhetorical question. They know that the laws only affect the law abiding. What they’re trying to do is make it more difficult for the law abiding to buy guns. The law abiding follow the laws (by definition) so it doesn’t matter whether the laws are actually enforced or not, the group they are targeting for disarmament will, in fact, be disarmed.

The leftists that support gun control are also absolutely aghast any time those poor misunderstood criminals are punished for breaking the laws that they pass so it’s obvious they don’t care if those laws are followed by criminals, they only care about laws to deter the law abiding.

Why? Because gun control isn’t about crime. Gun control isn’t even about guns. Gun control is about control. They can arrest and control (incarcerate) criminals any time they want. To control the law abiding, they have to find more creative means to either make them criminals, or to restrict their ability to resist.

Failing to actually enforce the laws that they pass is a feature, not a bug, of their policies.

Share

Captain Obvious strikes again

The Economist tells us something that we should already understand:

It makes the point that hunters and their money pays for conservation, provides meat to local communities, and provides an economic incentive to stop poaching and overgrazing.

It is a sad statement on our educational system that so many people are so oblivious to common sense principles of basic economics and human nature.

Let’s see: I’m really poor. Starving and living in a mud hut poor. There is a highly desirable resource nearby that I can harvest and sell for lots of money…money that I NEED to feed, shelter and clothe my family.

Everyone keeps telling me that I can’t harvest that resource because it’s endangered, but if I do nothing, my family is going to go hungry…what do I do? I harvest the resource in secret with no plan to replenish it and take my chances.

And then everyone wonders why the resource is dwindling.

What happens if the “powers that be” make harvesting the resource legal and allow us to charge lots of money for the privilege? Rich people come from all around, pay us lots of money to guide them and feed them and house them and manage their hunts and, as a result, there is a huge incentive for us to manage the resource carefully so it lasts for future harvests.

And, as if by magic, the resource begins to rebound and is no longer declining in numbers.

Wonder how that could have possibly happened?

This is not a slam on the blog I linked to which was my source for the story, I’m sure they understand these principles as well as I do and were only trying to draw attention to them. My issue is with the seemingly endless supply of do-gooders who can’t grok basic common sense concepts about how the world really works and so continue to do untold damage.

It reminds me of a line from the lyrics of an old Johnathan Edwards song “Sunshine”:

“He can’t run his own life, I’ll be damned if he’ll run mine”

They have no idea how the world works but they think they should be able to tell everyone how to run it. Even when their methods are proven not to work, and other “unapproved” methods reach the result they’ve been claiming to want all along, they’ll gnash their teeth and rend their clothes that we’re not following their demonstrably ineffectual mandates.

The interesting thing about the left is that, even though they claim to be all about outcomes, they don’t seem to care very much when their policies don’t result in the outcomes they claim to want. And when policies espoused by the right (or, really anyone other than themselves) prove to work better, they still rail against and oppose them.

Because they aren’t really concerned about outcomes. In fact, they’d prefer if the problems they rail against are never resolved, because the existence of the problem can be leveraged into control…and that’s what it’s really about.

Share

Good Neighbors

I started to leave this as a comment on a blog I read regularly, but it got too long so I decided to move it over here.

Here’s the blog post I was commenting on:

So we have a black locksmith changing a lock.

Someone, presumably a neighbor, called the police to report a person fucking with the lock.

The police arrive.

TikTok ensues.

The replies are full of people hating on the police and the neighbors who called in the complaint.

Read the whole thing.

I’m with J. KB:  Were I the homeowner, I’d be happy and thankful that my neighbors were looking out for my house and called the police to report something suspicious, and I don’t really care that the contractor got all butthurt about it, regardless of his race.

My guess is that this is a rental property between tenants. The neighbors probably didn’t even know the landlord to be able to call them about the suspicious activity, so they did what they could.

“But they were working on the front locks in full view in broad daylight”. OK…and? Most break ins in the US occur during the day. That’s when the house is most likely to be empty…and they certainly don’t want to break in when someone’s home, that’s a good way to get shot (incidentally, in Europe, it’s much more common for break-ins to occur when someone’s home…I wonder why?).

Reminds me of a time long, long ago while I was in the Navy. I was a young E-5…didn’t make a lot and had a family to provide for. We were stationed in Millington, TN and when we first got there, got an apartment in North Memphis in a “predominantly black” neighborhood. When I say predominantly, black, what I mean is that we were the only white family in our apartment building and for all I know, in the entire complex. We never had a problem the whole time we lived there other than some minor noise disputes between our downstairs neighbors and us that were resolved amicably.

But one day shortly after I got home from work, one of the other neighbors in the building came knocking at the door. He was basically “canvassing” the building (why the police weren’t doing it, I don’t know) asking everyone if they’d seen anything that day.

It seems that during the day, in broad daylight, some criminals had backed a U-haul up to his apartment door, broken in and cleaned him out of anything remotely of value.

The few people who were around that saw it thought nothing of it…just another resident moving out.

Apparently that was a common MO in that area at the time. They’d case an apartment complex, find an apartment on the first floor where the resident drove a decent car, dressed nicely and was gone during the day, pull up in a truck one day, act confident like they were supposed to be there and clean the place out.

As far as I know they never got caught.

At any rate, the point is that brazenly doing things in full view in broad daylight doesn’t necessarily mean it’s legitimate and the neighbors were right to report it. If they were my neighbors, I’d be hosting a barbeque for them in thanks.

As far as the police response, I’d have to agree that it was a bit excessive, but the cops did seem to be handling it pretty calmly. No one was screaming at the “suspects” or tackling them to the ground.

Part of the problem in these interactions is the chip on the shoulder that many black people have about police interactions.  When I get stopped or approached by a cop, I assume they’re just trying to do their job and respond accordingly.  I am professional, polite and cooperate in every way I’m legally required to.

Almost every time I see one of these videos, it starts out with the black “suspects” getting all belligerent about the interaction.  The common theme is that the only reason the cops are bothering them is because they’re black.

In this situation, that probably isn’t far off the mark, but the fact is race is a factor in crime…it just is. Pretending that isn’t the case doesn’t change the reality.  Blacks commit crimes in this country way out of proportion to their percentage of the population, that fact is not seriously disputed by anyone on either side of the debate.  Whether they want to admit it or not, young(ish) black men appearing to be breaking into a home…especially in a majority white neighborhood…is suspicious and warrants investigation.

Not necessarily investigation with 6 cops storming the area with tactical rifles up, but you also have to consider what information the cops had to work from.  Most likely, all they knew was that they’d received a report of a burglary in progress.  No idea what city this is, but it’s possible this is the most excitement they’ve had there in months, so everyone wanted to be involved, hence the overwhelming response to such an apparently minor incident.

At any rate, as I said, I’m completely with J. KB on this:  This is the type of public reaction that makes people think twice about getting involved, being good neighbors and trying to protect their neighborhoods; this is the type of thing that ends up enabling crime and making us all less safe.

But, of course, making us less safe is all just part and parcel of the “It’s a feature, not a bug” theme.

 

Share

State with some of the strictest gun control laws, don’t want them enforced

In the latest entry to the “It’s a feature, not a bug” category, we present California’s new initiative to reduce the punishment for gun crimes.

In what has been called an effort to curb disproportionate law enforcement for communities of color, a bill is making its way through the CA state assembly that would drastically reduce the length of sentences for gun-related crimes.

The cover is “anti-racism” because blacks and Hispanics commit most gun crimes and, therefore, “suffer” the most with long prison sentences.

But are they really that stupid? They pass laws to make criminals of the law abiding for simply exercising a constitutionally protected right, but then they decide to let actual criminals, who commit violence with guns, back out onto the street and they’re really too obtuse to determine that it will result in increased crime?

Sorry, not buying that. People too mentally handicapped to grasp this basic “cause-effect” relationship would need a keeper to prevent them from harming themselves while operating a can opener. These are people with at least sufficient mental acuity to run an election campaign (of course, Maxine Waters might be cited as prima facia evidence that this is no great achievement, so there’s that in their defense).

No, I think they know full well what the result of this is going to be: criminals back out on the streets doing the things that criminals do: causing murder and mayhem. Why would they want that? As I’ve explained many times before, a safe, secure and economically stable people do not willingly give up their liberty. To get people to willingly surrender their liberty, you must make them unsafe, insecure and economically unstable.

Let the criminals roam free while eliminating the ability of the law abiding to defend themselves. What better way to instill fear in the populace?

The left doesn’t care that they’re destroying the country and destroying the lives of millions of people, they only care that they’re the ones holding the power when the dust settles after it all comes crashing down.

Share

It’s a feature, not a bug

Unexpected job numbers:

Economic forecasters had predicted one million job gains in April. The actual results are “stunningly” and “unexpectedly” far below the expectations.

I refuse to believe that the people who come up with the policies that lead to results like these don’t know exactly what they’re doing.

You cannot tell me that educated, intelligent people can make it all the way to late adulthood without having picked up the slightest bit of common sense or grasped even the most basic tenets of human nature. They know exactly what they’re doing. Destroying the economy is a feature, not a bug.

You cannot convince a safe, secure, economically stable people to cede their liberty voluntarily. And as long as the American people are properly armed, they have no chance to take it by force. Therefore, they must ensure that the people are NOT safe, secure and economically stable. They must engender as much fear and dependency as possible, then the people will cry out to them for salvation and, in return will offer up their liberty without a fight.

By the way, I’m so old, I can remember back before the pandemic, when the Trump economy was going gangbusters, and every jobs and economic growth report that came out was always “unexpectedly” better than anticipated. I just have to wonder if the media really is stupid enough to just eat up whatever they’re spoonfed by their masters on the left, or if the whole “unexpected” thing is just a part of the ploy. I don’t see what’s gained by predicting things that don’t happen, but I’m not in the habit of planning out a people’s downfall, so there may be some element I’m not thinking of.

Share

Chauvin Trial

I’ve been following the trial of Derek Chauvin vicariously through Andrew Branca’s posts on Legal Insurrection.

The prosecution is wrapping up their “case” and the defense should start with theirs today or tomorrow. The Judge is apparently expecting closing arguments and deliberation to begin on Monday.

Having followed the “case” of the prosecution, and without even having heard anything but cross examination from the defense, I am convinced at this point that if there is a guilty verdict it is a political one not a legal one. Remember, the standard is “reasonable doubt”. If there is a reasonable doubt that the person accused didn’t commit the crime, they are to be found not guilty. In my humble opinion, the prosecution’s case left huge amorphous blobs of reasonable doubt laying around.

In my opinion, if the jury finds Chauvin guilty of anything, it will be as a result of the jury’s fear of repercussions both in the form of riots in major cities, and the potential of them individually being doxxed and their lives being ruined, if not taken outright.

I’d say the most likely outcome is going to be a hung jury mistrial and we’ll have to do this all over again. I think this will happen because there will be at least one juror willing to stand up for what’s right and say “reasonable doubt exists and Chauvin should be acquitted”, and there will be at least one juror who is fearful enough to demand a guilty verdict even though the evidence doesn’t support it. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the jury does, if those two sides stick to their guns…hung jury.

I also have no doubt that the hung jury announcement will result in violence and riots and will make it even more difficult for Chauvin to achieve a fair trial in the next go-round…partially because, thanks to the media, the rioting crowd will find it inconceivable that anyone would fail to convict Chauvin…it’s GOT to be racist because he’s so obviously guilty right?

Legal Insurrection is also on top of that aspect of the story.

What I can say with confidence is that as with the George Zimmerman trial, the public is being misinformed by the mainstream media that this is an open-and-shut case, and if Chauvin is found not guilty it’s because of systemic racism in society and the judicial system.

So, that’s my prediction: There will be a hung jury in spite of the fact that the evidence does not support a conviction, the media will portray it, and the BLM crowd will react to it, as a huge miscarriage of justice and cities will burn. Again. Then we’ll queue up for a new trial in which it will be even more difficult to find an unbiased jury who will reach a verdict based on the evidence and not on fear and we may end up with another mistrial. Rinse, lather and repeat until the prosecution finally is able to seat a jury who will unanimously vote to avert the riots and Chauvin will be convicted.

Being a prediction, I obviously could be almost correct, or even wildly wrong, but any way you cut it, Chauvin’s life as a productive, happy citizen is over. Even if he’s acquitted, he’s going to be bankrupt, he’ll never be able to work again in any capacity, he’ll be hounded by the media and unable to go out in public likely for decades, etc.

All for following published, established Minneapolis Police procedure in doing the job he was tasked to do.

What rational person would want to be a cop in this environment? What a wonderful career: risk your very life on a daily basis to serve the public, while working terrible hours, dealing with the worst society has to offer, for marginal pay and as a reward, you’ll have the opportunity to win worldwide vilification, the ruin of your life and the possibility of a long prison term as a result of doing the very job they pay you to do.

Sign me up.

People think this is going to make policing better? In what alternate reality do you work very hard to convince every rational human being that “cop” is not a desirable profession and yet get high quality, dedicated candidates to apply?

It’s a feature, not a bug. That’s the only rational conclusion.

If it weren’t for the fact that I have to live here too (not in Minneapolis, but in a relatively liberal city in a relatively liberal state), I’d almost be rooting for these idiots to get what they’re wishing for. In fact, when the purchase of my secret remote hideout is finalized and I’ve had some time to get it prepped for emergency evac, my incentive to root against their success will be greatly reduced. It would be entertaining in a “horrifying train crash” sort of way to watch from a safe distance as they try to live in the dystopian nightmare that seems to be their heart’s desire.

Share

Responding to a comment on the last post

In response to my last “It’s a feature – not a bug” post, Robert said:

Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have gotten a lot of grief from the black community over their use of the words “super predators” which is a law enforcement concept dating to the Clinton administration, and refers to a small number of offenders who commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes and property crimes, and that, by locking them up, the overall crime rate is affected in an equally disproportionate manner. Blacks purposely misconstrue “super predators” to refer to black offenders only and use it as a bludgeon to deter politicians from writing laws that put more black men behind bars, deserving or no.

I started this as a reply on that post, but it quickly became a full-blown rant and post-worthy on it’s own so I decided to move it to the main page.

Yes, that was before the democrat party went full leftist and still had some centrist positions.

Of course Bill and Hillary were and are purely political animals, they would have taken any position they needed to in order to get elected, but at the time, crime rates were high and society was getting pretty sick of it, so they took the “tough on crime” tack.

It’s almost funny because part of the reason they even came up with the term “Super Predators” was an attempt to downplay the fact that the crime rate among blacks is significantly higher than any other demographic group in the US. They were basically saying “yes, it’s true that blacks commit a disproportionate number of the crimes in this country, but it’s not ALL blacks, it’s just a few of these ‘super predators’ that commit most of the crimes and give the black community a bad name.”

At the time, that was a popular sentiment even amongst blacks. But in this day and age where everything you say is taken out of context and applied in ways it was never intended to be so, it’s a major scandal that they would have said such terrible things.

Of course, that’s part of the leftist’s game plan as well and it’s still all about engendering fear in the populace. That’s pretty much what it all boils down to: generating fear. They claim to want “diversity” but what they really want is everyone concentrating on things like race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc to the point where society is stratified along those lines. They’ve pretty much succeeded in that stratification and now they’re pitting those groups against each other. Women against men, blacks against whites, hispanics against blacks, blacks against asians, everyone against jews, straights against gays, transgenders against lesbians, etc etc etc etc….it never ends. They foment hatred amongst the groups and hatred breeds fear.

Look at what’s going on with the Asian attacks. It’s leftists and blacks that are attacking Asians…look where those attacks are happening: not in Mayberry. But the leftist media is blaming “white supremacists” even though they’ve had nothing to do with it. Stoking anger, fomenting hatred, engendering fear. That’s what they do because that’s how they seize and maintain power.

And then, ironically, they project all those tactics and traits onto the right.

Share

As I’ve said many times before…

It’s a feature, not a bug:

While anti-gun politicians are clamoring for new gun control legislation, a case out of New York City is proving to be the latest example of lack of enforcement when it comes to laws that are already on the books. 19-year old Raquan Wilson was back in court on Monday on yet another gun-related charge after police discovered a loaded handgun in a bag on the floor of an Uber where Wilson was a passenger.

As the New York Post reports, Wilson already has five open gun-related cases against him, including an armed robbery charge, but none of those cases resulted in Wilson heading to jail.

The left rules by fear. You cannot convince a secure, safe, prosperous people to voluntarily surrender their liberty. Therefore, you must create fear. There are examples of how this is done, global warming alarmism, abject terror of a virus with a 98+ percent survivability rate, elevating isolated incidents of police misconduct (and even, in some case, perfectly acceptable conduct) into a national crisis.

This is just one more in the same vein: Keep violent criminals out in society where they can create mayhem and fear, while at the same time working to restrict the ability of the law abiding to defend against them.

I’m starting a new category for this type of post.

Share

It’s not about crime

Another entry in defining the left.

Democrats this week:
– Voted FOR stripping gun rights from law-abiding citizens
– Voted AGAINST requiring ICE to be notified if an illegal immigrant tries to buy a gun

As I’ve mentioned before, they constantly do things that don’t seem to make sense, but make perfect sense when you understand their goal is to destabilize society, engender fear and force the general public into dependency.

Their gun law proposals aren’t about reducing crime. They CLAIM that gun control is about reducing crime, but that’s a lie. If they were really about reducing crime would they also support releasing convicted criminals early? Reduced or eliminated bail? Wouldn’t they be more up in arms about the 40% reduction in prosecution for violation of existing gun laws that happened under Obama?

No, gun laws are not a method of reducing crime…criminals ignore those laws and are not punished for it…they are a method of controlling the law abiding. Of preventing law abiding citizens from the ability to defend themselves and their families both against criminals and against a criminal government.

Why? Because citizens who are secure, capable and equipped to defend themselves are self-reliant and confident. They don’t need the government to take care of them. They aren’t dependent. The left NEEDS people to be dependent on the government; that’s how they exercise control. So, make them insecure and dependent: take away their ability to defend themselves. Encourage violent criminals to continue terrorizing their communities. Keep the criminals out of jail and on the streets where they can do the most harm. Prevent the deportation of illegal aliens who are gang members and criminals.

There are symptoms of this in other areas of life as well, but the place that I think it’s the most stark is their blatant and seemingly contradictory stances regarding lenient treatment of criminals while simultaneously eliminating the right of citizens to defend themselves against those criminals.

As I said, it only seems contradictory when you don’t understand what the left is about.

Gun control is not about crime. It’s not even about guns. It’s about control.

Share