Questions and Observations

Josh Kraushaar writes: “Mitch McConnell raised alarms about the grim political environment for Republicans last week. He had good reasons.”

Stephen Green remarks, “This year’s Senate election playing field is more heavily tiled towards the GOP than perhaps at any time in 35 years I’ve been watching politics. If they’re afraid of losing their majority under these conditions, they have no one to blame but themselves and their own shoddy record.”

No truer words were ever written.  If the Republicans lose the Senate in the midterms, it will be on a par with Hillary Clinton blowing a sure election.  And, frankly, they deserve to lose.  Other than the tax cut (which is now being over ridden by the self-imposed tariff “tax”), they’ve done absolutely nothing they promised and a whole bunch of what they said they were against.  Spending like drunken sailor on shore leave (and they at least quit spending when they run out of money), continuing to fund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, they’re gutless and incompetent and make one wonder how a Democrat could be much worse.  Of course they could, but you get the point.  Other than saying “I’m not a Democrat”, why do they deserve re-election?

If you were to listen exclusively to the media and the left (but I repeat myself), you’d never step out of your house because you’d be pretty sure you would be likely to be gunned down or otherwise murdered.  For the vast majority of us that’s just not the case – not even close.  Why?

Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders.

And, as you might imagine, a vast majority of them happen in urban areas.  Not to mention murders, like all crime, is down.  But hey, let’s take everyone’s gun anyway instead of, you know, addressing the real problem.  Then we can take knives (hell UK) next.  Then box cutters or can openers or, I know, baseball bats, golf clubs .. you don’t need those things!

For those who think a crackdown on weapons will lead to less violence, I’d suggest looking to the UK for guidance on that point:

Attacks by people throwing acid at their victims has tripled in the past three years in Britain, stoking fears that almost anyone can be the victim — from a moped rider to the city banker or politician.

The alarming rise comes amid a clampdown on weapons and fears of a frightening new crime fad involving teenage motorbike thieves using corrosive substances, in part because they are relatively easy to obtain.

So it isn’t the weapon that causes the violence?!

“Heresy!”, shout the high priests of the left’s secular religion.  As is obvious to every thinking person, faith, not facts, drive their agenda.

What a wonderful world …

~McQ

We accept the fact that the right to free speech has the caveat that one can’t use that right to incite violence.  Obviously rights have limits, even inherent ones. However, when it comes to the right of self-defense, that seems to be viewed differently, at least as it applies to the Second Amendment.

That caveat in the 2nd Amendment is you cannot use your right to keep and bear arms, ostensibly for self-defense, to murder others.  It violates the key responsibility any right requires – that you not use your right to violate the rights of others.

And, of course, it is that violation of rights that is the problem, not the instrument of the violation.

Think of it this way: if the argument of guns was applied to the violations of freedom of speech, there would be demand that access to digital mass media, that allows the violators to spread inciteful language around the globe, be curtailed for all.  Or better yet, unplug the internet, because we all know it can and is used to host those who do that sort of incitement.

That’ll fix it, won’t it?  I mean if removing an instrument used in mass violations of the rights of others under the 2nd Amendment (namely guns) will stop these violations and make everyone safer, doesn’t the same logic dictate the removal of the instrument of mass violations of the rights of others under the 1st Amendment?

According to the “repeal the 2nd Amendment” crew’s logic, those sorts of bans will end all these mass violations of rights, won’t they?  We can be assured that by taking things away from everyone, no one will use them improperly.

Of course, we all know the reaction you’d get from the population at large if you ever broached the subject of unplugging the internet for reasons of “safety”, don’t we?  And we’d certainly hear protests from the same people ready to take your guns.  In fact, we have.

All of this to say there is no real logic to the argument of those who would take our guns and ban us from ever owning anymore.  They are more than will to infringe on a right that the Constitution flatly states will “not be infringed”.  It’s all about emotion and when emotion is the key driver in any movement, logic and thinking take a back seat if they’re able to find a seat at all.

Right now, emotionalism rules, aided and abetted by an agenda driven press/media which appears no better in the presentation of facts of gun murders than do those would ban them.  In fact it seems to many of us that they’re acting in concert, which tells you how much you should trust any media outlet playing fast and loose with the truth.  But we’ve know that for a long time as well.

Their problem comes when they push their “argument” on a much less emotional public who is still capable of doing a little thinking and recognize the enormous flaw in their claims. It is one of the reasons that to this day, the movement has very little traction.  Because the majority recognize that this isn’t about safety – if it was their “logic” would be applied to all Constitutionally protected rights – but about having their way.  Control.  Telling you how they prefer you live.  Telling you what you can have and what you can’t.  Power.

That’s why they desperately and quickly politicize situations like the Florida school shooting. Its why they lie about the number of school shootings.  It’s why they’ve formulated the exploitation of this unseemly “children’s crusade”.  Because their only weapon is emotion and they must stoke that emotion enough that they can push our legislators to legislate in haste and make very bad law.

You can see this tactic at work through out history in every totalitarian regime that’s ever exited on earth.  In this case, it’s applied to guns.  That certainly won’t be the last thing these people go after if they’re ever successful in taking them.

~McQ

I’m sure most people have realized that there is really only one party in this country – the “Government party”.  Republicans and Democrats are just two factions fighting for control of the party (and us) and the ability to spend our money the way each side wants too.

Neither faction seems at all interested in smaller and less intrusive and expensive government, regardless of the lip service one side gives it.

So finally the pretense is over and the left feels comfortable in a full throated demand to repeal the Second Amendment because … guns.  Former Justice Stevens moved the goal posts.  And even on our little QandO facebook page, it was a sentiment of which a few trolls clearly approved and had no reticence in claiming for their own.  I’m sure you’ve seen the video of the candidate for Sheriff in some town clearly expressing his opinion that it would be fine if they took guns from the “cold, dead hands” of gun owners.  Apparently it’s no problem for him to use the force of government to confiscate the property of others, even if he has to kill them to do it.  Is this what the left wants?

Despite the denials, this is a sea-change in the left’s argument.  In the past, they’ve fully denied wanting to take guns from responsible gun owners or repeal the 2nd Amendment.  It’s all been about “common sense gun laws”.  However that hasn’t played well because the laws they continue to call for are already on the books. The agency that is letting them down is the government, who either doesn’t report information as required by law or doesn’t enforce the “common sense gun laws.”

Government, as anyone who has even casually been observing the fiasco in Washington DC these past few months involving the FBI and other intelligence organizations, not to mention the FISA court, can’t be trusted to act in your best interest.  And government, as was proven without a shadow of a doubt in the Parkland shooting, is inept at many levels and not capable (or seemingly willing) to protect you.

And the fools on the left now want to ensure you can’t protect yourself.

So we had the “March for Our Lives” in DC recently.  If ever there was an astroturfed event, that was it.

Apparently the organizers wanted 800,000 plus and that’s what they reported.  It appears, based on many other reports, that about 200,000 showed up.

And the media and the real organizers touted it as a “student led and student organized” rally.

Yeah, not really.  In fact, only 10% of that group was under 18.  10%.  When you take them out of the count, the average age for the rest of the crowd was … 49.  Or, said another way, the usual suspects ruthlessly exploited these kids to advance their agenda.  The kids were the “veneer” who were given “absolute moral authority” on the subject by this crew (unless you were a kid on the other side of the debate and then not so much – same school, different opinion, ignored by media and march organizers).  Underneath the veneer were the same old particle board crap arguments.

If you don’t believe it was the usual bunch, look at what this researcher who polled the crowd found out:

But unsurprisingly, it was still a very liberal crowd: 79 percent identified as “left-leaning” and 89 percent reported voting for Hillary Clinton.

Imagine that.

What will now be interesting to watch is the “politics” of this thing.  Will the Democrats be encouraged to adopt the new position of outright calls for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment?  Certainly those in safe seats may.  And that will only put more pressure on those with a “D” by their name who wont. Are they willing to run on that in the upcoming midterms?

On the other side, how craven will the GOP become?  Will they cave to pressure to pass legislation to violate the inherent right we all have for self-protection?  Never have I seen a bunch so eager for the approval of people who will never vote for them anyway.

Again, the 2nd Amendment doesn’t grant a right.  It simply protects a pre-existing and inherent right – that of self-defense.  Anything granted by government isn’t a right.  It’s a privilege.  And as with all privileges it can rescind it at its whim.  The point of course the left misses entirely is that whether or not they repeal the 2nd Amendment, my right to self-defense and the means to accomplish that don’t go away.

That’s the flash point.

Repealing the 2nd would be a very long and arduous process that likely won’t happen (2/3 of House and Senate and 35 states approving to get it done).  But now, at least, we know what the ultimate goal of these people is.  And it isn’t your rights or safety.  It’s control.

~McQ

If you’ve wondered why there is such an “anti-establishment” movement within the voting public, Matt Welch nails it:

It’s long since past time to recognize a glaring truth about two-party politics in 2018: In both effective practice and, increasingly, aspirational rhetoric, there are no significant Republican or Democratic voting blocs on Capitol Hill in favor of reducing deficits, restraining government growth, tackling entitlements, protecting privacy, defending free speech, practicing transparency, challenging prohibition, conducting legislative-branch oversight, passing damn budgets, reducing war, or extending the post-World War II America-led system of reducing global tariffs in the name of both prosperity and peace.

These are among the most important issues facing the country, and the two major parties are currently awful on all of them.

Our political class sucks … on both sides.  The perfect example of that, of course, is the spending bill Trump just signed.  Now someone, anyone, tell me how the GOP practiced what they preach by allowing that to go forward to his desk.  And, for the life of me, I don’t see why Trump signed it and then claimed to have been “forced” to do so for “national security” reasons.  If that’s the case then there’s never a budget busting bill he won’t sign, is there?

Additionally, politically, this was a win for him if he vetoed it.  He would have at least then lived up to some of his promises and claims.  And he’d have put it back in the lap of a GOP Congress which hasn’t done any of the things it claims it is there to do.  The fact that it was passed with a veto-proof majority again takes it off Trump’s table and puts it squarely on the Congressional GOP who now would have to override a presidential veto to do what’s in that awful bill.

But he didn’t.  He caved.  He folded.  He gave in.

I’d like to say I’m surprised.  But to be frank, I’m not.

In fact, lots of things now coming out of the Trump Whitehouse that have his base grumbling even more aren’t particularly surprising.

We are currently served by the worst of the worst and it is evident daily.  Not just on the right, but the left as well.  And the biggest problem is, dear citizen, is we’re complicit in their rise to power and their staying in power.  If not for us, they aren’t in DC.  Nor would they stay in DC.

But there they are, huh?

~McQ

You’ve heard all the arguments and how they’re structured when it comes to gun banning.  The left would like to convince you that if you just let them get rid of guns (knowing full well the only people that would be deprived of guns are the law abiding) that this “gun violence problem” would go away.  That apparently we’ll all live in peace and harmony because, well, guns will be gone.  It is guns, you see, which spark all of this violence.  Without them, why we wouldn’t harm a fly.

It reminds me of the same reasoning that the Brits went though to justify their incredibly strict gun laws.  And that further reminded me of an article I tucked away that is from 2005 when knives suddenly were the problem.    Again, you’ll recognize the argument (think “assault” knives).  This is now a movement in the UK – banning knives, because … well, that gun ban thing just didn’t change much, did it?  Anyway, this is my favorite quote from the BBC article:

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

So researchers have determined there is “no reason” for “long pointed knives” to be available to the public.  Really?  “No reason …”.  Don’t you love it when some anonymous body of people decide what does or doesn’t have a reason for you to own or possess? What was the criteria by which these “researchers” came to this conclusion?  Or, as usual, was this “research” to reach an already foregone conclusion.  My guess is that’s the case.

Check out the next line – knives are for the kitchen and if “10 top chefs” can’t find a use for it in the kitchen, well, then, ban it.  Reminds me of “hey, you don’t need a 10 round magazine to go hunting.”  Really?  Why is that?  Or “the AR-15 isn’t a hunting rifle”.  OK.  So what?  That’s not the only reason firearms exist, is it?

And kitchens aren’t the only reason knives exist, are they?

The point, of course, is the gun ban isn’t really about guns.  It’s about power and control as the people in the UK are now finding out as the state tries to take their knives away.  It’s all about reducing citizens to docile little proles after they take way any means of protection and defense.  When the only means of “protection” belongs to the state.

Hey, at least they have “researchers” leading their power grab.

We have 16 year olds.

~McQ

We talked about the PA Congressional race that went to Democrat Conor Lamb during the podcast.  Essentially the fact that he won had more to do with him knowing his district better than his foe and his campaign manager not succumbing to the advice and pressure of the DCCC to run her candidate a certain way … a way, one would guess, that would have managed to turn a very slim win into a sizeable loss.  He, and she, knew their district and ran their campaign based on that.  The establishment candidate didn’t.  More importantly, Lamb and Murphy ignored the Democratic establishment:

“One of the biggest advantages Conor Lamb had in his victory last week in the special election for Western Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District was that his campaign manager lived in his district. Abby Nassif Murphy did not have an office at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; she did not hold daily meetings with fellow Democrats in the Beltway who, on average, are fairly progressive both culturally and politically. She understood the heartbeat of the district not because of polls and data, but because she spends the bulk of her time carting her sons to and from their activities. Untethered from the pressures of Washington consultants, agenda items, and resistance talking points, she was able to respond to what she saw the community wanted.”

I know I keep harping on the anti-establishment feelings of the majority of voters – and not just against one party either.  But each time I look at an election, I still see it’s prevalence in the final winner’s resume.  Neither party, to this point, seems to have figured that out (although I’ve seen some lip service given the idea, nothing of note has changed in the way they approach elections).  PA was no different.

We mentioned that it “was about time” someone was held responsible for something – anything – in government.  McCabe’s firing, however little it really ends up impacting his retirement, is a good start.  It helps send a message that accountability is back and being applied.  That “business as usual with no consequences” has ended.

And the FBI?

“Humphries said McCabe’s firing was good for the organization because it is important for top officials to be held accountable for the same transgressions agents like him are. The McCabe firing is fitting, Humphries says, for a man accused of lack of candor about media contacts whose office launched an investigation into him talking to a newspaper.”

Indeed.

Your government at work.  Protecting your identity and protecting your money … not!

A sympathetic media rarely reports on the negative impact illegal immigration has on the United States, to include criminal behavior, but is the U.S. government doing its part to stop the crime?

The Internal Revenue Service may not be, according to a CNS News investigation.

The online news outlet reported that in a five year period, 2011 through 2016, more than 1.3 million cases of identity theft were documented by the IRS involving illegal aliens who had been issued Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers.

[snip]

When asked by CNS News how many of the 1.3 million documented cases had been referred for criminal prosecution, the agency couldn’t say if it had referred even one of these cases.

Think that’s  bad … as they like to say in those insane cable commercials, “but wait, there’s more”!

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), which oversees the IRS, discovered approximately 1.2 million cases in 2017 alone of an illegal alien working in the U.S. who had filed a tax return reporting wages earned while using a Social Security Number that belonged to someone else or was fabricated, CNS News reported.

Again, the IRS also could not say whether it referred any of these cases for criminal prosecution.

The IRS is a leaderless, rudderless entity that has been politicized and is basically unaccountable.  Time to apply a little of the lesson the FBI just learned to this wretched bureaucracy.

The big split?  Interesting:

The Women’s March — a civil-rights group at the center of protests against the Trump presidency — is losing top staffers and supporters over its leadership’s refusal to denounce a racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic rant by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

The latest to jump ship is high-profile staffer Alyssa Klein, who quit last week as the group’s social-media director.

Klein called Farrakhan “a dangerous troll,” and tweeted on March 5 that Women’s March leaders are “turning a blind eye to the hate spoken about a group of people.”

Regional branches in Canada, Florida and Washington, DC, have condemned the leadership’s unwillingness to speak out against Farrakhan.

And Planned Parenthood, the movement’s most prominent sponsor, dumped Women’s March Co-president Tamika Mallory as a keynote speaker at a luncheon next month.

If you’re in denial that Louis Farrakhan is a racist, anti-semite and homophobe, then you either haven’t been paying attention or you don’t care and it’s all just fine with you.

The left – hypocrisy or principle?

We’ll see.

~McQ