On the Election
This election season, according to some who have looked up these things, is reminiscent of the election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Lies, innuendo, dirty tricks, a highly biased media and a confused public left behind. Living in a state that Democrats believe is theirs, we aren't seeing on television the kinds of ads some of you are. They're getting seriously ugly. Frankly, I'm appalled. Some of this is politics, of course. But when the media simply stares out the window when Obama's campaign mocks Senator McCain because he is disabled and cannot use a computer for very long -- well, that tells me our news organizations are simply arms of the Democrat party. By association, Franklin Roosevelt should not have been elected President because he could not drive a car.
In one of my previous posts I said I'd rather vote for Jabba the Hut than Obama-Biden. I mean that. Here we are just months from the election and I still cannot figure out what positions Obama has a firm stance on, except gun control.
Lastly, the first Vice Presidential debate is scheduled for October 2. I expect Palin will show up well against even an experienced trough-feeder like Biden. But, the rumor mill is working overtime. "The" rumor has it that just after that debate, Biden will announce he's stepping down due to some serious "illness". This will allow Obama to bring Hillary on board as his VP candidate with the obvious hope of re-energizing his campaign at the 11th hour. The background for the rumor is that Biden's frequent slips in the press that show up as criticism of Obama or the campaign have annoyed the Chicago Kool-Aid drinkers so much that they want him out.
N.Y. Times - What Constitution?
The old gray lady, the N.Y. Times has long been known as a bastion of ultra-liberal thinking. Any more, it seems that senility is the major requirement for a reporter to land a job. Or, at least, no knowledge of the basic constitutional principles of our country.
In the Times Freakonomics blog, Stephen J. Dubner asks for ideas to curb gun deaths. With such a question, one might think that asking police officers, criminologists or perhaps even firearms experts what we might do. But no. His sources are a reformed gang member, an avowed anti-gun "researcher" (used by the Brady Campaign), one of NY Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun lawyers and a professor at the anti-gun Harvard school of medicine.
Their solutions?
1) Provide large monetary awards for anonymous tips to police that a person has a gun. Great idea. Gerry Gangbanger calls police on his wealthy looking target and lets the police check him for weapons. If he's got a gun but isn't arrested, Mr. Gangbanger can look for a safer victim. If no gun shows up, the poor guy will be a bit rattled and be an easier victim.
2) Punish the entire family of a minor involved in "gun violence." This came from a reformed gang member, so perhaps he doesn't realize the ramifications here. He claims the parents are should be financially responsible for the actions of their minor children. Including garnishing their wages for their entire lives and having them pay all outstanding debts. He also mentions forcing the parents to serve half the time of the perpetrator. Yeah. That makes sense. One kid in the family gets served a drug-spiked drink, is forced to commit a robbery or homicide to blackmail him into the gang. If he's caught, his siblings are turned into wards of the state, his parents jailed, likely their life savings drained by lawyers and the child is in jail too. Then, while they're trying to restart their lives, they're kept in the poorhouse by garnished wages. I guess punishing a single working mother AND her three kids, who's father ran out on them (or is in prison), makes perverted sense.
3) The Harvard professor wants a National Firearm Safety Administration. Such an agency would, in his view, control everything from the design of guns to the materials they're made of. Of course that would include how many steps it would take to actually fire the gun. Don't worry about all those evil "assault weapons" though. With a wave of an administrative rule-making wand, those would be outlawed like lawn-darts.
125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer
CBS News Reports
CBS news reported that 125 people were killed in Chicago over the summer and that is almost twice the number of U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in the same time period. What a stunning revelation! The entire country of Iraq is a safer place than Barak Obama's "Gun Free" Chicago!
CBS identified Chicago’s high murder rate as almost totally gang related and geographically isolated. Chicago police spokeswoman Monique Bond said in an e-mail, "Up to 60 percent of the shootings are gang related. More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories and up to 80 percent of the victims have criminal histories."
Wait. Play that again. A full 90 percent of the offenders have a criminal history. And, they have guns. And 80 percent of the victims are also criminals. Yet only 60% are gang related? I'm beginning to wonder if all that confiscated marijuana is making it to the evidence lockers. Yes, it is appalling that 20% of the victims are apparently non-criminals. But one wonders how many of those victims were involved in buying drugs, prostitution or some other "victimless crime". One also wonders how many of this 20% might still be alive if Chicago allowed citizens to defend themselves.
The map, which accompanied the CBS story, can be found here. It shows the numbers are geographically condensed in a few neighborhoods. Unfortunately, no demographics are available about these areas.