In a surprising turn of events, Roger Ailes the head of FOX News, a network he helped establish and turn into an industry giant, has been bounced from FOX News for being a sexually harassing naughty boy. He crumbles just as the Republican Party that he has all but destroyed, is crumbling too.
Ailes is much the reason that the Republican Party, once a party of reason and willingness to govern together with the other party, has turned into a bunch of ignorant, ranting buffoons. President George W. Bush once lamented that he was "probably the last Republican President." That's sad on several levels. Because if it's true, they sure didn't get to go out with much of a bang. Just a dud fizzle.
But this could be cause for the Democrat's alarm. Even though I have thought for years, "they can have the Tea Party or they can have the White House, but they can't have both." So I was very comforted thinking Democrats would at least have the Presidency for the next 20 years. The more Republicans hate, the more they lose.
But with King Roger Ailes falling from grace, this may present a problem. Although off the cuff Rupert Murdoch, the money behind this network is rushing to the US, cutting his French vacation short, to assume the responsibilities of Ailes, that will be short lived. Soon one of his sons will take over.
And word around the campfire is that none of the Murdoch son's have been happy with the tone of FOX News. This could mean that they insist that the network, ratchet down the rhetoric and start making sense. That could be big trouble for Democrats. As long as FOX News are clueless imbeciles, they are not threat to Democrats. But if they start being at least truthful, reasonable, and honest, they may actually help the Republican Party regain some respectability. And respectability means real competition.
For the longest I have resented the fact that any wing nut that comes down the pike can declare themselves a Republican and jump on the coat-tails of a Party that has spent 200 years establishing some sort of credibility, but I've enjoyed the fact that they falter with this nonsense. I have always thought if they toss these idiots out, they'll be a real power again. But instead John Boehner throws his hands in the air and quits.
But now this could be a serious juncture for both parties. If FOX News starts to become a legitimate news organization and Tea Party folks start becoming the thing of ridicule, this could mean that Republicans are legitimate contenders again.
And I'd be okay with that if we could get another Theodore Roosevelt.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Monday, April 18, 2016
Oil Production May Not Freeze After All....
The Wall Street Journal on todays front page had a story about how the oil suppliers who supply half the world with oil and gas were trying to freeze oil production so that they could ratchet up prices to screw us and the economy, didn't quite get what they wanted. And let's be honest we're talking about Exxon Mobile and all of the other big guys that want to hurt us if they can. Greed has no limits.
But the talks collapsed after Saudi Arabia reasserted a demand that Iran agree to cap it's oil production.
I have often stated "The President doesn't have anything to do with the price of gasoline." But this time I might be wrong. President Obama negotiated a deal with Iran that now allows them to sell oil on the world markets if they let us keep poking around. And as a matter of fact, we do, and we have already caught them wrong, and that has been rectified so it's working. But since Iran can sell oil again, and since they need to raise capital in a big hurry they are going to help flood the oil market.
So maybe in this case the President did have something to do with the price of gasoline.
But wait, these American oil companies can't stand this. They want to be able to rape us again. It is driving them crazing. They still make record profits, but it's not enough. Greed has no limit.
But they fell on their face today. The only reason gas prices have gone up in recent weeks is on speculation that the oil company evildoers were going to get their way. But it was not to be, since talks have collapsed.
But this is not necessarily bad news for these oil guys in the long run. The continued lower prices allow them to force littler oil competitors out of business. And therefore when they ultimately get their way, they will do even better.
Disgusting isn't it?
But for now, oil prices may hit new levels on the downside. There may even see places that see gas under a dollar this summer. And that means they will have more money to spend on goods and services and therefore helping the economy.
But evil always seems to make a comeback, and this prosperity can't last forever.
But the talks collapsed after Saudi Arabia reasserted a demand that Iran agree to cap it's oil production.
I have often stated "The President doesn't have anything to do with the price of gasoline." But this time I might be wrong. President Obama negotiated a deal with Iran that now allows them to sell oil on the world markets if they let us keep poking around. And as a matter of fact, we do, and we have already caught them wrong, and that has been rectified so it's working. But since Iran can sell oil again, and since they need to raise capital in a big hurry they are going to help flood the oil market.
So maybe in this case the President did have something to do with the price of gasoline.
But wait, these American oil companies can't stand this. They want to be able to rape us again. It is driving them crazing. They still make record profits, but it's not enough. Greed has no limit.
But they fell on their face today. The only reason gas prices have gone up in recent weeks is on speculation that the oil company evildoers were going to get their way. But it was not to be, since talks have collapsed.
But this is not necessarily bad news for these oil guys in the long run. The continued lower prices allow them to force littler oil competitors out of business. And therefore when they ultimately get their way, they will do even better.
Disgusting isn't it?
But for now, oil prices may hit new levels on the downside. There may even see places that see gas under a dollar this summer. And that means they will have more money to spend on goods and services and therefore helping the economy.
But evil always seems to make a comeback, and this prosperity can't last forever.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
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?
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?
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
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......
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......
Thursday, January 7, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)