As I write this fat check to Uncle Sam, I've always wondered... What if elections were held immediately after we paid our tax bill every year?
What if taxes weren't withheld from everyone's paychecks every year and they had to come up with thousands each April? What if my tax bill was itemized every year? Rapper Cardi B famously noted that when she gives millions to private charities, she gets emails showing the schools she's helping to build and the kids she's assisting, why doesn't Uncle Sam? What if your tax bills were itemized? Of the XXX you owe: $251 goes to Egypt for foreign aid $14 goes for treadmills for shrimp $149 goes to govermental printing costs that could be avoided by changing font $110 goes to Air Force One for unofficial vacations $.48 on an unused monkey house $29 fraudulent tax reimbursements to prisoners $410 on 'improper payments' or fraudulent payments due to lack of financial controls $1.89 on a 3-week long FAA party $42 NSA and other gov't use of World of Warcraft as collections platform $4 U.S. Census commercial that appeared during the Super Bowl $.22 On a laundry-folding robot $17 On a study about baby names (and "The astounding conclusion: Popular names are popular with parents.") Do you think people would be more active in holding politicians/bureaucracy accountable?Who cares more about your money? You or the Government? Of course it's you. Looking at the list above, would you better invest that money in your life or are you glad it went to countries where they openly burn our flag? 50 Examples of Government Waste The six categories of wasteful and unnecessary spending are:
See also, 13 Silliest Uses of Taxpayer Money
Since you made it this far down the post, I'll let you in on a little secret. This 4th of July, we're going live with a new website www.Liberty.wiki. We're building out the infrastructure at the moment and learning wiki markup from scratch! Please bookmark it and, once up and running, contribute of your own free will, with an article or two on something that you're an expert at! Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot
0 Comments
The question Ted Cruz just asked Mark Zuckerberg is the one question I want to know the answer to....
Does Zuckerberg know, or care about, the political leanings "of the 15-20,000 Facebook employees dedicated to content review"? Because the thing is, that skew matters. I have no doubt that Zuckerberg and Facebook don't ask people what their political views are in the hiring process. That's not normally how hiring works. When I applied to work at the CATO Institute i had zero questions about my political leanings. Zero. But that's not necessary for bias to emerge.
What actually happens is that people self-select into particular industries and companies for a host of reasons, the corporate values and tone of the working environment weeds out a lot, hiring managers tend to hire people generally like themselves so even if they don't ask any particular questions, they're looking for people they can work with so obviously finding points of agreement around interests and values help people get jobs in the first place.
And Facebook is located in the Bay Area in California, which has its own skew. The problem, though, is that if 18,000 of their 20,000 content reviewers all lean a certain way, then the content they flag and the content they review will too. And that means they're putting more scrutiny on (in this case) conservatives, libertarians, or just non-leftist types, and flagging more right-leaning posts as inappropriate, banning more of those pages.
I see this already in terms of the fact checking system Facebook has implemented.
And the irony of this is that if Facebook does more of the same, the result will be even MORE polarization, which is the very thing they claim they want to prevent. I'm fine with Mark Zuckerberg ONLY hiring militant leftists, if that's what he wants to do. I just want there to be transparency. Don't said that you're unbiased, if you're not. Be clear that Facebook is what it is- a great platform that has a bias and if you don't align with that bias, you can get kicked from the platform with no recourse. Zuckerberg said that he believed for the first 10-12 years of running Facebook that their role as a company was to build tools for people to use to connect with each other. Now he believes the company should have a new mission: To police the user-base and make sure those tools are being used "for good". Little does he know, he's headed down an authoritarian path. Did he not take Dystopian Lit at Harvard? What are your thoughts on how this can turn? Are you already off Facebook completely? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot 
Perspective is everything and facts are important in the gun debate. Unfortunately, after tragedy strikes, facts are cast aside in favor of emotionally-based pleas that 'We Must Do Something!'
The graphs below are provided with little to no commentary as it is unnecessary. 
Guns have only two enemies; Rust and Liberals. Liberal Tears Gun Oil protects against both. We have bottled Liberal Tears to create a CLP that gives you guaranteed 2nd Amendment protection. New Liberal Tears Gun Oil is NOW BACON SCENTED
1. There are more guns than ever in the United States and there are now more guns than people.
2. Americans can more freely carry guns on them now than ever before.
3. But with this increase in guns, accidental fatalities from firearms has continued to decrease...
4. Additionally, homicides from firearms has also decreased...
5. Suicides aren't on the rise, either. Rates among men and women have been statistically similar going back multiple generations.
6. As suicides go, "Suicide by gun" has actually decreased as well.
7. After each tragedy, our politicians politick, our late night comedians weep, and we leap to social media to re-hack all of our side's talking points. But these tragedies don't actually change anyone's mind.
8-9. So what HAS changed?
10. Gun Regulation doesn't reduce homicides, quite the opposite.
So, why then the push for more regulation? Most who push for "common sense gun reform" aren't even aware that most of the regulation they push for has already been enacted into law...
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot 
Thomas Sowell is one of a handful of people whose prose I genuinely envy.
He's also brilliant, of course. Milton Friedman, whom I disagree with on some things, was known for being an effective debater, but I think Sowell has even him beat: anti-capitalist platitudes don't stand a chance against the Sowell meat grinder. And now, just today -- at age 87! -- Sowell has released a brand new book: Discrimination and Disparities. I haven't read it yet, but I will. From what I've seen of it, the new book reminds me of Sowell's criminally neglected work Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?, which I've been recommending for as long as I can remember (my Amazon review from 2001 is still up). One by one, the standard platitudes about discrimination and poverty fall before Sowell's relentless statistical assault. Discrimination causes poverty? How about the Chinese minority in Southeast Asia? Discrimination against the Chinese minority is actually written into the Malaysian constitution. And yet the Chinese minority still dominate the economy. Likewise, Japanese-Americans were discriminated against so badly that 120,000 of them were forcibly relocated during World War II. Yet by 1959 they had equaled whites in income, and by 1969 were earning one-third more. Politics is the only way for a minority group to advance? To the contrary: the general pattern in the United States has been for a group to become wealthy first and only then to enter politics (if at all). The Irish, on the other hand, who placed such emphasis on political action, lagged behind other ethnic groups. The book is filled with information like this. Page by relentless page, Sowell relentlessly undermines the idea that outcome differences must be of sinister origin. If Polish-Americans are 25 years older, on average, than Puerto Ricans, is that not going to be reflected in greater work experience, higher net worth, etc.? Yet nobody even bothers to consider age differences. If half of Mexican-American women are married by age 18, but only 10 percent of Japanese-American women are, won't their life trajectories be radically different -- even if they were identical in all other traits? By the end of Sowell's book, any reasonable person has to understand how cartoonish and silly it is to expect identical outcomes from different groups across a wide range of human experiences. Of course, today the very existence of an intergroup disparity is made the subject of hysterical denunciations by campus demonstrators who aren't exactly known for appreciating subtlety. All the more reason to cheer the truly great Thomas Sowell, and the unexpected gift of his new book. -Tom Woods 
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot 
The video below is making the rounds on social media and claims that...
"Russian meddling is the biggest attack on our democracy since 9-11. Here's how it works and what we can do about it." The problem with over-simplified videos like this is that they are able to embed a lot of spin when they apply broad-stroke simplification to a complex issue. The listener doesn't have the time to evaluate each simplified declaration as true or false before moving on to the next talking point. This video is no different. If you’ve ever gotten into a heated argument in the comments section of Facebook, chances are you’ve come across a paid Russian troll. Really? Half my Facebook friends are Russian trolls since we get in heated arguments all the time?
In reality, Facebook has been extremely cooperative in the handing over of data to prosecute the ‘Russian trolls’. If Russian trolls were the problem, do not doubt that Facebook would have provided extensive, accurate data that would support this claim. The media would kill for confirmation of that narrative, yet no supporting data has surfaced.
Instead, the larger picture could never be more clear. The goalposts surrounding the Trump-Russia Collusion Narrative Have Moved Again
Looking at the 2016 election, it's interesting to note that their main goal wasn't exactly to help Donald Trump win the Presidency. Russia's bigger goal has always been to create chaos and distrust within American society. Wait what? See below for an inextensive, quick first few pages of Google results pushing the narrative of Collusion, Collusion, Collusion before the Mueller Indictment and the VP for Facebook Ad destroyed that narrative!
It also, doesn't stop them from lathering their base with hopes of collusion which could still occur. Why hasn't the collusion message dissipated?
Why isn't this widely reported as a scarlet letter of failure on mainstream media outlets that pushed the narrative so hard for so long? First off, it's a complex story and can't be discussed perfectly in 3 minute soundbites that steer cable TV news segments.
While there are allegations that it was actually the Democrats who colluded with the Russians, there is no concise and perfectly packaged smoking gun that proves so. Hillary didn't directly write a check to the Russians for dirt on Trump. Instead:
Without a direct smoking gun, the only outlets that will push the narrative of direct Democratic collusion with the Russians turns out to be Fox News and Alex Jones. The real crime isn't discussed by any Media outlets, though.
A dossier which was paid for by one political party was being used by the government to spy on that candidate's opponent*. This precedent is dangerous especially as we see many within the FBI organization were acting in a blatantly partisan manner while on the taxpayer's dime.
If I was Carter Page, I'd be looking into a civil suit against the government's wrongful intrusion into my 4th Amendment Rights by politically motivated federal law enforcement officials within the FBI.
Who has influenced the public more? The Russians or the Media pushing a fake narrative?
I have to re-stress this point, there's not yet any evidence to prove any 'collusion' narrative. Indeed, after more than 18 months, the Comey-Mueller FBI investigations of alleged Trump collusion with Russia have come up bone dry. I stand by my previous remarks:
If evidence exists of collusion between Russia and Trump to rig or hack the election, let's get the proof out there and hang him for it. Instead, the readily apparent media goal is to pack television shows, social media timelines and article titles with half-truth reporting in order to muddy the picture. If you don't really take the time to look into the "Trump-Russia Collusion" narrative, you'll likely just assume it true based on the volume of reporting thrown in your face daily. What's increasingly apparent is that the Robert Mueller investigation, which was kickstarted in 2016 by the Trump Dossier, has turned into a continuation of the Democrats' failed 2016 political campaign against Trump, with vague insinuations of misconduct or outright criminality but never any proof. Now that the goalposts have shifted, I urge you to take every opportunity to point out that we were lied to and the media should have zero credibility going forward. How do we go back and tell every person who read the previous list of articles, or quickly scrolled past them in their social media timeline that they were patently false and created with an agenda in mind? We can't. Those people went on living their lives unable to hold an adult conversation on the topic because they've been effectively influenced. We're never able to right the wrong that has taken place. This is the real crime. Hundreds of millions of Americans read headlines or quickly browsed articles and walked away from that interaction knowing that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
You speak to them around the water fountain and they can't explain why, they've seen no evidence, but it must be true. They are naive to believe the media is pure in it's intentions. They are ignorant to the fact that the media could be complicit in pushing a narrative.
For more, go read Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator by by Ryan Holiday marketed as 'the cult classic that predicted the rise of fake news—revised and updated for the post-Trump, post-Gawker age.' You'll quickly understand that the media is no longer the unofficial fourth branch of government which attempts to check government power with truth.
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot 
Ever since the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, on February 14, 2018, social media has been even more toxic than usual.
The gun-control side has in general been content to attribute vile motives to their opponents, and to contend that people arguing for gun rights prefer guns over their own children. Their reaction has made the debate over the 73 genders seem downright civil. Obviously, no progress can be made in our understanding when one side is so hysterical. Their side seems incapable even of conceiving of a rational argument we might make. This is standard fare for progressives, in my experience. We know their positions inside and out, but they seem genuinely baffled by and altogether ignorant of what libertarians and conservatives believe. (In fact, Jonathan Haidt ran studies on this very question, and found progressives consistently do a much worse job explaining their opponents' views than vice versa.) It is especially rich that progressives should posture and preen as though they hold the moral high ground, when in fact they consistently reject all practical responses to school shootings, including improvements in school security, in favor of pie-in-the-sky political solutions that have zero chance of passage, much less implementation. Best way to respond? With the stuff you'll learn in my brand new, free eBook Your Facebook Friends Are Wrong About Guns. Get it here (and please do me a favor by sharing the link with friends and on social media): 
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot 
Following the Las Vegas shooting in the above titled article from The Hill in November 2017, the question arose "What would the political landscape look like if serious gun control measures were put into law?
The authors preface a list of "common sense gun controls" by saying "In the spirit of these proposals, here are some ideas for tough federal gun laws — most of which should have been enacted years ago."
The list includes:
It's a pretty good list. When posed to people who have never purchased a gun before, it almost seems, dare I say, "Common Sense"? The problem is what the article most articulately points out. These laws are already on the books and have been for a long time. If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Perhaps we should attempt to educate ourselves about guns before we attempt to legislate them. If not, the results can be quite hilarious:
Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot 
When it comes to U.S. foreign policy challenges, four countries really stand above the rest: Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. While we stumble from one dysfunctional episode to the next here at home and create leadership vacuums by retreating further from the global stage, those countries are consolidating their power--and their challenges to American interests.
(1) Iran is now more powerful than it has been since it was known as Persia. No longer balanced by Iraq, Iran is able to project influence all the way to--and through--the Levant. Iranian influence pervades the Iraqi government and society and is paramount in Syria and Lebanon. They're engaged in a successful proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, pose a severe threat to Israel via Hezbollah, and are now even looking east to a place where American troops are directly involved: Yes, Iran now appears to be providing support to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
(2) North Korea is closer than ever--perhaps mere months away--to having a nuclear warhead that is small enough to fit onto the tip of a ballistic missile and to having the delivery system to carry that warhead all the way to the U.S. This is the first time that a country has both directly threatened to use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. and been so close to having the capability to do so. Though not certain, it is not unreasonable to think that North Korea could complete its nuclear deterrent before 2019.
(3) Emboldened by having successfully interfered in our 2016 elections (and having not been punished for doing so) and preparing to do so again in this year's elections, Russia is rapidly consolidating a new sphere of influence that extends into the Middle East, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe in ways not seen since the days of the Soviet Union. Like Iran (and Pakistan), Russia also appears to now be providing assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its military involvement in Ukraine is no closer to a resolution than it was years ago. Now Russian President Vladimir Putin appears set to be overwhelmingly reelected in an election that the Kremlin would never allow him to lose in the first place. He is, in effect, a lifetime autocrat; carefully managed elections are allowed in order to maintain a veneer of "democracy." Make no mistake though: should a majority of Russian voters ever desire to remove Putin through the ballot box, they would not be allowed to do so.
(4) The greatest strategic challenge of all comes from China, however. They pose the greatest threat to our allies, to our economy (jobs, etc.), to global norms, and so on, and they are one of the few remaining expansionist major powers. While we've had our heads turned, Xi Jinping has gone from merely the next Chinese President to the first Chinese dictator in decades. Like Putin, he is an autocrat. Unlike Putin, he is increasingly unconcerned with maintaining any veneer of democratic processes. China's rubber-stamp National People's Congress has formalized Xi's status as a lifetime ruler, and all indications are that one of Xi's top priorities will be to use his and China's growing power to ratchet up challenges to U.S. interests. These aren't abstract interests either: they directly affect American "Main Streets'" jobs and security. The days when China spoke often of its "peaceful" rise appear to be behind us.
These are some of the toughest problems we face, but they are far from the only problems we face. The global commons is incredibly complex and increasingly hostile and volatile. This is not the time to disengage from allies and/or to fall into total dysfunction at home.
We should get our house in order at home so that we can present a strong, united front. Then we should robustly re-engage with our allies abroad. Shrinking in the face of growing challenges isn't strong leadership. It isn't, in fact, leadership at all. The days when the U.S. could simply retreat into itself and prosper as before are over. We no longer have the preponderance of power that we once did and, like everyone else, are partially dependent on other countries in order to maintain our security and our standard of living. It's time for us to rise to the challenge. Editor's Note: I'm a Liberty Lover that believes we shouldn't be actively countering foreign powers that aren't currently undermining our national security or liberty. What are your thoughts on the geopolitical mandate that requires the United States to continually slay dragons to ensure we stay on top? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot 
In the wake of the tragic school shooting in Parkland, FL, I've been thinking a lot about the issue of guns in this country, which is really, in some ways, unique. I'd like to say something first to conservatives and then to liberals. For ConservativesIt's time to take our positions in this argument to the "next level." So many of us relegate ourselves to grossly oversimplified clichés and conspiracies that range from misleading to wrong to simply unhelpful. They don't actually do anything to further healthy debate. For example, how many times have we or someone around us said something like, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"? There's a kernel of truth to this--but only a kernel. That's why it's misleading. Kernels of truth don't bring us closer to solutions. There are logical fallacies with all of these clichés too. For instance, to the extent that guns don't kill people, nuclear bombs don't either. As with guns, nuclear bombs don't harm anyone until people decide to use them. Should this then be an argument that all 325 million Americans should have their own nuclear arsenals? Of course not. There's more to it than these little clichés indicate, so stop undercutting our own arguments by tossing these soundbites around. Frankly, it's simpleminded to begin and end your argument with an overworked cliché. Another common one: "Guns are the private citizen's fundamental protection from an overbearing government." Saying this makes you immediately sound as though you have no credibility to the very people you're trying to convince. Practically, the government kills FAR fewer Americans than private citizens kill. More often than not, the government--via the intelligence community, law enforcement, the military, etc.--is in the business of saving lives, not taking them. There's also a stone cold practical reality here: When the Second Amendment was written, the arms that the citizens owned were the same ones that the government owned. When you joined the military, you may well have simply grabbed your own musket and headed off to fight. In case we've failed to notice two centuries of changes, things are a little different now. If the government decided to come for you today, you wouldn't be facing muskets. The balance of power of weaponry between government and citizenry has changed dramatically--in the favor of the government. Guns no longer offer us protection from the government. No matter how many rifles, shotguns, pistols, or AR-15's you own, you'd be powerless against tanks, heavy armor, missiles, jets, 50-caliber armor-piercing machine guns, and various types of chain guns that can lay down over 80 pieces of lead every single second in your direction. Your best bet would simply be to lay down your guns and surrender. So, seriously, let's drop this impractical, conspiratorial argument. The days when it applied have come and gone. (Besides, considering all the murders and terrorism that take place today, there are probably more important threats to protect ourselves from than a federal government that kills almost no one, so let's stop defeating ourselves by repeating this conspiracy theory.)
Finally, we call ourselves "strict constructionists"--meaning that we see ourselves as the side that literally interprets the constitution, relative to the liberals who take all sorts of liberties with it.
Let's look at that through the lens of our prior nuclear weapons example. The Second Amendment simply says that we have the right to keep and bear "arms." It doesn't define that term, however, and never mentions "guns," which are just one type of arm. Therein lies the difficulty in always strictly applying something written in the 18th Century to events in the 21st Century. Most of us conservatives agree that private citizens should not be able to own nuclear weapons--or cruise missiles or any other arms like these. How many of you have a confrontational relationship with your neighbors but would still be perfectly happy with their having nuclear bombs, cruise missiles, and tanks sitting in their backyard pointed at your house? I didn't think so. We also agree that people who've committed mass murder with a gun shouldn't be able to buy anymore guns. (Yes, one mass murder each is probably enough, right?)
Wait though: In agreeing to prevent private ownership of nuclear weapons and to prevent mass murderers from buying anymore guns, we're taking a less-than-strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. It simply says "arms," not guns.
It also says that our right "shall not be infringed"; it doesn't say "shall not be infringed UNLESS..." So, by default, we're already not strictly interpreting the Second Amendment. It's intellectually dishonest to say that restricting gun ownership in any way is a violation of the Second Amendment but that restrictions on nuclear bombs, felons, children, etc. aren't. Let's be honest about that: It's our interpretation. It isn't an objective fact. The truth of the matter is that we have no idea how people like George Washington would have reacted to nuclear bombs, mass shootings of children in schools, etc. We can have a more effective place in this debate if we begin by being honest with each other and with ourselves. Where does this leave us? Frankly, it probably leaves us with the reality that some sort of restrictions are justified and, regardless of justification, are coming. That should be clear: both at the state and federal levels, restrictions in some form or fashion are coming. If we scratch and fight against ALL reforms, then all we're doing is simply locking ourselves out of having any influence in the discussion since public opinion has turned so decisively against us. Policymakers are going to start responding to that change in opinion. If we drop our clichés and shaky, convenient Second Amendment arguments, then we could earn ourselves a seat at the table in these debates and have real impact on the types of reforms that are eventually enacted. For Liberals
Get off your moral high horses. I mean, seriously, what's wrong with you?
The current gun debate highlights very well why so many conservatives have given up trying to discuss difficult issues with you: you turn every issue into both an indictment and a conviction of someone's morals. Christian opposition to gay marriage? Immoral and homophobic. Republican support for corporate tax cuts? Immoral and corrupt. GOP efforts to reduce the cost of our welfare system? Immoral and cold. Conservative concerns about abortions--especially certain types of abortions? Immoral and sexist. Anyone who disagrees with you about anything at all? Immoral and unethical. (I mean, there couldn't possibly be any other reasons for any of these positions, could there?) The same goes for Second Amendment rights. Those who support them? Immoral--murderers even. The NRA? They're murderers. (Because of course they are.) Marco Rubio? He's a murderer too. (Didn't you know?) Anyone who receives NRA donations? You guessed it: murderers. (Because the cash that most of us use is harmless, but NRA cash is that rare kind that kills people. New cliché for us: "People don't kill people; NRA cash kills people." Quick! Someone put that on a sign and go march around outside in the street with it!) How can you expect anyone to engage you in a healthy discussion when you're asking them to wade through a bunch of water that you've already poisoned? If they make it through, then they still have to yell up at you on top of your ivory tower. That's no way to have a productive discussion. Stop it. When you encounter clichés and conspiracies from the Right, you have an opportunity to listen, to try to understand, and to address them factually as I've just done. Instead, you ridicule and belittle. It's time for some real soul-searching on this. As I said above, I agree that something must be done. Should we take away everyone's guns? Absolutely not. That is indisputably unconstitutional, and even if the government ordered us to turn them over, I and many others would refuse. Are there some reasonable, less Draconian restrictions that may be helpful though? Yes, absolutely. Be intellectually honest about it though: The cold, hard reality is that none of the restrictions under discussion are likely to have much impact on shootings. --Enact a "waiting period" after gun purchases? (Most people who shoot another person have had guns for months or even years. A waiting period won't make much difference.) --Ban bump stocks? (Sure, but how many shootings involve the use of bump stocks? Las Vegas? Which others? Not many. It also isn't clear how much difference not having a bump stock would have made in Las Vegas. The shooter would have fired fewer rounds for sure, but his fire would also have been more accurate.) --Prevent mentally ill people from buying guns? (I agree it should be done, but let's be honest: How many shooters have mental illness diagnoses? Very few.) --Limit gun buying only to those over the age of 21? (Most shooters are over 21. Las Vegas anyone?) --Ban semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15. (Sure, but how many shootings involve semi-automatic weapons? Most don't.) That's really where we are. There are 350 million guns in this country, so restrictions like those can really only nip around the edges. They can't fundamentally change the reality here. There's this mythical idea floating around that if we just "ban guns," then we'll all live happily ever after, perhaps even while holding hands. Some things aren't very clear, but this is: That wouldn't solve the problem. Sure, it might help some, but it won't solve the problem completely or even come close. One unfortunate reality of going too far with restrictions can be seen in your (liberals') own arguments on another issue: legalizing certain drugs. The argument goes that legalizing these drugs undercuts black markets for drugs and increases government tax revenue. That can be applied to guns as well: banning them would lead to the creation of a healthy black market for guns and would deprive governments of some revenue. So the issue really is complicated. Let's stop pretending that it's as simple as just defeating conservatives and getting some sort of severe restrictions on gun ownership. It wouldn't work out quite like that. For everyone
Our focus right now is on "supply side" (gun) solutions. Too many guns? Too few? Too many restrictions? Too few? This is understandable. Guns drive ratings, so the media has much incentive to harp on them. The Second Amendment mentions arms (which we limit to "guns" today), so it makes sense to talk about guns. These mass murderers are using guns, so, again, let's talk about guns, right? Wrong. I do believe that some restrictions on gun ownership are overdue. We should expand background checks. We should bar mentally ill people from buying guns. We should ban bump stocks. That said, those reforms would have only a very, very small impact. Is it worth it? Of course. I'd never tell a parent that his murdered child was only one and that one wasn't worth saving. All are worth saving. Something feels missing though. Is saving just a few the best we can do? Well, if we're only focused on "guns," then, yes, it is. Saving only a few is the best we can hope for. Our focus should be on the other side: defense. Another cliché goes like this: "The best defense is a good offense." In real life, that usually isn't true. That best defense in most things in life is simply good defense. (Gosh, we humans love our clichés though! It's hard to let go of them.) The truth of the matter is that regardless of what we do with guns, schools will remain extremely soft, high visibility, undefended targets for people who have a bone to pick with society. An AR-15 isn't necessary to wreak havoc. A calm person with a revolver could walk into a school with six bullets and leave six young bodies in his wake. It would be small comfort to those parents to say, "Yes, but you should feel better. We banned AR-15's, so thankfully only yours and five others were killed. It could have been more. Pat me on the back now please." That wouldn't go over well, but that's, in effect, what some the proposals mean. My proposal Yes, enact reasonable restrictions on gun ownership like those I just mentioned. Don't kid yourselves though: It's time to focus on defense. The only way to stop these things on school campuses is to defend school campuses. The way to prevent a soft target from being attacked is to make it no longer a soft target. This is, quite honestly, very basic. I don't know the right way to handle this, but I do know that this is where we should be looking. You could arm a certain proportion of teachers. You could hire contracted security officers. You could have local police and sheriff's departments pick up security duty at schools. You could set up trained volunteer security units (like trained volunteer fire departments). You could send all kids, teachers, coaches, etc. through metal detectors before they're allowed onto campuses. There are any number of proposals with varying costs and other pros and cons. Some may not work at all. Some may work quite well. Some may not be feasible, while others certainly are. This is were we have to look though. We have to make schools harder targets. Is it sad that we need to do this? Of course it is, but it would be even sadder to refuse to do this either for ideological reasons or simply because we don't think we ought to have to "in this country." The fact of the matter is that this country has a problem with gun violence, and the best way to combat it is to make common targets much more difficult to hit. No matter the restrictions placed on gun ownership, if someone really wants to carry out a shooting at a school, they'll be able to do so--unless they can't. They'll be able to do so unless schools' defenses are such that it's just far too difficult. We can't completely keep dangerous people from getting guns, so we have to make sure that when--yes, when--they do, they're not able to attack our schools with them. That's where real solutions lie. No, it won't win ideological fights. No, it won't drive media ratings. It will save lives though. Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions Taxation is Theft Bot 
Again, why are we breaking news on a Friday if it's 'significant'? Everyone knows that Friday afternoons are reserved for stuff we want headlines on but no real in-depth coverage. Most reporters have already head home for the weekend.
The indictment can be downloaded here and reads: From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016. Unfortunately, No one will actually read the indictment and compare it to what Already Occurs in every election.
There's no value in doing so. Must keep the Left/Right arguing with each other at all costs. Leftists will claim "It is definitely starting to look like we have an illegitimate president" and Righties will proclaim 'Fake news!"
As an Intelligence Officer, I will tell you that election influence operations are the norm. It would actually be highly exceptional if an election wasn't being influenced by outside countries, non-profits, and donations. This only occurs in certain non-descript countries of zero geopolitical value which are few and far between. Here are the charges:
These are the charges? On a scale of Influence-Operations up to Hacking-the-Election-OMG-Trump-is-Illegitimate, this represents child play that occurs in Every. Election. In. Every. Country. That some Russians donated funding in order to influence an election should not be a surprise. We do the same thing. Private citizens do the same thing. George Soros has done this. In leaked documents from his Open Society Foundation George Soros even attempted to manipulate the 2016 ElectionWill Special Counsel also indict Soros? Will the EU nations bring an indictment against him and his 'Election Hacking"? That's the standard that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is attempting to establish in this indictment. Additionally, bringing charges against foreign nationals is of no-value in the real world. Russia isn't going to find these defendants and ship them over. Quite the opposite, they're probably getting medals. Russia sincerely believed Hillary would go to war with them. Her record is clear on Russia So we're not going to actually take the Russians to court, but by indicting them, Mueller can continue the narrative that this election was "different" or "illegitimate" or even "Hillary should have won" (which no one actually believes).
Who knows. Maybe it's a new world.
Maybe these Russians are all 'guilty' and now 'election influence' is no longer going to be part of our status quo. Not likely, but if so, will you hold the U.S. federal government to these same standards when we meddle in others' elections? Why or why not? How is it different? Should we just defund the Central Intelligence Agency now? This is part of the CIA's specific mission. We. Are. Not. Angels. How far back in history should we look when determining guilt of this occurring in the past? Follow libertyLOL on your favorite social media sites:FacebookYoutube Tumblr Pintrest Countable: Government Made Simple Steemit blog on a blockchain Patreon Gab.ai libertyLOL's Liberty Blog RSS Feed We also run a couple twitterbots which provide great quotes and book suggestions: Murray Rothbard Suggests Tom Woods Suggests Jason Stapleton Suggests Progressive Contradictions MORE FROM LIBERTYLOL:
|
Search the
libertyLOL Archives: Archives
February 2018
Search and Shop on Amazon.com!
Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom"Get the equivalent of a Ph.D. in libertarian thought and free-market economics online for just 24 cents a day...."
At Liberty Classroom, you can learn real U.S. history, Western civilization, and free-market economics from professors you can trust. Short on time? No problem. You can learn in your car. Find out more!  |
