Archive for December, 2012

Retard Control, Not Gun Control

RetardControlNotGunControl   <– PDF version

We have now just passed one of the darkest Christmas seasons in memory, after so many small children were murdered by a clinical retard at an elementary school in Newtown, CT.  The tiny bodies were not even cold when our Marxist politicians, ever alert to exploit a tragedy, took to the airwaves to demand that all the other citizens give up their Second Amendment rights because of the action of a single retard.  President Obama has since commissioned a task force to develop new and innovative ways to disarm the people; their report is due sometime in Jan 2013.

When I use the word “retard”, I am not referring to those who have below-average IQ; I am referring to those who have been recognized as clinically insane by competent mental health authorities – the people that pose a clear danger to themselves and others.

Most of the recent mass shooters, including Retard Jared Loughner of Tuscon AZ fame, Retard James Holmes of Aurora CO fame, and the latest one, Retard Adam Lanza of Newtown CT fame, were all profoundly mentally ill.  In fact, the Christmas Eve shooter of Webster NY, Retard William Spengler, had previously served 17 years in prison for murdering his grandmother.  All were known to be retards by the local health officials — why was nothing done to intervene?  Is this how our illustrious government seeks to protect us — by failing in its duty while taking away the rights of the people?

I suspect that the government prefers to let these retards walk free until they commit some horrific crime; it keeps the rest of the people nervous and fearful.  History shows that people who are afraid are more willing to give up their liberties if they can be convinced that doing so will ensure their safety.  What better way for the politicians and the bureaucrats to kill two birds with one stone: implement some gun control to reduce the Second Amendment guarantee while assuring the weak-minded that we will have a safer nation because of it?  It is typical for that type of politician, already suitably divorced from reality, to actually believe they can eliminate evil by passing laws to regulate inanimate objects.  The real problem, as far as these shootings are concerned, is that we no longer have a viable mechanism to commit these retards to institutions, where they can either be treated as they require by expert medical practitioners and restored to mental health, or comforted and cared for in a place where they can only hurt each other.  It is unfortunate that some will fall into the latter category; but that is how it is.  Or maybe our illustrious politicians would prefer small children being killed in their schools by retards on the loose, either by shooting, by burning the building down, or running them down with a pickup truck.

The National Rifle Association released a statement recommending, among other things, that perhaps instead of giving up liberty, we should have armed guards in the schools.  I am not convinced that it is the ultimate answer, but suffice to say that our Marxist politicians immediately rejected the idea and castigated the NRA for being “tone deaf”.  The mainstream media of course neglected to mention that there are about 130,000 elementary and high schools in America and about a third of them have had armed guards for decades.  They will never mention it; doing so would only remind the voters that armed guards in the public schools are necessary only in cities where the Democratic Party has established their brand of paradise: Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Newark, Baltimore, Washington DC, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Gary, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, and St. Louis.  It is odd indeed that the Marxist politicians would criticize the NRA for recommending something that the Democrats have been doing for decades.  But this omission makes perfect sense when you recall that the goal is not public safety — if it were, we would be committing dangerous retards to institutions where they belong.  The goal is to disarm the people.

It is not just the opportunistic politicians joining the gun-control/disarmament bandwagon.  Now Dr. Fareed Zakaria (commentator for CNN and political advisor to Mr. Obama) also desires to solve the retard problem by essentially killing off the Second Amendment.  In his 23 Dec 2012 article [1], Evidence Overwhelming: Loose Guns Laws to Blame, Dr. Zakaria cites reductions in homicides in other nations after gun prohibition, ridicules existing gun laws in the U. S. as being too lenient, then concludes: “Instead, why not have the government do something much simpler and that has proved successful: limit access to guns.”  He is referring, as stated earlier in the column, to banning all semi-automatic and automatic firearms, as was done in Great Britain, Japan, and Australia.  That brings up an important topic.  Dr. Zakaria is a native of India; India has draconian gun prohibition laws which are a holdover from the British colonial regime.  If India is such a free and safe society, why did Dr. Zakaria emigrate to the U. S., so full of gun owners?   He must have thought there was greater freedom here.  He was right.  What he fails to realize is that freedom exists here but not in India partly because the people are armed.  As the famous Indian activist Mahatma Ghandi wrote [2]:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

Apparently Dr. Zakaria disagrees with Mr. Ghandi and would like to turn the American people into the suppressed subjects that the Indian people were when ruled by Her Majesty Queen Victoria.  If His Lordship Viceroy and Governor-General Dr. Zakaria won’t believe Mr. Ghandi, perhaps he will believe a leader of his adopted nation, Senator (later Vice President) Hubert H. Humphrey [3]:

“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.  This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced.  But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote inAmerica, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

This is the basic fact that His Lord Highness Fareed and other like-minded Marxists deliberately ignore, hoping you will not notice.  Only an armed population has a reasonable chance of remaining free, given the usual long-term trend of every government toward absolute power.  This pattern is true throughout history, no matter the form or construction of the government.  We shall see in the coming weeks ever more shrill demands by the Marxist element for you, the citizen, to give up your right to be armed; which is in essence, a demand that you give up your long-term prospects for freedom.  We shall see who in Washington, if any, are willing to oppose them.

The best answer to the random shootings is retard control, not gun control.  If and when the government finds a backbone and takes action to ensure that retards are placed in their proper environment (where they can get real treatment), we will have fewer tragedies like the Newtown incident.

I shall consider in subsequent essays some other practical considerations regarding “gun controls”.

[1]  The Arizona Republic, 23 Dec 2012, p. B10

[2]  Cited by Abhijeet Singh, “Colonial Roots of Gun Control”, Mahatma Ghandi, An Autobiography OR The Story of My Experiments With Truth, p. 238;

[3]  Guns magazine, Feb 1960, p. 4;


Posted in Bill of Rights, gun control, Second Amendment | No Comments »

The Politics of the “Fiscal Cliff”

ThePoliticsOfTheFiscalCliff  <– PDF version

So the elections are finally over and our illustrious federal officials now turn their attention to the so-called “fiscal cliff”.  At issue here is whether the Bush-era tax cuts will expire, along with the Social Security withholding reduction enacted in 2010 as a temporary stimulus measure.  The “fiscal cliff” came about per an interim agreement reached last year, as a result of the debt-ceiling escalation in Aug 2011 and the subsequent failure of Congress to come to a consensus on a fiscal policy.  The idea behind the interim agreement was simple: impose across-the-board spending cuts of $1 trillion over ten years and let the Bush-era tax cuts expire on 1 Jan 2013 unless a long-term fiscal policy is enacted.  The $1 trillion in spending cuts, spread over ten years, result in $100 billion in cuts every year, split approximately equally between defense and non-defense.  This was regarded by its designers as so abhorrent that it would provide sufficient motivation for Congress and the President to actually make a deal.  But the negotiations since the election have not been going too well; and of course both sides are busy blaming each other.

I will review the situation, and show how the Republicans, contrary to conventional wisdom, actually hold all the cards here.  First, a few undisputed facts:

1.  The President campaigned successfully on two notions: that tax rates must go up for the wealthy, and must come down for the middle class.  He has said the marginal rates on the wealthy should go back to the 1990’s; in other words, from 35% now to 39.4% as they were in theClintonera.

2.  If the “fiscal cliff” occurs, tax rates will go up for both the wealthy and the middle class.

3.  The long-term fiscal problem of the nation cannot be solved by spending cuts alone, nor by tax increases alone; a combination of the two is necessary (i.e., a comprehensive package).

4.  The history of past “comprehensive” reforms, as enacted under Reagan and Bush, Sr., shows that the Democrats always insist on tax increases immediately, with a promise of spending cuts in the distant future.  Of course, politicians being who they are, those cuts never happen.  It is safe to say that no Democrat in Congress will ever vote for any bill that actually cuts spending in the near term unless he is forced to do so.

5.  No Democratic President will sign a bill that results in immediate spending cuts, unless he is forced to do so (like Bill Clinton).

6.  If anything bad happens to the economy, the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party (i.e., CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS; plus the major newspapers led by The New York Times) will blame the Republicans; if anything good happens in the economy, they will give Mr. Obama all the credit.

7.  The Democrats and their propaganda wing have long held that the Republicans are the party of the rich (conveniently ignoring the fact that tax provisions favoring the wealthy were passed mostly by Democratically-controlled Congresses over the last 50 years).

8.  The Democrats and their propaganda empire have claimed that the Republicans are holding the middle class hostage to protect the rich.

9.  Mr. Obama has stated that he will only accept a “fiscal cliff” deal if it raises tax rates on the wealthy.  He has claimed the wealthy are those with incomes over $250,000.

10.  The Republicans have thus far admitted that revenue increases are necessary and are willing to do so by removing some loopholes used by the wealthy and limiting some deductions.  They do not want to raise tax rates on the wealthy due to a “tax pledge” made some years ago.

Here are a few observations and applications.  First, consider the cuts in the “fiscal cliff” legislation.  The cuts are across-the-board, without the necessary and prudent prioritization that rational people would do.  However, let’s be realistic: it actually imposes spending cuts immediately, and for that reason alone is probably the best that our ruling elite can do as things stand presently.

Secondly, the wealthy already pay a large portion of income taxes.  So, if revenues are to be increased via the Republican preference (closing loopholes and limiting deductions), or increased by Mr. Obama’s preference (raising marginal rates), the wealthy are going to pay more either way.  In reality, the best thing for the nation is the Republican way, since it will do more to promote fairness in the tax code, and limits the ability of Congress to punish their enemies and reward their friends through the tax code.

Third, if we go over the “fiscal cliff”, taxes will go up for those of us in the middle class.  So taxes will go up — what else is new; and how will it matter all that much?  State and local taxes of all types have been going up all along.  Recall that the Social Security withholding reduction was intended to be temporary anyway (it was also a bad idea).  The increase in taxation via federal marginal rate increases is small compared to the already-occurring increases in the cost of living due to the Federal Reserve’s currency-printing machine.  If either side truly cared about the middle class, perhaps they would take action to restrain Mr. Bernanke.

Fourth, although most Republicans were dumb enough to sign “no-tax” pledges at the urging of Mr. Grover Norquist, the simple fact is that both the expiration of the Bush-era cuts and the repeal of the Social Security withholding reduction are already accomplished facts if a deal is not made.  They cannot be accused of raising taxes if they allow law per a vote already taken in 2011 to occur.  Only a moron would sign such a pledge anyway; since when did Mr. Norquist assume the authority to supersede the needs of the nation and the powers of Congress contained in the Constitution?  If Mr. Norquist wishes to be emperor, perhaps he should run for the office.

Fifth, the “smart money” has known for months that our ruling elites are incapable of anything better than the impending “fiscal cliff”.  As for the future of the stock market, the “smart money” managers have probably already priced-in the effects.

Sixth, if one is going to be accused of something, one may as well do it.

With these facts and observations in mind, it seems to me that the Republicans hold all the cards here, and it is possible to get true reform that actually helps the nation.  Mr. Obama needs to score political points by raising taxes on the wealthy (it won’t solve the fiscal problem, but he needs to score points).  He won re-election, so let him have his political points.  The increases on the wealthy are his most famous political need, but not his most important one.  Many of his supporters are middle-class.  He needs a tax cut for them much more than he needs a tax increase on the wealthy.  The Republicans in the House should immediately pass legislation that raises marginal rates on the wealthy to 50%, with no corresponding demands for spending cuts and no other conditions subject to objection.  This is far above the rates that prevailed in the Clinton era.  In fact, they should pass a series of bills that raise rates on the wealthy to 60, 70, 80, or 90%, and let the Senate Democrats and the President choose the one they want.  This turns the argument around while costing the Republicans nothing: taxes are going up on the wealthy either way.  If the Democrats think those marginal rates are too high, it will be incumbent on the Democrats to negotiate lower rates for the wealthy to protect their friends in the tall buildings in Manhattan.  If the Democrats do not really want higher rates on the wealthy, by all means they shall have their “fiscal cliff”.  If they settle on the new rates for the wealthy, Mr. Obama will have his political points, but leaves the Republicans in control of what he needs more (the middle class tax cut).  Then the Republicans can actually do what they’ve been accused of: hold the middle class tax cuts hostage — not to protect the rich, but to get spending under control and thus stabilize and secure the nation’s long-term financial health.  They should demand immediate spending cuts in return for an immediate reduction in tax rates for the middle class, thus forcing the Democrats to do what is necessary but have never done before.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Congress, Economics, elections, federal budget, national debt | No Comments »