Archive for the ‘Progressives and Left’ Category

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.

An older piece, but one worth bringing up.  Marine Captain Katie Petronio explains:

As a combat-experienced Marine officer, and a female, I am here to tell you that we are not all created equal, and attempting to place females in the infantry will not improve the Marine Corps as the Nation’s force-in-readiness or improve our national security.

It’s something I’ve been saying for a long, long, long, long, long, long, long time.  It’s something combat veterans and male Marines and army combat arms people have been saying for a long time.

captain katie petronio

She lists her experience in combat zones, and it’s pretty extensive.  She was attached to combat units for a long time.  She earned that middle ribbon in the top row.

This combat experience, in particular, compelled me to raise concern over the direction and overall reasoning behind opening the 03XX field.

03 being infantry in the Marine Corps.  There’s also no reason women should be in the 08 field (artillery) or the 18 field (armor).

Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in.

Thank you, ma’am.

Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?

As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman.  …

She lists her bonafides and background, and she would have been the kind of candidate that do-gooder political correctness social engineers would’ve loved.

She sadly ran into the unfeeling, uncaring thing that is reality.

I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

I was a motivated, resilient second lieutenant when I deployed to Iraq for 10 months, traveling across the Marine area of operations (AO) and participating in numerous combat operations. Yet, due to the excessive amount of time I spent in full combat load, I was diagnosed with a severe case of restless leg syndrome. My spine had compressed on nerves in my lower back causing neuropathy which compounded the symptoms of restless leg syndrome. While this injury has certainly not been enjoyable, Iraq was a pleasant experience compared to the experiences I endured during my deployment to Afghanistan. At the beginning of my tour in Helmand Province, I was physically capable of conducting combat operations for weeks at a time, remaining in my gear for days if necessary and averaging 16-hour days of engineering operations in the heart of Sangin, one of the most kinetic and challenging AOs in the country.

Again, this is all from a woman who’s been there and done that, explaining how physically the task is simply incompatible.

By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change. My agility during firefights and mobility on and off vehicles and perimeter walls was seriously hindering my response time and overall capability. It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported.

Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

If you don’t have the time to read her whole column, she has plenty more reasons to explain her points if you’re still unconvinced.

Which once again leads me, as a ground combat-experienced female Marine Corps officer, to ask, what are we trying to accomplish by attempting to fully integrate women into the infantry?

For those who dictate policy, changing the current restrictions associated with women in the infantry may not seem significant to the way the Marine Corps operates. I vehemently disagree; this potential change will rock the foundation of our Corps for the worse and will weaken what has been since 1775 the world’s most lethal fighting force. In the end, for DACOWITS and any other individual or organization looking to increase opportunities for female Marines, I applaud your efforts and say thank you. However, for the long-term health of our female Marines, the Marine Corps, and U.S. national security, steer clear of the Marine infantry community when calling for more opportunities for females. Let’s embrace our differences to further hone in on the Corps’ success instead of dismantling who we are to achieve a political agenda. Regardless of the outcome, we will be “Semper Fidelis” and remain focused on our mission to protect and defend the United States of America.

Unlike Captain Petronio, I don’t applaud any organization that seeks to put substandard candidates into roles they aren’t fit for.  She’s polite enough to give them credit for “meaning well”.  But as I’ve said every time, it’s not a measure of character or of value of the individual’s desire to serve or their individual bravery.

It’s simply that if you aren’t biologically set up for success in a grueling environment and it’s a necessity that you succeed, then you shouldn’t be put in that position just so some ideologue politically-correct social engineers can congratulate themselves at cocktail parties and say how wonderful they are for giving you the “opportunity” to have your bones ground down in the mud because you never should have been there.

-

But there are still hard-leftist groups who advocate for “equality” where there is none and actively want women in combat.   Noteworthy that their counterpoint speaker to Petronio is a man.

And their board of directors is awash in leftists, none of whom will ever have to answer for the failures they wish to create.

From the New Yorker:

For decades, business owners have resisted higher minimum wages by arguing that they destroy jobs, particularly for young people. At some theoretical level, high minimum wages will distort job creation, but the best empirical evidence from the past decade is aligned with common sense: a minimum wage drawn somewhat above the poverty line helps those who work full time to live decently, without having a significant impact on other job seekers or on total employment.

Except it’s wrong, ignores the loss of jobs that are never created and the subsiziding impact of welfare and low-income benefits that also siphon funds away from job creation and into government redistribution.

I’ll let Orphe Divounguy explain it again:

(For example, a study of pairs of neighboring counties with differing minimum pay found that higher wages had no adverse effect on restaurant jobs.)

Of course, he doesn’t cite the study, the amount of difference in pay, or an analysis of what jobs were lost, not created, or where these counties were.

Even so, a federal minimum wage of ten dollars or more will not solve inequality. It will not stop runaway executive pay or alter the winner-take-all forces at work in the global economy.

And here we see the true intentions.  The objective is to make equality of outcomes.  The ideology is a belief that executive pay is “runaway” and that the economy is a “winner-take-all” scenario, rather than one of mutual cooperation for benefit.  Apparently the New Yorker’s Steve Coll doesn’t understand where pencils come from.

Coll continues:

Yet it will bring millions of Americans closer to the levels of economic security and disposable income that they knew before the housing bubble burst.

No, it won’t.  It will artificially increase wages, which will then result in employers increasing their expenses to customers.  There will be a transfer of wealth from the many to the few.  There will be a visible result of a handful of people with minimum wage jobs making more money, but it will result in a less visible loss of wages by everyone who uses those services, by employers whose payrolls will be adjusted in favor of old employees versus new ones – meaning jobs that would be created will not be created, and it will result in overall economic loss.

Coll starts his piece by talking about increases in wages for baggage handlers at SeaTac airport, where the minimum wage was bumped from $10/hour to $15/hour by a ballot initiative.  Businesses spent money pushing against it, and Coll celebrates that leftists emerged triumphant, that the “grassroots left, which seemed scattered and demoralized after the Occupy movement fizzled, has revived itself this year—with help from union money and professional canvassers—by rallying voters around the argument that anyone who works full time ought not to be at risk of poverty”.

Union money was sent in by union people who can now look forward to extracting union dues from those $15/hour workers at a higher amount than when they were $10/hour workers.  Professional canvassers are leftist marxist agitators and professional shit-stirring revolutionary groups who serve no function but to create conflict that they exploit for their own personal profit.  The businesses involved opposed it as best they could, but the leftists in Seattle & Tacoma voted for it.

What that means is that the expenses against the airport have gone up, and they’ll have to come up with something to balance it out.  That may mean layoffs, it may mean no new hires, but most likely it will mean increased rates and fees to customers.  The customer is hurt at the expense of the visible aid to the fictional oppressed proletariat.

…life on fifteen thousand a year is barely plausible anymore, even in the low-cost rural areas of the Deep South and the Midwest. National Republican leaders are out of touch with the electorate on this as on much else, and they are too wary of Tea Party dissent to challenge their party’s current orthodoxies of fiscal austerity and free-market purity.

Life on $15,000 per year is not something that someone manages alone.  First off, there are massive government handouts to those of that low income group; second, as Orphe explained, a lot of times, those workers are entry-level workers just getting started – like teenagers.

The Tea Party is composed of people who understand how economics work – that you can’t just arbitrarily say “we’ll make your employer pay you more” without that money coming from somewhere.  Again, Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote comes to mind:

thatcher socialism

Coll finishes with this bleeding heart plea:

The case for a strong minimum wage has always been, in part, civic and moral. Minimum wages do not create new “entitlement” programs or otherwise enjoin the country’s sterile debates about the value of government. They are designed to insure that the dignity of work includes true economic independence for all who embrace it.

The case for strong minimum wage laws has been couched in some people’s idea of what other people are entitled to.  If you pay the neighbor kid $5 to mow your lawn, it’s not moral for the neighborhood to tell you that you MUST pay him $20.  The result will be that the neighbor kid goes without the $5 and you mow your own lawn.  There’s nothing moral about dictating to people how much a worker has to sell his labor for or how much an employer has to pay for that employee’s labor – because it destroys entry-level jobs and harms the community.

The tut-tutting busybody who wants to put the government’s gun to someone’s head and make them do what they feel should be done is not moral.

Minimum wage laws inflict an entitlement by force.  The dignity of work comes from what people put into it – and earning a paycheck, not having the government hold a gun to your employer’s head – leaving you either paid more than you’re worth or unemployed entirely.

There is no “true economic independence” for a $10/hour job, a $15/hour job.  Idle rich and trust fund babies have “true economic independence” – and even they can lose it if economies change.  Economic independence comes from having one’s own skills that are marketable in different job environments.

If Coll and clowns who publish his Marxist drivel want to provide “dignity” and “true economic independence”, why not mandate a $100/hour minimum wage?  If people made $8000 every two weeks, they’d be doing pretty well.  Why not a $1000/hour minimum wage?  Or a $10,000/hour minimum wage?  You could work for a day and pay off student loans and buy a new car all in one.

If he’s got intellect greater than that of a grapefruit, he’d respond with “but businesses can’t afford to pay $10,000/hour.”  And just the same, they can’t afford to pay any other artificial minimum wage without modifying their business model.  Some businesses could handle $10,000/hour minimum wages, but it would harm them severely and result in cutting many employees, hiring no more employees, and passing costs off to customers.  Some businesses can handle a bump to $15/hour minimum wages, but it will harm them as well, it will harm future employment, and the business will pass costs off to their customers.

He wonders why the Midwest and South have a lower cost of living – and that is due in no small part to not having to deal with wage inflation – those costs are passed on to businesses, which pass them back on to us.

-

Update: Some leftist union organizers have decided to stage strikes for higher fast food wages across the country.  When they get the government to force their employers to pay them $15/hour, they’ll find that those businesses can’t stay open because no one wants to pay $17 for a Whopper or $13 for a Big Mac.  They won’t be able to afford the Taco Grande meals they make.

The fast-food effort is backed by the Service Employees International Union and is also demanding that restaurants allow workers to unionize without the threat of retaliation.

It’s like I should just write “the usual suspects are at it again”.

Beating a dead horse – if they’re not worth the pay, they’re not worth the pay.  That’s not a measure of their value as a human being, just their respective value in their chosen job.   Demanding more wages because you’ve chosen to make an entry-level job a career is a problem with the individual’s ambition and drive and desire to sit on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, not a question of whether their employer is a greedy robber baron capitalist pig-dog.

A stupid op-ed from WaPo:

In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”

Which is as stupid today as it was then.  Presidents will be obeyed and respected based on their character and what they do for the nation.  Respect can be lost, and accepting obedience can be replaced with grudging obedience, disobedience, or outright defiance depending on the president.

…the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.

And Washington would’ve burned the city named after him to the ground for the actions of the Obama administration in arming narcoterrorist cartels and hushing it up, in targeting citizens for political reasons with the IRS, and leaving an ambassador to die in Libya while smuggling weapons to Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in Syria.  Washington may still agree with his statement then in theory, but that would require a moral people of politically interested citizens, an uncorrupted voting system, and parties that were not rooted in socialist redistribution and Marxism – an ideology that didn’t exist in the late 1700s.  As the Daily Caller notes in picking apart the WaPo op-ed:

Zimmerman is untroubled by the prospect that long-term control of executive apparatus, along with the natural advantages of incumbency, might smooth the way for continuing rule by a president regardless of genuine popular will. The Obama Internal Revenue Service targeted the president’s political enemies before the 2012 election. The history of presidents for life in other nations shows ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent that in most cases masked widespread popular discontent.

The bureaucracy that existed in Washington’s time was miniscule in comparison to what we have today.  The unelected bureaucrats were few in number, and the legions of regulators simply did not exist.  While Washington’s theory may still hold up, it doesn’t address the problems that the Daily Caller bit notes.  The ever-growing popular votes for the incumbent are also often indicators of widespread voter fraud by dictators who will never relinquish power.  With institutions like ACORN actively engaged in voter fraud, and Democrats demanding that voters never have to show ID – so they can engage in more fraudulent voting, there is a great threat of political leftists simply taking over through manipulation of the electoral systems – even by outright controlling who counts the votes.

Quit Stalin' and get countin'!It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.

Zimmerman at WaPo goes on:

Only in 1940, amid what George Washington might have called a “great emergency,” did a president successfully stand for a third term. Citing the outbreak of war overseas and the Depression at home, Democrats renominated Franklin D. Roosevelt. They pegged him for a fourth time in 1944 despite his health problems, which were serious enough to send him to his grave the following year.

To Republicans, these developments echoed the fascist trends enveloping Europe. “You will be serving under an American totalitarian government before the long third term is finished,” warned Wendell Wilkie, Roosevelt’s opponent in 1940.

Economically, people were suffering under it.  And if you were an American of Japanese descent, he was vividly proven right.

H

Zimmerman at WaPo continues with more voices from supporters of camps past:

“I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny,” Sen. Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) argued in 1947. “We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a president whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the power?”

The people of Minnesota didn’t want Al Franken, but they got him anyway, due in part to illegally voting felons (which the Democrat party favors… because they vote Democrat).  The people of many states don’t want the dead or nonresidents voting… but they do anyway.

Zimmerman finishes:

It’s time to put that power back where it belongs. When Ronald Reagan was serving his second term, some Republicans briefly floated the idea of removing term limits so he could run again. The effort went nowhere, but it was right on principle. Barack Obama should be allowed to stand for re election just as citizens should be allowed to vote for — or against — him. Anything less diminishes our leaders and ourselves.

Translation:

“It’s time to put that power back in the hands of ACORN and the Democrat party.  Republicans thought about the idea, just like ending the filibuster, but we opposed it then as tyranny, but now we’re okay with it because we think we’ll win and dominate you with a reign that will last 1000 years.  The effort went nowhere because no way we’d let Reagan be around for another four years, but it’s a good thing now because Obama has an 8 year incumbency and all of the bureaucracy to target his enemies so he can win and be president for life.  Barack Obama should be handed re-election just like Hugo Chavez and citizens should be allowed to vote for him – or be targeted for opposing dear leader.  Anything less diminishes our party power and you’re a bad person if you disagree with me.”

That’s the real crux of it.

Washington is correct, given a population of moral citizens who are politically-interested yeoman farmers, an uncorrupt voting system, and no savage oppression of the citizenry with a massive bureaucracy.  In his time, it would work.  In his time, the federal government existed on customs, tariffs, and duties, not a progressive income tax administered by a ruthless, unaccountable, politically-driven bureaucracy.

Washington’s ideal worked up until the New Deal’s economic policies dragged a harsh market correction in 1929 into a decade of misery and liberal fascism.  Washington faced with the situation of 200 years of advancement in society would probably look at it and say: “If we restore civic virtue in the American people to what it once was, we should have no reason to preclude ourselves from retaining the service of any man the public requires, but as the current system is largely incompatible with such widespread virtue, I understand the necessity of limiting consolidation of power by one man and one party, lest tyranny take firm hold and our Constitution be trampled further.”

Followed by: “What do you mean I can’t carry a modern rifle on the streets of my own city?”

-

Update: Looks like this idea has been bounced around a bit more.  Jazz Shaw at HotAir covers a few more folks’ discussions of it.

Now that the shutdown’s done and the intentional failure of Obamacare has been shoved onto the citizenry, it’s time to bring in some more Democrat voters to ensure the thousand-year reign of the left will not be stymied.

From Reuters:

“Once that’s done, you know, the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform,” he told the Los Angeles affiliate of Spanish-language television network Univision.

From Breitbart:

“[I]n the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, a budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further,” Obama stated. Historically, “balanced” has been code for tax increases.

Obama then pushed on to immigration reform: “Number two. We should finish the job of fixing our broken immigration system.” Naturally, he blamed the Republican House for stalling his preferred immigration bill.

They also note the Farm Bill is on the agenda, which is interesting because it tends to be just about farm subsidies and food stamps.

Obama’s push for amnesty is considered the “smart play” because it comes as opposition is weak from opposing his dictates in Obamacare.  He keeps throwing things out there at a pace so fast that no one can keep up with it.  News junkies struggle to keep up, and the average Joe who has a life and things to do is going to be asking “what?  They’re doing this again?”

>Lame Duck "Immigration Reform" - Amnesty

For those who’ve missed it, the patron government of one major illegal alien group has been out helping its invading citizens break US laws, and other illegal alien activist groups have been getting more vocal in demanding that they be allowed to take your stuff and invade your country and you need to shut up and take it.

…many say, recent weeks have seen activists use chains and pipes to tie themselves to the tires of buses that carry immigrants slated for deportation to court, block traffic on Capitol Hill and get arrested, surround Tucson police when they targeted two immigrants during a traffic stop, and chain themselves and block the entrance of a federal detention center.

More such actions, they vow, are coming.

“It’s absolutely out of frustration and impatience,” said Marisa Franco, campaign organizer for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, which helped coordinate some of the more provocative actions. “Immigrant communities who are losing 1,100 loved ones every day to deportation cannot wait for Congress to end its political games or for the President to rediscover his moral compass,” she added.

“The people will take power back into their own hands and set a true example of leadership that the Beltway will have to follow,” Franco vowed.

Criminals being criminals are mad because they broke the law and are getting caught and punished.  Those 1,100 “loved ones” are criminals who broke laws and are being removed.  That there is an entire racist organization that exists solely to try to break the will of the US in enforcing its own immigration laws, to get American citizens and legal aliens to surrender to home invader illegals, is absurd.

To give contrast to this, the immigration enforcement of Europe from the lefty government of declining Britain has been taking this form recently:

illegal immigration britain van

A quote from Mark Harper, Britain’s Immigration minister:

“I don’t see any problem with saying to people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom they can’t be here anymore,” he told BBC Question.

They’re also going out and sending messages to illegals to let them know to leave or they will be arrested.

Officials have sent messages to almost 40,000 people they suspect of not having a right to be in the UK, instructing them to contact border officials to discuss their immigration status.

Meanwhile, in the US, our government prepares to tell us that illegal aliens have more right to our nation than we do.  And this time it’s again the Ruling Class against the Country Class, as business leaders who pretend to be on the right are now out to fight anyone who believes in borders and laws.

According to the Wall Street Journal, groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are thinking about “backing challengers to tea-party conservatives in GOP primaries, increasing political engagement with centrist Republicans.” The Chamber of Commerce is reportedly “researching” what races they can influence in GOP primaries “in hopes of replacing tea-party conservatives with more business-friendly pragmatists” who would include support for comprehensive immigration reform.

Even before the government shutdown and the fight over defunding Obamacare, business groups “pressing for an immigration overhaul were venting frustration that the full House has been unwilling to consider any immigration legislation.” Reportedly, “several business executives said they were counting on establishment GOP leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, to move immigration and future fiscal legislation.”

They don’t care about the nation, they care about cheap labor.  They’re short-sighted and stupid and don’t care that the illegal aliens they import will result in more Democrat-leftist ideologues in business, more regulations and government force against business, because they think they’ll get a seat at the table and their cronyism with politicians will save them.

They don’t listen when Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters says she wants to take over their companies – to destroy oil companies.  They don’t listen when Obama says energy prices will skyrocket – to destroy the coal industry.  They don’t pay attention when Obama and like politicians say they want single payer – to destroy the insurance business.  Many of the highest-ups of the companies live wealthy enough not to care and thus are oblivious that things can happen to them, and the rest of them are just fodder anyway.

Businessmen at high levels still think they’re playing the same old game with conventional crooked politicians instead of ideologically-driven leftist radicals.  They don’t realize they’re the useful idiots helping to plot their own demise.

From the Gannett-owned MarineCorpsTimes:

QUANTICO, VA. — Fifteen female Marines began enlisted infantry training this week as part of the Marine Corps’ ongoing research into which additional jobs it should open to female personnel, officials said.

The women will attend the Infantry Training Battalion course at Camp Geiger, N.C., on an experimental basis, focusing on the 0311 infantry rifleman program of instruction after the first few weeks of training, said Leon Pappa, a retired lieutenant colonel with Training and Education Command who oversees the research. They will not receive the 0311 military occupational specialty if they graduate, but Marine officials will note it in their record for tracking purposes.

“We’re not changing the standards on how we track performance,” Pappa told reporters in a meeting here Wednesday. “We’re doing it the same way we do it for the males.”

I’ve already explained how women in combat MOSes is a bad idea, in Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six.  One of the biggest consistent arguments, not just from me, but from plenty of other combat vets, is that not only is there no real benefit to adding women in combat-specific roles for a variety of physical and social reasons, but also that when they invariably fail, some social engineer will change it so that women will succeed.  2+2 will be made to equal 5.

Combat is a heartless monster, and while training can be gender-normed to uselessness by political correctness, combat will not accede to social planners’ designs.

mountain infantry

Someone will have to carry a substandard troop’s weight.  There are already substandard men who sneak by.  That there will be a whole category of substandard women, protected by politics, will help no one, and will harm the mission, the men who have to carry the extra weight, and the women who should never have been put there to begin with.  It will also hurt the superhuman amazon who might have been able to pass an unchanged standard and do the job with a waiver – she won’t be challenged to meet a grueling standard, she’ll be able to pass the weaker one.

Retiree-who-doesn’t-have-to-fight-with-them Pappa says that there’s no change in standards on how they track performance.  That doesn’t mean the requirements are necessarily the same, just the tracking is the same.  Because buried in the bottom of the story is this, about women who failed the Infantry Officer Course:

The research is similar to work that began here last year at the Infantry Officer Course. Female volunteers have been allowed to try the grueling course, but none has passed. The next version of IOC begins next week, and the Corps expects four female volunteers to participate, Pappa said.  (ST: Emphasis mine.)

Note those few words there – “the next version of IOC“.  Not “the next session”, not “the next class”, not “the next group of candidates”.  The “next version of Infantry Officer Course”.

If you were going to buy a new car and had to order it from the factory to specific specs just how you wanted it, and you asked “when will it be here?” and they said “the next group of cars comes off the line next month”, you’d probably be thinking your car was on the way pretty soon, built to exacty what you wanted.  If you asked “when will it be here?” and they said “the next version of cars comes off the line next month”, you’d be wondering what changed.  What happened to the car you ordered, that you wanted built to your specifications?  You’re not getting “the next order of cars” or “the next allotment” or “the next run”, you’re getting “the next version“.

The behind-the-scenes is most likely what has played out every time.  Retiree Pappa is tasked with making sure women pass the course.  Instructors at the IOC are told “the women will pass the course”.  Their jobs, their careers, their futures are on the line.  Politics will order a lowered standard, and failures will be passed.

Everyone in the military has seen it in one form or another already (what immediately comes to mind is one male academic failure who failed his MOS school final, but was passed anyway because he was well-liked… he went on to show himself to be a coward in Iraq).

No one in the military will benefit, everyone will be hurt.  The only benefit is in the cocktail party leftist political correctness social engineer circles, politicians and elite snots who will pride themselves on creating a more equal military, patting themselves on the back with false comparisons to righting historical wrongs that their own progressive party inflicted on others.  They’ll say how wonderful and progressive they are, and good men and women will die for their desire to see “progress” where such a thing is a physical impossibility.

Yesterday we brought up KU professor David “Death to Your Kids” Guth, but that’s not the only leftist wishing death to children.

California Democrat party communications chair Allan Brauer wished death to Ted Cruz’s staff and their children:

california dem wishes death to ted cruz

He and other Cali Dems apologized by saying that his kind of rhetoric distracts from the discussion of how evil Ted Cruz and Ted Cruz-like people are, so he’s sorry that people missed sight of hating Ted Cruz.

But in a tweet collected here, it’s easy to see what the problem is:

california dem wishes death to ted cruz 2

He’s doing the same thing that Alinksyites always do.  They polarize the problem and then stalwartly refuse to accept that there is any other side but theirs.  They are the angels, the other side are demons, and they must act, and act now against the demons.  They dehumanize and hate their opponents, and they will do anything to win and destroy and kill their political opponents.

Allan “Death to Your Children Tapeworms That Slithered Out of Your Asshole” Brauer is not only is he a violent cretin, he’s a ignoramus.

The Republican party doesn’t take bread from the mouths of starving children and medicine from the sick.  It asks: Why should someone who’s worked hard to provide food for their children and medicine for their own sick have government’s gun shoved in their face and be forced to provide food and medicine for those who don’t prepare?  Why is the ant being robbed by the government to provide for the grasshopper?

The ant has a natural right to the property earned by his labor, yet the emotional Democrat maniac sees Person A need, often whose life choices have undoubtedly taken some part in getting them to their crappy situation (or whose parents life choices have) and decides that Person B, who lives three states away and is working to take care of his own family, children, and friends, should have IRS Agent Z take money from Person B’s pocket, food from his table, and create a health-care system that penalizes Person B in order to provide for Person A.  Person B has been declared to owe Person A, while Person A has done nothing but exist and fail at life, and the Democrat solution is to subsidize failure rather than allow Person A to learn from mistakes.

IRS Agent Z and Democrat Candidate Y can claim moral superiority for feeding the poor and providing for the sick, but they do so by robbing from Person B (and of course buying Person A’s vote with handouts).  When Person B objects and elects Candidate C to represent him, IRS Agent Z and Democrat Y go after them for being “pubic lice whose asshole-slithering tapeworms need to die” because they want to keep more of the products of their own labor, and want to know where this debt to Person A came from.

There is no rational response.  There is either some gibbering about nebulous “social contracts” which are non-existent and then a whole lot of rage and hate from the would-be masters against the questioning workers.

Brauer’s rage is based on a completely false premise, but one that cannot be corrected because he has chosen his targets, he has polarized them, he has frozen them, and he is on the side of the angels and they the demons.  So of course their children must die.

The left always says they want things like gun control  or health care “for the children”, but they sure do want them to die.

First, from a journalism professor at the University of Kansas:

ku prof nra death to children

First off, he’s wishing death to children, because somehow he’s decided that the children of NRA members are deserving of death.  Why?  Because he has assigned blame for the actions of a murdering madman in DC (a gun-free zone, remember) to the NRA.  “Journalism” professor David Guth clearly does not understand that the NRA is an anti-murder organization.  The NRA offers training for John Q. Public and Officer Murphy alike in order to help provide them with self-defense skills to avoid being murdered.  But Guth is one of those enlightened, anointed intellectuals to whom “guns are bad, m’kay”, and thus any organization which is pro-gun must also be held accountable for the actions of anyone using a gun.  Sort of like blaming Boeing for 9/11.

Second, it’s idiotic in a practical way.  As a leftist, he’s blaming the NRA for the actions of a madman and feels that the NRA is responsible, feeling that the NRA’s push for self defense rights are the reason murders happen.  The problem here is that if NRA members have their way, madmen are stopped PDQ.  The NRA’s School Shield program offers training and assistance to any school that wants to have an active defense.  There have been a few schools in states like UT and TX that have started offering the ability for teachers to carry firearms at school, which offers an immediate response to a madman.  Liviu Librescu saved a lot of kids by sacrificing himself to barricade a door, a courageous and selfless act of a hero.  But Nick Meli saved a lot of people by presenting an armed threat to a madman and didn’t have to sacrifice himself.  Thing is, this journalism professor is angry, but he can’t even see that if the NRA gets its way (which he hates), then the children of NRA members won’t have to deal with this threat at all.

He is demonstrating the leftist media-academia mentality of feeling over thought.  He wants people to feel pain because he thinks all it takes is for them to feel and they’ll come to his side and share his feeling, that guns are bad, m’kay.  It’s flawed to begin with, rests on an infantile understanding of human nature, and is not just reprehensible, but bonesnappingly stupid.  It’s also entirely impossible for him to understand that the real problem is that good people are left defenseless, and beyond the madman, fault lies with those who left good people defenselessDr. Suzanna Hupp explained this to congress once, but not all of them listened.

Also, last I checked, God is probably more likely to damn people who wish death to others’ children, but maybe Guth stopped reading right around the part with Pharoah not letting people go, and he didn’t understand what the other warnings like the frogs were about.

Or he could be a leftist lunatic who wants your kids to die for revenge so you can feel pain.

He’s been placed on administrative leave, but he defends his words.

Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little on Friday issued a statement regarding Associate Professor of Journalism David Guth.

“In order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment for students, the School of Journalism and the university, I have directed Provost Jeffrey Vitter to place Associate Professor Guth on indefinite administrative leave pending a review of the entire situation. Professor Guth’s classes will be taught by other faculty members,” Gray-Little said in the statement.

That’s a start.  The Kansas Senate majority leader is calling for his removal.   But Professor “Death to Your Kids” doubled down by defending his words by saying you’re too stupid to understand him.

‘If you look at how I structured the statement, I didn’t really bring [the NRA’s) children into it,” he said. “I carefully structured the statement to make it conditional, but apparently it was too much of a nuance for some people.”  Guth went on to say, “I don’t want anybody harmed. If somebody’s going to be harmed, maybe it ought to be the people who believe that guns are so precious that it’s worth spilling blood over.”

It takes work to lie that much.

He posts his explanation on his blog that make things even more clear.  First off, he’s wearing a Maryland shirt, which makes a lot of sense.  Most Kansans, even the leftiest leftist in Lawrence, aren’t liable to become his brand of violent, hate-filled idiot.

I am angry, frustrated, sad and determined.  The news of the senseless slaughter today at Washington’s Navy Yard has me again questioning how we can let this madness continue.  Frankly, I don’t care if I am criticized for being too quick to judge, too harsh in my criticism or too strident in my tone. The time has passed for niceties and tact. The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.  I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this. One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh. Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens. Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says.  But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits. A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.  I don’t wish what happened today on anyone.  But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat. Those fools don’t get it. If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point. There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets. In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security. Enough is enough. Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me.  And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will.  There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?
X
That’s it for now. Fear the Turtle

This is worth dissecting because it’s such a wonderful raging microcosm of the singular leftist anti-gun worldview.  The senseless slaughter at the DC Naval Yard was perpetrated by a madman who ignored laws against murder.  The madman killed a guard and killed people with the dead guard’s sidearm.  The madman had secret clearance and authorization to be on base and worked there, in that gun free zone.  He was also an avid video gamer (note this is just to illustrate a point, not a statement about video games).  Some of the earliest FPS games start with a player with a knife who needs to kill a guard to acquire better weaponry.

wolfenstein knife

It’s not a difficult concept, and it’s how the DC Naval Yard shooter was able to double or triple his available weapons in a matter of a moment.  As someone who was authorized to be there and familiar to people on base, he could’ve just stabbed the guard.

Point being, a madman with access to a weapons-free zone and desire to do harm can and will acquire a weapon.

The time has passed for niceties and tact.

 

Ah, a declaration apropos of nothing, and a justification for being an emotional twit.

The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.

 

No, it’s not.  Again, a wild declaration with no connection to reality.

I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this.

 

Translated: “I said something reprehensible and called for the murder of the children of my political enemies.  I will turn this on them by saying that they are misrepresenting my words and spreading lies about me.  Now I can accuse them of lying about me and claiming I called for God to damn them and death to their children.  Which I did.  But now my own words can be used against them, claiming they smeared me.  I am a clever journalism professor and no one can see through my veil of bullshit.  I am a genius.”

One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh.

 

Another wild declaration that is completely and 100% deniable because it’s dead wrong.  Gun culture doesn’t support murder, it supports self defense.  And bullets aren’t armor-plated, just in case you needed any more proof the prof is an ignorant fool.

Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens.

 

Translation: “I’m saying this for shock value.  But you should be shocked at yourself!  Bwahaha!  I am so clever by saying horrible things while accusing you of being the horrible thing!”

Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says.  But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits.

 

Translation: “Question I intend to tell you the correct answer to.  Lip service to gullible fools.  Rights only extend until I think that force should be applied to stop them and they offend me, which is whenever I feel like.”  End result, rights are meaningless, law is meaningless, the rule of man is all that’s important.

A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.

 

There is no right to be safe anywhere.  There is a right for you to protect your safety, but there is no protection the government can grant that can make you safe.  You can be in a gun-free zone on a military base protected by guards and still get murdered.  As in the case with the DC Naval Yard and Fort Hood, by people who were trusted by the government.  Students at a school who are left undefended and unprotected are just a defenseless to madmen as they are to teachers who molest their students, or fires in buildings.  No amount of wishful thinking will make any of them go away.

Also, I don’t stockpile WMDs, and I don’t know anyone who does.  My local range wouldn’t let me use the one Trident II missile I bought at a gun show, so why should I stockpile more of them?  I need to find a new range because of it.  Freedom.  ‘Murica.

I don’t wish what happened today on anyone.

 

Translation: “I wish that on my political enemies who resist me and my ideas.”

But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat.

 

Like I just translated: “I wish that on my political enemies who resist me and my ideas.”

Those fools don’t get it.

 

Translation: “I don’t understand their point at all, so they must be fools.”  This is where that disconnect comes into play.  Conservatives do understand liberals, but not the other way around.

If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point.

 

Then what was the point, prof?  Because yours is completely wrong, all your facts are wrong, and all your opinions based on those facts lead to failure and more wrongness.

The death toll absolutely would be lower when people can fight back.  It works every time it’s tried.  The only thing that’s guaranteed when people are disarmed is that the government will be armed.  In the short run, it means Major Nadal Hassan and Sergeant Hasan Akbar and Sergeant John Russell can kill at will, in the long run, it means Major General Vasili Blokhin can kill at will.

oleg volk responsible government agents liberals and dissidents

The price of security (no sarcastic quotes) is easily bought with armed citizens.  Police officers and law enforcement tend to be filled with people with massive egos, yet there aren’t gunfights in police stations every day.  Gun stores are filled with massive egos, yet gun stores don’t erupt into gunfights over .45 ACP vs 9mm arguments.

There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets

 

“Assault weapons and high volume magazines” are effective tools, but are no more evil than the people behind them.

A leftist crusading against hollow point bullets is again demonstrating he’s an idiot.  Hollow points allow for more effective energy transfer in a target.  Whether you’re blasting Bambi or a bad guy, they provide more immediate damage that results in “stopping power” by opening as they enter the target and destroying more inside.  The objective is to stop the threat (or not to injure a game animal and make it suffer).  Police carry hollow points for the same reason most citizens do – pistols are relatively weak when it comes to stopping people (you may kill an assailant with a .22 LR, but he may bleed out in an hour after he’s crushed your head with a brick), and hollow points allow for more effective expansion of the bullet and doing more immediate damage that will stop someone.  Often, pistols with hollow points won’t even penetrate far enough to kill, but they’ll wreck enough on the way in to stop someone – which is the point.

The sale of ARs, standard magazines, and hollow points, none of which were likely used by the DC Naval Yard shooter initially, and if he used a standard capacity magazine, it was only by killing a guard first (and the military tends to use FMJ rounds, not HP, because of better barrier penetration).  So that argument is meaningless again.

In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security.

 

There is no “well documented national security threat”, except maybe in a Mother Jones op-ed.  Now, if a leftist wannabe tyrant gets his way into power and starts dictating to people how they must live, then they are… but arms in the hands of US citizens are only a threat to tyrannical regimes.

Enough is enough. Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me.  And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will.

 

Bluster bluster bluster.  You just got her a lot more phone calls against your ideas than for.  You just energized the NRA and KSRA and other pro-gun groups.  Their whole ethos can be summed up with the saying on a Gadsden flag: Don’t Tread On Me.  They want to be left alone, and they will defend themselves.  That’s it.  They defend themselves against madmen and against political attackers both.  Leave them alone and they’re harmless.

He finishes with this very telling line.

There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?

 

Where have I heard that before…

One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.

- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

As soon as Obama decided not to decide on Syria and passed the buck to congress, anyone looking at it could see he’d play politics with it and use congress as his scapegoat.  If congress said no and he chose not to go to Syria, he could blame congress for Assad’s use of chemical weapons.  If congress said no and it was a wise choice, he’d pat himself on the back for staying out.  If congress said yes and the war went well, he could claim credit.  If congress said yes and the war went sour, he could blame congress.

Obama has chosen to completely and 100% pass the buck in order to shift blame.

Now he’s even blaming others for his own red lines:

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.”

Obama set a red line a year ago.  Now he’s saying he didn’t, the world did.  Now he’s saying it’s not his credibility, it’s everybody else’s – everybody else who he can blame.

And he’ll blame everyone:

My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line and America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

“Norms?”

norm cheersAnd he blames the world:

So, the question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed.

“International norms?”  When the hell do we go to war for “international norms?”  Are we the conformity police now?  This is a very thin veneer of an excuse for war.

The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.

So what?  Syria isn’t a signatory.

If you want to lean on them with sanctions, great.  But military actions against them for breaking a treaty they’re not party to is like going into your neighbor’s house and spanking your neighbor’s kid for not cleaning his room.  Make all the arguments about the greater good that you want, it’s really not your place, no matter what the neighborhood “norms” are.

That is progressivism at it’s core, though.  Woodrow Wilson’s desire to get involved in the Great War, and Teddy Roosevelt’s desire to get involved in all sorts of noble little wars – we belonged in none of them but there was always some great moral argument for going to war – to save Europe from the Hun or to avenge the Lusitania or the Maine.

If we’re going to be the world’s policeman, we’re two years late to the hundred-thousand conventional deaths in Syria, and we were smuggling anti-air missiles to Al Qaeda in Syria (which is why Ambassador Chris Stevens was out in Benghazi and not in Tripoli).  But this isn’t about being the world’s policeman or the role that would entail, this is about the president covering his ass, using classic progressive rhetoric to say “We must act!  Now now now!  Action!  The time for talk is over!  We must act!” and force congress into a decision that gives him a scapegoat.

Obama and his willing media sycophants are phenomenal liars.  They can convince people that their own words don’t mean what they say, that a war isn’t a war, and that Obama didn’t say what he said, that nations that don’t sign treaties must have military force used on them to enforce “norms”, that 1000 nerve gas deaths are worse than 100,000 conventional deaths, and that congress is to blame no matter what goes wrong.

It really is masterful propaganda.

-

One last bit here, from Real Clear Politics:

First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

Again, Syria isn’t a signatory to chemical weapons treaties.  But the Syria Accountability Act is rather interesting, since it was passed in 2003, and that means Obama’s been ignoring it since 2008, and his party was ignoring it when Kerry and Pelosi were busy sitting down to dinner with Assad.  It also only applies to international terrorism, not a civil war, and nowhere in the bill is there a provision for military strikes, only sanctions.