Friday, December 21, 2012

Is There Anything We Can Do About Mass Murder?

...that we have these shootings almost ritualistically is horrible.  Here is a good article at Mother Jones - it's quite complete.   Is There Anything We Can Do About Mass Murder?
Update, December 15: Click here for our coverage of the Newtown school massacre. This story has been updated to include data from that event.

In the fierce debate that always follows the latest mass shooting, it's an argument you hear frequently from gun rights promoters: If only more people were armed, there would be a better chance of stopping these terrible events. This has plausibility problems—what are the odds that, say, a moviegoer with a pack of Twizzlers in one pocket and a Glock in the other would be mentally prepared, properly positioned, and skilled enough to take out a body-armored assailant in a smoke- and panic-filled theater? But whether you believe that would happen is ultimately a matter of theory and speculation. Instead, let's look at some facts gathered in a two-month investigation by Mother Jones.
In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in other recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.  (Click on the link above to read the entire story).

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The Ongoing Battle Between To Have Guns Or Not To Have

The shooting of young children and teacher in their classroom is beyond horror and makes one think about the human mind and how it can become horribly corrupted.  But what one has to realize is that guns cannot act by themselves...just as knives, bombs and arrows cannot act by themselves.  They need a human agent to trigger them into activity.  If we had better collection of data that could be processed for information about  whether the purchaser of a gun had medical issues or was a previous felon then that would solve the majority of the problem.  Guns can be used to protect oneself and family or it can be used for murder.  The two have to be distinguished and a sane policy arrived at.  Not this knee jerk reaction every time one of these killings happen.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

The Obama Record

The Obama Record: The chief executive who swore to faithfully execute the nation's laws picks those he'll ignore and makes up others through regulation and executive order. He sees no need for a Congress or Constitution...  
...In his State of the Union address a year later on Jan. 27, 2010, he shamefully scolded the justices on national television for "having reversed a century of law" in the Citizens United ruling in which the court was protecting the freedom of political speech enshrined more than two centuries ago in the First Amendment. We agree with Justice Samuel Alito's eloquent rebuff of the president, in which he was seen mouthing the words "Not true."
Then came ObamaCare, which would prove to be a monumental assault on the First and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. ... Never before had a citizen of the United States been required to purchase a product just for being a citizen of the United States.
The Constitution according to President Obama also requires a suspension of the First Amendment guarantee that Congress shall make no laws restricting the free exercise of religion. Arguably, the Congress did no such thing in passing ObamaCare. But it left the door open when it replaced "We The People" of the Constitution with "the Secretary shall determine," a phrase that appears in the bill a mind-boggling 1,563 times.  READ here...

Sunday, June 03, 2012

We are Losing Our Liberties and Becoming a Government Run Corporate State

READ "The Immorality of Obamanomics" and you'll learn a lot about why we are no longer a free republic...but rather slaves to the state and favored corporate groups.  Read below and click on the title for the rest of the article by Austin Hill at

"I only care about moral issues."

If I’ve heard that phrase once, then I’ve heard it a few hundred times. It’s a common response among
social conservatives during campaigns and election cycles.
And this year, as Washington compromises our nation’s future with profligate spending and economic
turmoil threatens nations abroad, we need to add to that category called “moral issues.” It’s time to
recognize that economic policy matters are, themselves, moral concerns, and America is currently on
a very immoral economic path.  As a writer and talk show host I covered the last presidential election cycle in detail. Hosting daily talk radio in Washington, DC in 2008, it would become apparent when I was speaking with a socially conservative caller to my show - such callers would frequently express concerns over a specific set of issues. “I don’t think McCain is really pro-life” was a common concern. And “Obama says he opposes gay marriage, but I don’t believe him” was another.

To these types of statements about abortion and the definition of marriage, I would often respond with
questions about economics, just to see where the discussion would go. “But what do you think of
Senator Obama’s plan to raise taxes on rich people – is that a good idea?” I might ask. Or “Do you
think John McCain is right about the stock market crash when he says that it’s all because of ‘greed
on Wall Street?’”
Generally speaking, my economic questions would bring these brief talk show conversations to an
abrupt end. “I only care about the moral issues” was the response I’d usually hear – as though
economic issues are morally neutral or of no moral significance at all – and then the caller would say
That was in 2008. Today, all Americans – social conservatives included - need to be resolute, and
recognize that our government’s disposition towards private enterprise and wealth must change.
Simply allowing politicians to control more of our economic resources is a formula for more trouble,
and more trouble lies ahead if our current President – and his ideology – remain in power.
Given what has happened over the course of the Obama presidency thus far, it should be apparent
that America is now in the midst of an economic policy revolution. Both by legislation from the
Congress, and by executive orders from the White House, President Obama has in less than three
years emerged as a de facto CEO over huge chunks of our economy.

Friday, May 18, 2012

Cayman vs Belize: Capitalism vs Statism

To see in a microcosm what the difference is between a free nation and one that practices statism you only have to compare Cayman and Belize.  I spent a week in Belize last year and I can tell you the except for the lush hotels right on the beach, which were off limits to Belizeans most of the people live in dire poverty.  The story is very different in Cayman.   Where are we headed with all our taxation, rules, regulations and our almost police state?  Not anywhere good.  Read "Tale of Two Small Countries" (Washington Times).

Cayman is rich, and Belize is poor. Why? Both are small Caribbean countries with the same climate and roughly the same mixed racial heritage, and both were English-speaking British colonies. Belize (the former British Honduras) received its independence in 1981, while Cayman is still not fully independent but is self-governing at the local level, with its own currency, laws and regulations.

Belize should be richer: It has a larger population than Cayman (345,000 as contrasted with Cayman’s 54,000). Belize has a much larger and more varied land area with many more natural resources, including gas and oil, and some rich agricultural land that Cayman lacks. Both have nice beaches, but Belize has the second-largest barrier reef in the world after Australia and also has Mayan ruins. Yet Cayman, with fewer points of interests, has done more to attract tourists.

Back in the early 1970s, Cayman was as poor on a per capita basis as isBelize today. Both countries had ambitions to be tourist and financial centers. Cayman succeeded and has about six times the real per capita income of Belize. What did Cayman do right and Belize do wrong?
Perhaps most important is that Cayman had and maintained a competent and honest judicial system, which gave foreign investors confidence that their property would be protected. Cayman also has a very low crime rate. Tourists and other visitors walk around freely day or night in Cayman without fear. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many parts of Belize, where crime is often a problem. In addition, many judges in Belize are poorly trained, incompetent and, in some cases, corrupt. These issues cause foreign investors to consider higher-risk factors for projects in Belize as contrasted with the rest of article here.

Flight from ObamaCare Starts

Health Reform: Faced with being forced to abandon its conscience while emptying its bank account, a Catholic university finds its students can't keep the health insurance they like as it becomes prohibitively expensive.
Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, finding itself at the nexus of cost and conscience regarding the demands and expenses imposed on it and other Catholic institutions by the onslaught of ObamaCare, has announced it will neither comply nor participate in the nationalization of health care and drop the health coverage it offers to its students.
It's the first shoe to drop in what will be a cascade of such decisions. Franciscan University was able to drop its coverage, but as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has warned, other institutions and charities may be forced to close, sell off their assets or turn them over to secular operators in the wake of ObamaCare's unacceptable mandates and costs.
"This is putting people in a position where they are having to choose between their faith and their morality — and now an unjust cost," said Mike Hernon, vice president of advancement at the university. "These sorts of regulations from the government are forcing our hand in a way that's really wrong."  Read the rest HERE.  First Shoe Drops: Catholic School Drops ObamaCare

Sunday, April 15, 2012

We are Losing Our Right to Property and With It Our Right to Life

As we watch our government dedicated to the proposition that all property rights are secured by the goodness of government it is a good time to re-read the philosopher Ayn Rand's famous writings on this issue.

The right to Life is the source of all rights-and the right to property is their only implementation.  Without property rights, no other rights are possible.  Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.  The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others:  it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object.  It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it.  It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.  ("Man's Rights,"  The Virtue of Selfishness, 125; pb94).

We need schools (or parents) that will teach our children the rights bestowed on us by our Constitution and that government that rules least is best.  Government is so much in every aspect of our lives that we are seriously running the risk of becoming ever more slaves of the state.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

"Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand" by Don Watkins

Although Ayn Rand's influence is felt everywhere...there is still a long way to go before people realize the great achievement of Rand's code of morality.  The world could sure use the knowledge.

Today, on the 107th anniversary of her birth, it’s hard to doubt that the world has indeed heard of Ayn Rand. Her books—including titles like "The Fountainhead" and "The Virtue of Selfishness"—have sold nearly 30 million copies, with sales of her 1,100-page opus, "Atlas Shrugged," surpassing a million copies in the last three years alone.

Rand has clearly inspired millions. But a debate has emerged over the question of Rand’s political influence, with many commentators claiming her ideas have played a key role in shaping the political landscape. As former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend said in 2011, “Ayn Rand has a large and growing influence on American politics.”

But to gauge Rand’s influence, we need to know more about her views than the sound bytes we’re typically offered.

Rand is usually thought of as a political philosopher, but that is not how she viewed herself. “I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality,” she once said. Whereas previous moral codes bestowed sainthood on those who served and sacrificed for others, Rand’s morality extolled “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

This is the philosophy embodied by fictional characters such as Hank Rearden, the industrialist in "Atlas Shrugged," who—in the tradition of Thomas Edison—creates a new metal that’s stronger and cheaper than steel, and who—in the tradition of countless entrepreneurs—struggles to produce his revolutionary product in the face of government obstacles. At one point, Rearden is brought to trial for violating the government’s economic edicts, and he proudly defends his right to produce and prosper:

 READ HERE  "Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand"  Printed in