Can I say something else about guns?

I don't want to beat this one to death, but there are some things about guns I think need to be said.

First of all, even though every time there is a mass shooting in America a call automatically goes out questioning whether or not we need more gun control. But first everyone should look at the facts before pushing the automatic knee jerk buttons.

Gun violence in America has declined sharply in the US in the last 30 years. In 1980 there were 10.8 willful killings per 100,000. By 1993 it had dropped to seven killings for every 100,000 Americans. And by 2013 that number was down almost half: 3.6 homicides per 100,000 people according to data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Maybe it's because of economic growth and opportunity. Maybe it's because of increased police funding. Or maybe it's just due to the drop in alcohol consumption.

But interestingly enough at the very same time gun violence was dropping, gun ownership was increasing. From 1993 to 2013, private gun ownership increased 56%, to 357 million from 185 million. This is based on data from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). That translates to 1.45 guns for every resident.

And yeah, once in a great while a conceal carry citizen thwarts a crime, but that's rare. I'll acknowledge that.

The point is though that more gun ownership has NOT lead to more gun violence. And restricting people from owning weapons will not necessarily lessen gun violence.

Handguns get a bad rap in this scenario when it is actually assault rifles doing most of the damage. So, what do you want to do? Ban those? I hope not. Bernie Sanders a guy I like a lot, asked on a TV show the other day why citizens need to own assault weapons. That answer is simple. Because the cops have them. Our Founding Fathers weren't afraid that we were going to someday have to battle herds of chipmunks, or roving gangs of deer, but they did want us to be able to take on authority. And as long as cops have assault weapons, we need them too.

These guys show us their ugly side everyday. I was on the job for almost 30 years and I know what I'm taking about. When cowards have weapons, they scare easily. So, if you don't believe me, go to YouTube the Battle of Athens, Tennessee 1947. This was a case of a corrupt sheriff gathering up all the ballot boxes in an election an hour before the polls were to close and promising "we'll count the ballots for you."

Well a bunch of good old boys, fresh home from WWII weren't buying it. So they all went home and got their weapons and there was actually a shoot out around the courthouse. The Governor refused to intervene and the citizens got their ballot boxes back. THAT'S what our Founding Fathers were talking about. So yeah, we need everything the cops have and maybe even a little more wouldn't hurt.

So here's the deal. I now conceal carry. You wanna rob me? Rob me. You wanna punch me? Punch me. But if you pick up a pipe or a knife or some other deadly weapon, you will not like where this will go. You break into my home? I'm going to keep our door shut in our bedroom, have the wife call 911 and stay on the line so that what I say is being recorded, and I am going to be barking "Take what you want and get the hell out! I am armed and if you come into this room and threaten me, I may shoot you. Get what you want and get out."

But if you come into a restaurant I'm in and decide to start killing people, I will shoot you. I won't try for a kill shot, but I'm good. Don't take the chance.

And if every crazy understood that wherever he went to kill people he was going to be met with a barrage of gunfire, do you think he'd be as anxious to pull this stunt?

Apple vs. the FBI

Okay, even though it seems this is easy on the surface, this is a a complex issue. The FBI has asked Apple to help them get into the iPhone of Syed Farook, one of the San Bernadine Shooters. You know the FBI wants the info on the phone to see who he's been in contact with, what sites he visits and is influenced by and on and on. Fair enough. It could be helpful, but then again, it could be totally useless.

But one thing that eases my mind is that even the FBI can't break into my phone. If the FBI can't break in, that tells me that I am much safer from hackers, crooks, and thieves.

But Apple has already shared all of Farook's backed up data that was stored in the Cloud. And it should be noted that Apple has totally cooperated with the FBI more than 200 times in the past.

Today, March 29, the government announced they were able to get into the phone in question, and that is reassuring on a lot of levels. One, Apple's matrix is so complex that it took the supposed to be so smart Feds a month or so to break into it, and that Apple was not willing to cave in under pressure.

So, I guess this is a win/win. Kinda.

The Flint Water Crisis.

I cannot believe where this craziness had led us.

The people of Flint Michigan were appointed an Emergency Manager by Governor Rick Snyder. Soon they began taking making major shortcuts to getting the budget to add up. One was to get off the Detroit water supply and go to a temporary system of getting water from the Flint river until the system from Lake Huron was viable.

History now shows this was all about money and not about people and their health. With rushed  decisions and no fact checking, they made the switch to save a few bucks. And chemicals in the water reacted with the old pipes and the lead content became so high that it was dangerous. But people drank it before they knew it was dangerous. And they gave it to their children, unwittingly subjecting their children to potential learning disabilities, and other potential harmful effects.

But before the switch was made, there were people warning the Snyder administration that this was a disastrous move and could prove to be very harmful. Once the courts forced Governor Snyder and the rest of his administration to release their emails, it became apparent that he demonstrated a cavalier arrogant disregard for the people of Flint.

And when there was a primary in Michigan and Democrats cried "This wouldn't have happened in an affluent white community like Grosse Pointe. It would have been fixed in hours." And they weren't wrong and we all know it.

And still to this day "Tricky Ricky" has not insisted that they immediately switch back to the Detroit Water system until the Lake Huron plan is ready to go. No he remains dumbified.

Many, Many groups are calling for the Governor's resignation. But Repubs often get so full of themselves that they can't understand this concept. And I'm not sure I want that either. Brian Calley? Sheesh. What a loser one-two punch.

But as time goes on, it becomes more apparent that Snyder should resign. But of course he won't. Because he knows in a couple weeks we'll be focused on the next big thing and have forgotten all about this.

This just in. Concrete evidence that Snyder was warned before the Flint water switch over that this was going to be a disaster. And it was ignored.

This is going to cost the tax payers so much more than the savings from the temporary switch over, it's incredibly laughable. This will cost us millions, maybe even billions before it's over.

Today, March 30, 2016, Forbes released a list of the Top Worst Elected Officials. Guess who was on the top of the list. Hey, when everything is running smoothly and you're screwing over state employees so you can give your fat cat buddies big bonuses, life is good. But when you actually have to take the throttle and lead, Mr. Snyder you fall flat on your arrogant face.

Time to go, Tricky Ricky.

And I am not a Brian Calley fan.

Oh oh, a Democrat has to name a Supreme Court Justice.

Last Saturday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly. And this apparently has set off a fire storm of events. Republicans in the Senate immediately announced they will not appoint anyone that the President appoints.

When will the racism end?

Honestly, the President has a Constitutional obligation to do his duty and nominate a successor to this high post. The front runner on the President's list is a guy that the whole Senate loved. They voted unanimously to endorse him last time to the Appellate Court. Each and every member of the Senate likes this guy. But if the President submits his name, nope. Not if the uppity President endorses him.

So President Obama, having more of a spine than any President before him, will fulfill his duties and and Senate of the United States will demonstrate their partisan racism and not even consider whoever.

Because he's a Democrat. So this poses the larger question. If a Democrat wins the election for the Presidency in the fall, as they will if there's a God in Heaven, does that mean we have to wait another eight years before they will appoint a new Justice?

So today a former Conservative Justice says that the President should do his job and appoint somebody. Sandra Day O'Connor is all behind President Obama that he should do his duty and appoint. Put the ball in their court, so to speak. So the President has vowed to uphold his Constitutional obligations, and the Senate has vowed not to uphold theirs.

If the Senate starts to stall, as they have promised they will, this may not work out for them. Remember when the Government shut down? The public blamed the Republicans for that and their numbers plummeted in the polls. So if they pull this stunt now, they will probably elect a Democrat in the fall.

So as much as I do truly empathize and miss the outspoken Justice Scalia and do think of his wife and nine children and all their familes everyday, I do realize that the guy that would be most outraged by the announcement by the Senate that they were going to shirk their Constitutional responsibility would be Antonin Scalia.

He would be angry and have none of this.

Update: Today it was announced that one of the people being vetted for the Supreme Court nominee is Nevada Governor and former Federal Judge Brian Sandoval. This throws a monkey wrench into everything. Sandoval has quite a right wing history, and left wings groups are reacting harshly. It seems the President is thinking about shoving it in Republicans face, by dangling a Nominee they really want. But having vowed not to even acknowledge anyone that uppity President wants, they'll show him by cutting off their nose to spite their face. The downside is that should the Republicans make themselves look wishy-washy and go ahead and have hearings and vote for the guy, it is Senate Democrats that may likely block the vote. Thankfully this may be just a blip in the polls as opposed to the nose dive the Republicans are risking before the election. If they stand fast they may just hand the White House to the Democrats.

And the drama continues......

Again With the Lip Service on Guns.

Everytime there is a major shooting event by some crazies in this country, again there is a call for "gun control". Simply put, the general idea is to make it harder for Crazy people to get guns. Now if only crazy people were born with signs on their forehead that say "Crazy Person." But lately, we would also need to have them born with signs on their foreheads that say "Not Crazy Now, But Could Become Crazy Someday." What is all boils down to is that these Government folks are all frustrated that they simply can't legislate away Crazy.

Even with the most stringent background checks the Virginia Tech shooter would have easily passed, as would have the Sandy Hook shooter, and the San Bernadino shooter. And many more. There simply is no background box to check for Crazy, Nuts, Bonkers, or Whacko.

So making noise that is nothing but hot air does nothing but fuel the sale of inflated priced weapons. And I know all the gun folks, and I'm one ardent believers in the second amendment, start crying the same old ridiculous "The President Wants To Take Our Guns!" or "Democrats Want to Take Our Guns!", let me just point out that under no Democrat has anyone ever lost one single gun. Not one. So stop with the hysterical lunacy. The Democrats want to take our guns crap started with the Aaron Sorkin film "An American President", and he keeps it up in "The Newsroom." But he's a misguided bleeding heart that has not thought seriously about this issue.

Calling for background checks or other such measures looks good to some and causes alarm in others. But think about it. The President is "calling for." What does that mean? It means he's calling on Congress. It means it's dead in the water. He knows it, they know it, and yet they get to stand against it. In other words it's a Washington win-win.

The President is actually a proponent of the Second Amendment. One of his Harvard Professors has gone on record as saying that when Barrack Obama was his student he railed against him, since he had doubts about the Second Amendment. Obama made arguments everyday, he said, trying to instill in this Prof, the importance of the Second Amendment. The guy said by the time Obama graduated he still wasn't completely convinced but he had make him change some of his views.

And for all of those that are still crying he said he want's to undermine the Second Amendment (Marco Rubio), here's what he actually said (from The Guardian 1/5/16):

Although I don't have a hold of what Rubio's (how is this name so much more American than Obama?) statement was trying to imply, I think he was needlessly being desperate. That's why the voters sent him home.

"Well, that's not horrible logic. And it is not really too oppressive as some are going to claim. None of us want kids getting a hold of guns. And the whole smart gun technology is already here and has been around for a while."

And let me go on record as saying "smart gun technology" is the most stupid asinine thing I have ever heard of. So if a soldier in combat falls, and the soldier next to him runs out of ammo, no sense picking up the weapon next to you, because your finger print won't let the trigger allow you to fire. Or if my wife and I are enjoying dinner in a restaurant and a crazy shooter comes in shooting and I am hit first, my wife can't then grab my weapon and protect herself? No. Ridiculous.

I

Can a President Ever Really Control Gas Pump Prices?

One of the things that has always perplexed me is the way that Americans interpret costs at the gas pump. When gas it $4.00 a gallon people mutter, "That frickin' Bush" or "The Frickin' Obama." But when it drops to $1.47 like it did where I live recently (we paid $1.59 today), nobody ever mutters "Thank you Mr. President."

The fact of the matter is we all know that the President doesn't really have anything to do with gas prices. Or does he?

The fact of the matter is that President George W. Bush was once in the oil business and has lots of friends there. So things were kind of allowed, disregarded, and there was a bit of 'looking the other way' under his watch and gas prices soared. That may not be a fair 'cause and effect', but it deserves a thought.

However what does seem more concrete is our President's willingness to negotiate with Iran and therefore they desperately need to raise money fast, and to Hell with OPEC, they are flooding the world with oil in an attempt to raise funds quickly. It's good for me! And it's good for you.

So hate the President all you want, but we have already caught the Iranians in a lie. Naysayers will cry "See? They can't be trusted!" Or objectively you could ascertain that "Wow. We caught them. This is working." It's all about what party you're affiliated with. But the big deal is low prices at the pump.

Just enjoy the oil glut at the pumps this holiday season, because after all, don't we deserve it? We paid $1.59 today and that was in the high gas prices of the world, Belding.  Belding is normally 20 cents higher. So there's that.

Is Freedom of Speech on Trial?

A interesting case is shaping up in Big Rapids, Michigan (the only ‘Big Rapids in the USA' according to a painted banner on the wall of a hanger of their airport.)

It seems a former pastor was handing out pamphlets on the sidewalk in front of the Mecosta County Courthouse to anyone who was entering the Courthouse. The pamphlet basically said that jurors had the right to vote their conscience regardless of instructions from the Judge or others. (There is apparently no law requiring the jurors to obey judicial instructions to the letter.) And basically when you vote in a jury you can always vote your conscience, if you just keep your mouth shut about it. Like when you enter a voting booth. What you do in there is nobody’s business. 

But now, insurance broker Keith Wood who was handing out pamphlets to anyone who would take one on the sidewalk in front of the Mecosta County Courthouse is in hot water. He was approached by court officials  while on the sidewalk and threatened with arrest unless he went inside to speak with the Judge. So he complied. He went inside to speak with the Judge.

Mecosta Prosecutor Brian Thiede claims that Wood was giving members of the jury “a pamphlet that encouraged jurors to violate their oaths and directly contradicted the instructions the jurors would be given thereby tainting the entire jury panel.” So the Judge ordered Wood to be arrested, and placed in jail. With a $150,000 bail. First of all, Wood was handing them out to anyone who would take them, and he had no idea who potential jurors were. How could he? I have been through the Jury process at least 10 times. Sometimes I’m called, sometimes I’m not. But I never know before I walk in the building. 

So the attorney for Mr. Wood, a Mr. Kallman out of Lansing, said his client’s free speech rights are being violated. Because once inside in the presence of District Court Judge Peter Jaklevic, Jaklevic ordered Mecosta Sheriff’s Deputy Jeff Roberts to arrest Wood (the father of seven), where he was jailed 12 hours until he could pay his 10% of his unbelievable bail of $150,000. He, the father of seven remember, had to put it on a credit card. 

Of course Wood and his attorney claims, rightly so, that he could not have been targeting jurors, since no jurors had been impaneled. There was at that point no jury to taint. He was just handing out pamphlets to anyone who would take one on the public’s sidewalk. So attorney Kallman subpoenaed the prosecutors, and the Judge as witnesses in his case during a preliminary examination before Mecosta County Circuit Court Judge Kimberly Booher for a preliminary hearing on December 10th. Of course Thiede opposes the subpoenas and is asking they be thrown out. Of course he is. He’s starting to get scared. He might be about to be called on the carpet for his shenanigans. He might even lose his job. But then there is also the likelihood that Judge Jaklevic and Judge Booher share offices next to each other and play golf together. 

Since the case is beginning to garner national attention, Eugene Volokh, a legal columnist for the Washington Post, and a Professor at the UCLA School of Law, states: “Sidewalks are a traditional public forum in which the First Amendment rights are at their strongest.” However, Don Herzog, a law professor at the University of Michigan, is quoted in U.S News and World Report, and we all know what that means, that he believes “the prosecution will ultimately prevail, even if the charges seem harsh.” Seem harsh? $150,00 bail and a 5 year felony for handing out a pamphlet on a public sidewalk? Further, Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University says that Wood’s prosecution is "probably unconstitutional.” Of course there’s the fact that one Judge will make a decision on whether another of their brethren should be subject to subpoena. Doubtful, but that’s America. The place where everybody that puts on a uniform is a hero. 

By the way, the case seems to be garnering national attention and is far and away in favor or Mr. Wood….. and the first amendment. My good pal Al Abassee, an economics and political science professor at Ferris State University, also chimed in with some interesting thoughts. He said, in part:

"Interesting in that all of our civil rights are under attack. Accordingly, Article III sections 1-3 are all applicable. Anyone may bring a charge against another, however, it is not a right of the court to bring an action 'against'. The constitution simply allows for hearing of case actions. This in itself is an interesting concept as the 'court' has taken a proactive action of bringing charges against a citizen when the courts authorization by constitutional authority is only interpretive. All enforcement action is by Executive Branch only.

The other interesting view is that I find interesting is not that of "free speech" but upon 1st review is the abhorrent violation of  Article 6, Clause 3, "..judicial officers...(s)hall be bound by oath and affirmation, to uphold this constitution..." . By taking said position, the court is taking an action of without a case of law present. While this is an affront to basic civil liberties of the 'free speech' doctrine it also smacks in the face of the individuals "4th amendment rights" of arbitrary arrest, which directly opposes search and seizure without warrant or probable cause. In this case I view upon the basis of "stop and frisk".  Further, I find this an aggressive violation of his 8th, 9th and even 10th amendment rights, and I have not even gotten to his 14th amendment rights violations. 

I do find an actionable cause that could be taken by him on his denial of  his 11th amendment rights. 

If I recall, the court cannot take an action against an individual by creating a case, the case itself must be brought prosecutorially, to the court before they have right of jurisdiction."

Exactly. By what authority can the court arbitrary order someone to be arrested? This judge just became a police officer. And that is contrary to his authority.

So, there you have additional insights. Not only does Mr. Wood have an likely lawsuit of his own being laid at his doorstep, his attorney could potentially be arguing this to the Supreme Court. Stranger things have happened.