Red Herrings

As has always been the case, the draconian, economy destroying, giant, evil, monstrously, insanely huge budget cuts are, in fact, not.  Some nifty infographics from our friends at YAL:

 

Also check out the analysis by Reason:

Widely quoted as $85 billion for spending in fiscal year 2013 (which ends on September 30), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) underscores that just $44 billion of spending reduction are slated for 2013, with the rest coming in later years. So what we're talking about is trimming $44 billion from total federal spending expected to be $3.6 trillion this year. If you use the $85 billion number, that's about 2.4 percent of the budget. If you use the $44 billion, you're looking at 1.2 percent.
...
We should try to define austerity. In its latest budget document, the CBO notes in table 1-1 (look at outlays) that, assuming sequestration happens, there will be a slight dip from 2012 to 2013 in discretionary spending levels. Then discretionary spending rises every year through 2023. Total federal spending is projected to rise from $3.5 trillion in 2012 to $5.9 trillion in 2023. Good luck matching that sort of austerity in your salary gains over the next decade.

If only it were so.

No guns for you!

Democrat Joe Salazar says college women shouldn't be allowed to carry guns to prevent rape.  First he says women don't need guns - apparently schools are gun free "safe" zones and students have access to whistles and emergency call boxes.  Then he says women are clearly too hysterical, too irrational to carry them, because you may start indiscriminantly popping off rounds at random "innocent" people.

It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.

A little tip for you Representative - straight from Dirty Harry himself.  

When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.

- Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

The University of Colorado advises students to prevent rape by yelling, vomiting, and urinating on yourself instead of, well, you know, shooting the attacker. Amanda Collins disagrees with both the Representative and the University, and considering she was raped at gunpoint in a "safe" zone, I think she has the right of it.  This picture from Rob Allen's blog really says it all.

Of course the real reason politicians don't want you armed is because with arms you can resist them, and they wouldn't want that, would they? 

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1833

Update 3/5:

Republican state Sen. Ted Harvey attacks gun control bills, rightly saying the firearm bans are in place to prevent people from becoming uncomfortable, and that they are not trying to tackle violent crime at all.

“How does rendering me defenseless protect you against violent crime?” Collins asked. 

“What we are trying to do here tonight is not to protect ourselves from violent crime. What we are trying to do here tonight is prevent students and teachers from feeling uncomfortable by you carrying a gun to protect yourself,” Harvey said.

Unless you realize he is deriding the efforts, it sounds like he's a nutcase, but in fact he's pointing out the idiocity of the bill.

The War on Drugs?

As a child I was very impressed with the policeman who came to our school and talked to us about the DARE program.  Do you remember that?  Drug Abuse Resistance Education.  It was all about teaching kids about the dangers of illegal drugs and preparing them to say no if they were ever offered such.  Of course the officer never told us that 60% of all drug overdose deaths involve prescription drugs.  He never told us that 75% of those that died overdosing on prescription drugs (a full 45% of all overdosing deaths) died overdosing on pain killers.  We were never told that the pharmaceutical industry would fill over 120 million OxyContin and Vicodin prescriptions, or that this industry would rake in $300 Billion dollars and provide the drug that kills nearly 40 thousand Americans in a single year.

Of course he never told us.  How were children supposed to understand the difference between good drug dealers and bad drug dealers?  Sure the good drug dealers kill tens of thousands of people, but the bad drug dealers are - gasp - black!  Oh boy, you know how "uppity" they can be.  That's probably why there are something like half a million of them in jails right now for non-violent drug offenses.  They are non-violent uppity blacks.  Trust the policeman, trust the government.  The war on drugs is not a vehicle created for the sole purpose of destroying the minority blacks and their families. Continue on the path you're on and keep filling those prescriptions. 

Update 2/25:
In another example of the failed "War on Drugs," California prisons which are so overfilled with non-violent drug offenders are paroling sex offenders, and not re-jailing them even when they cut off their tracking devices. 

Update 3/4:
The ACLU produced a great infographic detailing the prison industrial complex.

Update 3/18:
What happens when you're a white West Hollywood drug dealer?  You get probation and your medical license is suspended for a mere one year.  Perhaps it's not just because he's white, but because he's a psychiatrist?   These "well respected" criminals routinely get out of paying for their crimes - whether they are rapists, drug dealers, or whatever else.

Drone valor! 1 out of 50 ain't so bad I guess...

Apparently drone pilots will be receiving medals that are higher in seniority than the bronze star, which is awarded for valor in combat. 

Drone strikes kill 49 civilians for every intentional target they kill, according to a study by Stanford and NY Universities.

Released on Wednesday by researchers at Stanford and New York University law schools, the study recommends the U.S. conduct “a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices,” which has led to 49 civilian deaths for every one known terrorist killed.

Can you imagine an infantry soldier killing 49 civilians and 1 terrorist and getting a medal?  Me neither.  Usually they go to jail.

Update:
A list of children killed in the strikes. 

Update 2, April 15th:
Hagel cancels the drone medal.

Two months after the military rolled out the Distinguished Warfare Medal for troops who don’t set foot on the battlefield, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has concluded it was a bad idea. [Duh. - Aaron]  Some veterans and some lawmakers spoke out against the award, arguing that it was unfair to make the medal a higher honor than some issued for valor on the battlefield.

Math, owch edition.

There are 46.6 million people on food stamps.  If each of these people lined up on the roads, standing 10 feet, 7 inches from each other, they would be cover every one of the 46,726 miles of interstate highway in this country, on both sides of the road.  That's a sad statistic, and one up more than 100% since the President first took office.

If it’s illegal for us, don’t sell it to police!

 Via No Lawyers, Only guns and Money blog: LaRue Tactical stands up for your rights!

LaRue Tactical of Leander, TX is well known for both their tactical accessories and their highly accurate AR-style rifles. On Friday, Mark LaRue, the owner and president, issued a notice stating his company would limit their sales to state and local law enforcement agencies to what the citizen of that state or locality was permitted to own or possess. In other words, if, for example, the residents of California or New York are limited in what they may possess due to "assault weapons bans", then sales to the LAPD or NYPD will be limited to that as well.

Grass Roots North Carolina is starting a campaign to get other companies on board with this. Their position with which I agree is that the "Only Ones" should not be allowed to have special weapons that are forbidden to the average citizen by state or local law.

Copy and paste this email, and send to these sales managers:
publicsafetysales@sigsauer.com, dgrier@smith-wesson.com, LE.info@glock.us, mreissig@colt.com, sales@fnhusa.com, lawenforcement@ruger.com

subject: If it’s illegal for us, don’t sell it to police!

Dear Law Enforcement Sales Manager,

Recently New York rushed an ill-advised and unconstitutional law infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Other states are poised to write similar laws. I urge you to follow the lead of LaRue Tactical which has adopted this policy: If it can’t be sold to law-abiding citizens, it won’t be sold to state and local police agencies either.

There are 800,000 sworn police officers in the entire United States. The FBI reports a total of 2,495,440 NICS checks, and thus firearms sales, in January alone. Police sales are not your major business. It’s time for firearm manufacturers to send a clear message that you will not participate in the slow erosion of our Second Amendment rights.
(NICS numbers Source http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/20130205_1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals.pdf)

Signed,

Some people may be opposed to this action.  Some may accuse supporters of hating the police, or being anarchists.  That is not what is happening here.  That is not what this is about.  This post is about destroying the concept of "one law for us, another for them," which is all too prevalent in our country, and has "public servants" thinking they are our betters.

Read this quote I first saw on the Smallest Minority blog:

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them. 

This does not really only apply to the left. It applies to anyone who thinks the police are inherently more trustworthy than non-police, which just isn't true. We're all people. You, me and the police. Let me say that again. The police are people. They are subject to all of the same stresses in their daily lives, and in many cases more, than everyone else. They intake the same chemicals. The drive in the same traffic. They pay their mortgages. If every civilian is a criminal waiting to happen, that applies to police officers as well.

That is why there cannot be one law for us and another for them. There simply is no magic fairy dust.

Do the police have to protect you? No.

 
Warren v. District of Columbia held that the police generally do not have an obligation to protect you.  Read the dispicable actions of the police and the horrible ruling here on Wikipedia.

...

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. (This suggests that when they heard that there had been a burglary, the police must have felt that they had a promising lead on a culprit.)

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

...

Here on Police Chief Magazine they discuss the ruling and the exceptions:

Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.
 
Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined. Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.¹ Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns. Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law.

...

And via John Lott's excellent blog, Chicago police will no longer respond to 911 calls for robbery, car theft, burglaries, etc:

 

Robbery is a serious violent crime (Fox News video is available here). For police not to respond to reports of robberies will only lead to one prediction: there will be an increase in robberies. In a city that makes it extremely difficult for people to use guns defensively, not having the police respond is dangerous. 

There is also the James Q. Wilson notion of "broken windows." As the city disintegrates, it may encourage other more serious crime to occur. 

 
Now, for the "gun control" advocates out there, how do you feel about further restricting gun ownership for law abiding citizens?  If you don't live in Chicago, you may be able to brush this off, but I urge you to consider for a moment if these policies come to your city.  Neighborhoodscout.com has a crime index they develop from the uniform crime reports, collected by the FBI from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies.  Here is the data on Los Angeles and on the US:

Los Angeles:

• BURGLARY 17,606
• THEFT 54,971
• MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 15,866

US:

• BURGLARY 2,188,005
• THEFT 6,159,795
• MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 715,373

Should these 9 million people every year not be allowed to protect themselves, even knowing the police are not obligated to respond, and in some cases have official policy not to respond?  When you've given over your personal protection to someone else, and they turn down the responsibility, what must you then do?  Think it over.