Author Archive

Via Jawa Report:

syrian_hostage_baby

From Raymond Ibrahim via TROP:

According to Sham Times and other Arabic websites, jihadi social media networks posted the above picture of a child sitting on the ground while surrounded by armed men pointing their rifles at him. The caption appearing with the picture, purportedly posted by a supporter of the Free Syrian Army, is “Our youngest hostage from among the hostile sects of Kessab.”

Kessab is a predominantly Christian Armenian village in Syria near the Turkish border. Earlier it was invaded by jihadis, who terrorized, pillaged churches, and prompted some 2000 residents to flee. Initial reports had stated that about a dozen families remained as hostages.

Read the rest at The Jawa Report.

And keep in mind that the Free Syrian Army are the same people that many in the US government want to support and that the Obama administration’s CIA is arming.

-

For contrast:

us soldier protects child 1

American Soldiers Protecting Vietnamese Children

BLM, Oklahoma, Texas, and the Red River

Posted: April 23, 2014 by ShortTimer in FedGov, Government, Texas
Tags:

As I’ve previously noted, I break with some on the right out of my own concern for rule of law, and I don’t have much sympathy for the Nevada rancher who’s simply disregarded the law because it’s inconvenient for him.  Every word written about that situation is one wasted that should be used to talk about the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma.

I certainly am very concerned for folks living on the northern border of Texas and souther border of Oklahoma, who are facing the BLM taking 90,000 acres that is and was always private land.

This story is much more black and white:

BYERS, Texas (RFD-TV) Most people think the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River. Unfortunately, it’s a little more complicated than that, especially along the part of the river where Tommy Henderson and his family ranch.

Henderson lost a lawsuit 30 years ago that moved part of the northern Texas border over a mile to the south.

The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.

Now, they want to use his case as precedent to seize land along a 116-mile stretch of the river.

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us,” Henderson explained.

BLM, which oversees public land in the United States, claims this land never belonged to Texas.

This is an issue for the states to deal with.  As nice as it would be if the federal government actually did its job and made commerce regular by acting as a neutral party between disputes, the BLM has considered simply taking 90,000 acres of private land and making it off-limits.

“How can BLM come in and say, “Hey, this isn’t yours.” Even though it’s patented from the state, you’ve always paid taxes on it. Our family has paid taxes for over 100 years on this place. We’ve got a deed to it. But yet they walked in and said it wasn’t ours,” said Henderson.

It’s private property.  It’s not a lease, it’s not public land, it’s private, and has been since Texas was an independent nation.

The border pretty much is the river.  It isn’t that complicated… but it is a land grab.

Ever since the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, there has been controversy over where Oklahoma ends and Texas begins.

In layman’s terms the boundary is the vegetation line on the south side of the Red River.

Over time the river moves. This movement north toward Oklahoma is the sticking point.

The sandy soils erode in a process called accretion, which wipes out the bank. So the property line follows the river.

BLM claims that the river moved by another process called avulsion. With avulsion, the land may be changed by flood or currents, but the property line isn’t. So BLM claims that when the river moved back north the property line stayed put.

It doesn’t help that Oklahoma defines avulsion differently than Texas and the U.S.

“Originally, here the river was out there where it is now and it eroded and accreted up to here, and then it eroded and accreted back. Well, their interpretation is that it eroded up to here but avulsed back. So when you listen to them it is always erosion to the south because the property line follows it then, but it’s always avulsion when it goes north. So the boundary can move south but it can never move back north,” said Henderson.

That the BLM could come in and just take 90,000 acres and rule it off-limits because the river moved is absurd and is not their function.  They’re not managing federal lands, they’re not dealing with delinquent grazing lessees, they’re taking land.

Sympathy and The Bundy Ranch

Posted: April 23, 2014 by ShortTimer in FedGov, Government, Nevada, Texas

I find myself again breaking from a lot of folks on the right on this issue, and mostly out of concern for the rule of law.

Powerline had this piece last week on the Nevada ranch standoff that’s worth reading for another viewpoint.  John Hinderaker argues that folks should feel sympathy towards the Bundys.  But he has to preface it with this:

First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.

That’s why I can’t be on the side of the Bundys.  And no matter the cries for sympathy, I have find myself having no more for them than I would for yesterday’s example of a hypothetical where Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright used a church owned as a historic site by the National Park Service and then decided to ignore the law.

That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.

I don’t think he does deserve much sympathy.  He’s broken the law for decades.  Rather than create a conflict back in 1993 when he “fired” the BLM (which would be analagous to you or I “firing” the IRS… or a traffic cop) by choosing not to pay them, and with the BLM derelict in enforcement, he just kept on breaking the law.  He didn’t make it an issue then to get the law changed, he just operated in violation of it because the BLM didn’t enforce it.  I don’t have sympathy for Tim Geithner when he forgets to pay taxes and the IRS doesn’t bother to enforce it for a long time, and I don’t have sympathy for an illegal alien who ICE doesn’t deport until they finally do, so why should I have sympathy here?

The argument that he was there first by virtue of his family being there is meaningless.  Working land that wasn’t yours in 1870 but before there was an enforcement structure for the owner to control it doesn’t mean it’s yours – especially when the owner of the land owned it since 1848.

Over the last two or three decades, the Bureau has squeezed the ranchers in southern Nevada by limiting the acres on which their cattle can graze, reducing the number of cattle that can be on federal land, and charging grazing fees for the ever-diminishing privilege.  The effect of these restrictions has been to drive the ranchers out of business. Formerly, there were dozens of ranches in the area where Bundy operates. Now, his ranch is the only one.

Like the Blaze article yesterday noted… maybe other ranchers were “chased off”.  Or maybe it’s part of Bundy’s yarn to make him the heroic last rancher standing.  Alternately, that could mean he’s just a monopoly in the region.

Reducing the number of cattle on federal land, whether due to tortoises, or due to the kind of drought that has been hitting the west for the last decade doesn’t really matter.  It’s not his land.  The key word is privilege.

The land belongs to the federal government, not to Bundy.  It’s up to them how they want to manage their land – it’s up to us as the people who direct that federal government how we want to manage our land.

If the law passed by our elected representatives says no and we don’t like that, then it’s time to pressure our reps and change the law.  It’s not time to let one lawbreaker continue to violate it just because he’s managed to draw down on some BLM agents and wrap himself in some dramatic western martyrdom.

When Bundy refused to pay grazing fees beginning in around 1993, he said something to the effect of, they are supposed to be charging me a fee for managing the land and all they are doing is trying to manage me out of business. Why should I pay them for that?

Business models sometimes have to change.  If the landowner says “no more grazing”, then maybe it’s time to find some greener pastures, rather than just declare “these are my pastures now”.

Frankly, the Bundy situation smacks of the self-righteous entitlement of a general strike where communist workers claim the factory is really theirs because they work there.  It’s not the workers’ factory, and it’s not the Bundys’ land.

Hinderaker ends with this:

So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

I’d like to have sympathy, but just because the Obama administration is lawless doesn’t justify actions of individuals who’ve been ignoring the law since the beginning of the Clinton administration.

The Bundy’s family’s way of life is on the outs because they refused to change.  Their business model didn’t advance because their cattle were grazing for free since 1993.

They didn’t need food stamps because they were feeding their livestock on taxpayer lands.  They’re no different than if Weyerhauser decided to start cutting down national forests without permission, and then cried that their lumberjack way of life was dying because the Forest Service finally told them to stop two decades later.

They subsisted entirely because of government subsidies.  They subsisted entirely because of regulations that hamstrung their competitors – the other ranchers who were “squeezed out” were legal – the Bundys just chose to break the law.

-

Update: From a local Nevada news outlet, contrasting the Bundy claims:

…the 1998 opinion from U.S. District Judge Johnnie Rawlinson in a case where it was determined Bundy wouldn’t be allowed to use federal land for his cattle because of failure to pay grazing fees to the Bureau of Land Management. Rawlinson wrote that it wasn’t until roughly 1954 that “Bundy or his father or both have grazed livestock on public lands owned by the United States and administered by the BLM.”

Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946.

And federal grazing districts were established nationally in 1934 and in Nevada in 1936.

-

Furthermore, every word written about the Bundys is a word not written about the Red River along the Texas-Oklahoma border, where the BLM is looking at seizing 90,000 privately held acres of land.

Really, it’s a much bigger story, and it is black and white:

BYERS, Texas (RFD-TV) Most people think the border between Texas and Oklahoma is the Red River. Unfortunately, it’s a little more complicated than that, especially along the part of the river where Tommy Henderson and his family ranch.

Henderson lost a lawsuit 30 years ago that moved part of the northern Texas border over a mile to the south.

The Bureau of Land Management [BLM] took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.

Now, they want to use his case as precedent to seize land along a 116-mile stretch of the river.

“They’re wanting to take the boundaries that the courts placed here and extend those east and west to the forks of the river north of Vernon and east to the 98th Meridian which is about 20 miles east of us,” Henderson explained.

BLM, which oversees public land in the United States, claims this land never belonged to Texas.

That’s not leases that they haven’t paid in over 20 years, that’s their own land.

I recommend reading this story for some background first.

From what I’ve read, neither side is doing much right in the Bundy case; and actually seperate, broader state vs federal land control issue is getting muddied because people are missing so much of the broader implications.

As I’ve read it, the rancher, Cliven Bundy, stopped paying grazing fees in 1993.  He tried paying some to the state and county, but the BLM owns and controls the land.  The bills he did pay to the state and county weren’t consistent with what the BLM charged for land usage fees.  Bundy’s lost a lot of court fights, and for whatever reason the BLM changed the grazing rules.  Regardless of why, if that’s part of the contract to graze, and he agreed to it, when they said “lose 90% of your herd or leave”, he simply decided to stay, and fought in court for decades, losing again and again.  He claims that since his family is there, he can graze where he wants, he claims that his improvements to the land mean its his, and he claims that the state should own the land and not the federal government, so BLM be damned.

There are a lot of folks taking his side because they’re blindly sick of fedgov overreach.  But I think a lot of it comes down to pictures of cows and cowboys, and some romanticized western visuals… and some folks hearing what they want to hear.

Why?

Let’s say Reverend Al Sharpton and Reverend Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright were in a church in Chicago that was owned by the federal government as a national historical site, and run by the National Park Service since 1848 when it was acquired by the federal government (like how the territory that long predated the state Nevada was acquired by the US government in 1848 due to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).  Reverends Sharpton and Wright’s congregations rent out the church on a use-basis starting in 1884, and so they’ve been there 130 years.  Sometime around 1993, Sharpton and Wright decide that the National Park Service is racist against them for raising usage rates, and they refuse to pay any more usage fees.  They continue making a profit on the church’s operation, despite the church not being their property.  They install “improvements” that change the historical nature of the church, but it helps their bottom lines.

They tell a story of how other churches have been shut down by the NPS, and they fight in court, all the while occupying the church.  They lose court case after court case, and finally in 2014, more than twenty years after they’ve stopped paying the usage fees to the National Park Service, they start saying the church is really community property and really bleongs to the city of Chicago.  They say they’ve tried to pay Chicago (which doesn’t take their money, citing the church as NPS-controlled federal property), and then finally the NPS sends people to remove the Sharpton and Wright staff and equipment from the church.

Sharpton and Wright summon like-minded armed community activists to their side, Black Panthers come from across the country, and an armed standoff takes place between the Sharpton-Wright group and the NPS.

Okay, now which side seems reasonable?  Sharpton and Wright, who are using public property for their own ends to make a profit and actively courting armed resistance after losing in the courts and making claims with no legal basis of ownership, or the NPS who are enforcing an order after two decades of leniency?

-

That’s why I’m not on Bundy’s side.  He’s using public property that was never his, that was never even Nevada’s, that was never the property of any entity inside the US but the federal government.

He’s made a fanciful story and absurd claims of non-ownership draped in Gadsden flags and wrapped in patriotic rhetoric but it all boils down to wanting to run an industrial operation in stripping public land of vegetation (grazing) with photogenic biological machinery (cows) for the purpose of his own agricultural business.  As well, the “improvements” he’s made to the land, like water troughs and such, are simply improvements for his own business bottom line.  Watering cattle is good for him, but the second and third order effects of watering coyotes and any number of predators and invasive species that would otherwise not thrive so well in the desert distorts and changes the ecology.  As the federal government owns the land, and the BLM manages it, if they don’t want somebody building structures to water cows (and coyotes), that’s up to them – not to the non-paying renter.

Now, as for the BLM, I’m not on their side either.  Their actions that were reported at the end include shooting cattle, driving over the ostensibly endangered desert tortoise burrows, and basically being hamfisted and inept at best.  So the BLM sucked in this case, too.

What may suck even more is that supposedly one of Harry Reid’s kin is in charge of the BLM in Nevada and is out to push for an expansion of the desert tortoise habitat towards the leases Bundy had been squatting (but nobody really cared that much) on in order to allow for a Chinese-based solar energy farm in the desert.  Basically they rezoned the desert tortoise area and then the solar farm could be built.  That makes it a much more conventional land grab.

Now, as for western land control, there’s another problem.

State lawmakers are now gunning for control of federal land.

It’s time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah’s Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

“It’s simply time,” said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. “The urgency is now.”

I don’t trust a leftist demanding a gun ban when they say “it’s simply time” and I don’t trust anyone else saying the same thing, no matter what letter is next to their name.

“Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

“We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms,” Fielder said.

Translation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBInZrRx5c

The state legislators want to take the land for their own purposes.

They want to give it to their own cronies.  They want to divide federal lands that might not be being actively used and sell them up to developers, to industrial groups, to investors, to any number of people who aren’t you.

All that federal land sitting there waiting to be snatched could easily be handed off to any number of groups that will make those lawmakers massively wealthy.  Of course, they’ll cut themselves a massive ranch out of that land for themselves, of course.

Federal land right now is difficult to utilize for big operations.  It’s difficult for businesses to use, it’s difficult for politicians to sell off to their cronies at the federal level.  With obnoxious regulations, it’s often more difficult than it needs to be, but the fact that it’s federal land also protects it from instant abuse, sale, and destruction.

If you want to see a land grab and a radical change in the American west, give land to the states.  Millions of acres will go not to you, the hardworking citizen who goes hunting on BLM land, hiking in national forests, and fishing in Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs, but to huge corporations that pay off state legislators, and to multibillionaire investors who pay off state legislatures.

George Soros will have his own 500,000 acre ranch.  You will not.

Jazz Shaw over at HotAir notes what will happen to state land almost by accident, and I’m not sure he realized he said it:

It seems, however, that even if we accept all of the above examples, there is still an argument to be made that public lands which are not being dutifully maintained to serve some valid purpose of the public would be better classified as state lands. There used to be a lot of state land, even where I grew up in rural New York. The state maintained control of such lands and could preserve it or sell it to residents as they saw fit.

Bold emphasis mine.

There used to be a lot of state land… and then somehow it all went away, as if by magic?  No.

Giving it to the states means there’s one less layer of protection for that land as public land, and giving it to state legislatures is just asking for it to be thrown around to their cronies.  That is the predictable and inevitable result.

Public lands in state hands will go away due to state-level corruption.

-

States that were acquired by the federal government, and that didn’t enter the union as states of their own, still have huge amounts of federal land within them.  Could a more receptive fedgov lessen some restrictions?  Absolutely.  That’d be great.

Could the EPA go back to dealing with the ravens that are killing desert tortoises rather than mess around with public lands?  Yes.  Could we amend the Migratory Bird Act that protects the ravens so they can kill some and protect the tortoises?  Sure.  Could we amend the Endangered Species Act to recognize that some species are just on their way to extinction?  Sure.  Could we amend it to allow the free market to save those species?  Maybe have people adopt and own desert tortoises as pets in order to save the species?  Maybe.

Should we go and give state-level corrupt politician X access to hundreds of thousands or millions of acres of land to give to his buddies?  No.

-

What’s lost in the broader context is also that public land is there for everyone.  People who live where all land is private, or where “public land” means a postage-stamp sized park don’t understand.

For example, this is some public land that I went out used as a 900 yard range one day.

sw wy blm range 1a

There are some oil and gas sites out on that expanse of land, but they’re miles apart due to size.  There’s no water on that land except what nature provides, so it’s good for desert animals, but not so much for cattle.  It’s not land meant for cattle either.  It’s the kind of land the buffalo wouldn’t have roamed so much since there’s not much water out there.

But if you want to go hiking in old grassland or go sport shooting or go hunting, or ride your horse or drive your Raptor or just go see what the old prairie was, it’s still there.

If you’re a local and you wanted to graze your cattle there, you’d have to navigate the BLM’s mission that’s to prevent the tragedy of the commons, but you probably could.

And the hiker, the sport shooter, the horse rider, the hunter, the driver and the naturalist and the oil man could all still use that land – because it’s still public land.

If you gave control of that land to state congressman X, he’d sell the whole place to his pal in ConHugeCo Inc. in a heartbeat and instead of a “don’t make ruts and screw up the prairie” sign, there’d be this:

no trespass

This is just giving access to state legislatures to pad their nests with funds pilfered through sale of public lands.

The sale of that public land would radically change the nature and culture of western states.  Instead of the droves of retiring baby boomer leftists deserting California for Colorado and turning it disgustingly leftist, there’d be swarms of occupy leftists warping the entire western US into the same because there’d be so much “free” land available.

The cultural change would be utterly devastating, as states with low populations would be overwhelmed so rapidly they would never have time to adapt, nor to even understand how fast they were being changed.

This has to factor into any discussion as well, because the very nature of the Republic would be at stake as western states that are “deep red” and provide balance in the senate are often low in population.  Heck, Nevada even manages to keep Harry Reid in line with regards to Second Amendment issues.

-

Folks from states that don’t have much public land for a plethora of historical reasons may not quite understand the significance, and some folks out west who think they’ll “get theirs” don’t necessarily think of the second and third order effects of the radical change of land ownership.

The questions always have to be “why?”, “what then?”, and “what happens next?”

If the why is to allow for better usage, that involves pushback against environment laws and regs.  That helps business and private citizen interests without compromising land access for the public.  We know the what then and what happens next still keeps that land open for all of us.

When the “time is now” answer is to give it to the states… well, like Jazz said, there “used to be” a lot of state land.  We know what then and what happened next.

WaPo’s guide on the story certainly isn’t everything you need to know, but it gives some interesting info, like the size and nature of Bundy’s family and the conditions of relations between the federal authorities tasked with managing the land and some rural residents who simply resent any outsiders.  It ignores that a longtime aide of Harry Reid’s just became the national BLM director, as well as Harry Reid’s stupid assertion that Cliven Bundy’s supporters are domestic terrorists (unless the WaPo stories about pipe bombs dropped at federal offices years ago are what he’s confusing here).

Of course, being aimed in on federal agents who have given twenty years of leniency to someone whose cows are grazing on taxpayer grass without paying before finally enforcing an order doesn’t exactly sound of good judgement, either.

Parker from central Idaho aims his weapon from a bridge as protesters gather by the Bureau of Land Management's base camp near Bunkerville

Then there’s also the “put women and children up front first” angle.  It’s not domestic terrorism, but it’s a shady tactic used in order to precipitate a conflict that will look better for the Bundy family.

How Many Peeps Can A .50 Cal Go Through?

Posted: April 20, 2014 by ShortTimer in Guns, Humor

Happy Easter.

Via Breitbart, Eric Holder’s gunrunning ATF is planning to use drones:

Attorney General Eric Holder admitted Tuesday that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was in the process of looking at the use of domestic drones.  …

“Within the Department, the only component that uses these vehicles at this point is the FBI,” Holder explained. “The ATF in the process of working through to see if they want to make use of them.”

And via the Daily Caller, Eric Holder getting mad at being called out for being held in contempt.  Full video of the exchange between TX Rep Louie Gohmert and Mexican-cartel-arms-merchant General Eric “You Don’t Wanna Go There” Holder:

Gohmert is entirely too nice to Holder, and unfortunately seems to try to address a couple too many points as his time runs out.

Via Washington Free Beacon:

Attorney General Eric Holder said on Friday that gun tracking bracelets are something the Justice Department (DOJ) wants to “explore” as part of its gun control efforts.

Technological tricks are par for the course for anti-rights gun banning autocrats.  Technology becomes a tool to ban things – just mandate a feature for “safety” (especially when it’s the antithesis of safe) and suddenly all the things they want to ban can be banned in the name of “safety”.  Then soon enough the last thing wasn’t “safe” enough, and it can be banned, too.

What’s perhaps even more disturbing is the amount of money going into this:

The Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for its fiscal year 2014 budget for “gun safety.”

Included in the proposal is $2 million for “Gun Safety Technology” grants, which would award prizes for technologies that are “proven to be reliable and effective.”

President Barack Obama’s budget proposal also calls for $1.1 billion to “protect Americans from gun violence—including $182 million to support the president’s ‘Now is the Time’ gun safety initiative.”

The same Department of Justice that sent guns to Mexican narcoterrorist cartels now wants a third of a billion dollars to spend to target you and your rights.  Eric Holder brought plenty of “safety” to Mexico and the border, and then hushed it up afterwards.

fast and furious 2010 massacre teens

-

Suddenly a tech firm going after the American gun industry to consolidate it and control it and provide high-tech “safety” would be of even more interest to a government spending $382,100,000 on gun “safety”; with $2,000,000 for tech proof of concept.

There are numbers for different specifics within Holder’s PDF request, but considering the Holder DOJ’s established policy of lying, withholding information, and Holder currently still held in contempt of congress for stonewalling and lying, pardon me if I consider those numbers to be a huge pile of crap.

-

Update: Katie Pavlich weighs in on the subject at Townhall, adding in an almost Colombo-esque “one more thing”:

As a reminder, Attorney General Eric Holder is sill in contempt of Congress for his stonewalling and failure to cooperate with the Oversight Committee Investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. Further, lets not forget Holder is also the guy who said we should “brainwash” people against guns.

She also notes Bob Owens breaks things down a bit more Barney-style, reminding folks that “gun tracking bracelets” really means “smart” gun technology like a radio-transponder bracelet-gun combo that is only activated when worn, but longtime readers probably remember this story where I broke it down here, and other folks probably already clicked on it above (the “technological tricks” link).  So it’s updated and noted now for folks who may be reading this on smartphones or devices where links are a PITA, rather than at a computer terminal.

HotAir has also picked up the story.

The IRS’s Peculiar Pie Charts

Posted: April 7, 2014 by ShortTimer in Government, Leftists, Tax, taxes
Tags:

From page 39 of the 1040EZ instructions form:

pg 39 1040 ez 2013

With their pie charts laid down, the selection of what to put up front gives the illusion of greater proportions going to or coming from specific outlays and taxes.  National defense as an expense looks huge because it’s featured up front.  Personal income taxes taken from the individual are hidden in the back when it comes to taxation.

When you put the outlays together vertically, without laying the pie down for distortion effects, one suddenly sees that almost 2/3 of government expenditures go towards some form of handout, from Social Security to “Development Programs” to “Social Programs”.  What’s missing is that a lot of “foreign affairs” that’s lumped in with national defense are also international handouts.

outlays 1040ez graph 1

On the other pie chart for federal income, corporate taxes get thrown up front, along with excise taxes, because people don’t think of those taxes as hitting them (until they buy a car and have to pay gas guzzler tax on both ends).  If they take up more visual space, that’s good because it hides the personal income taxes; and if they still look small up front, that’s also good because corporations are evil and excise taxes are only for evil rich people.

Borrowing to cover deficit is up front, but is seen by the left as a thing that’s bad because it’s an incentive and need to “raise revenues” (read: tax hikes on the bourgeois and “rich” and any other target classes).  Thus it’s allowed to be emphasized.

income 1040ez chart 2013

Could be reading into it, but the IRS leans so heavily left that targeting political opponents of the left is something they do naturally and as a matter of course.  So it’s not really a stretch that they’d make a graph that subtly promotes a leftist worldview.

Looking at an overhead view of the charts rather than a laid-down perspective suddenly makes some taxation and expenditures jump out for what they are.  It’s not like a pie chart is hard to make, either.  Using the laid-down pie chart offers a minimal advantage in space or ink savings in on the 1040ez instructions, but it can be handy for massaging data.

Opie & Anthony On Obamacare

Posted: April 5, 2014 by ShortTimer in Culture, Health care, Media, Obamacare

Via HotAir:

Opie & Anthony’s radio show isn’t really my cup of tea, but they’ve got a decent market share doing some shock-jock type radio, and a lot of folks have loved their show for quite a while.  They’re really sharp guys, and when they’re hit with Obamacare’s mandates, it’s something that resonates with the average guy in their audience.

Talk radio is a fairly personal mode of communication, where someone listening is inviting the talk show host/presenter into their car/workplace/home to discuss things with them and for them.  So when folks like Opie & Anthony are telling their personal stories, they’re telling an audience who is composed of listeners who are also invited into their lives.  With this type of show, it’s like having one of your drinking buddies who you bs with suddenly telling you political stuff and how it’s impacting him.  It’s no longer a distant thing on the news, it’s in the culture; and it’s impacting someone who’s a media figure that you support, talk to on the call-in show, meet at local events, and identify with.

-

And if you listen to it through the whole thing, they also slam NY’s new anti-gun NY SAFE ACT that tells them they have to register and surrender firearms as well.

-

Drudge also carried this story about Opie & Anthony’s encounter with Obamacare yesterday, but not the audio.

From iOwnTheWorld, via JawaReport:

obama fifth greatest president a&m study

I’m kinda surprised Lincoln wasn’t bumped in favor of Coolidge.