Month: April 2012

There is No Right, There is No Left

It seems any topic imaginable gets split between the political right (Republicans) and left (Democrats). Laws against abortions are generally considered right, laws allowing for abortions are generally considered left. Laws allowing gays to marry are usually considered left, laws prohibiting gays from marrying are usually considered right. Guns are no different, laws supporting gun ownership are usually seen as right while guns opposing gun ownership are usually seen as left. There is a problem with such thinking though: there is no right and there is no left, just one giant authoritarian party:

Of course, the biggest piece of anti-freedom, anti-gun legislation was the 1968 Gun Control Act, which stopped the unrestricted, ungoverned interstate sale of firearms and gave us the immortal BATFE Form 4473. “HEY, HEY, LBJ, HOW MANY KIDS DID YOU KILL TODAY?” Yeah, old Lyndon put that one through and it sailed through a Democratic House and Senate and was signed by a President I’ve despised all my life.

This is where everybody likes to stand up and say, “See! The Democrats hate our gun rights!” What these same people seldom stand up and say is that Republicans hate our gun rights as well. Let’s not forget what the man who is an symbol of all that is supposedly conservative, good, and holy to the Republican Party did to fuck gun owners over:

Ronnie Reagan is the one who really stuck it to Gun Owners. He signed the legislation that capped the NFA pool at what it is today and stopped the New registration of machine guns. What few on our side of this issue want to talk about is the fact that more than a few prominent machine gun collectors lobbied FOR this law. Dolf Goldsmith being the most prominent one I could find in the testimony in the Congressional Record. Why? Because it made him Rich! It was Greed, pure and simple and Good Ole Ronnie signed it into law.

The cap on licensable machine guns, brought to us courtesy of the Huges Amendment, was not only signed by the “most amazingest conservative president EVAR!” but was also supported by those who owned machine guns. It’s not surprising to see machine gun owners supporting such a bill for the same reason many companies that face additional expenses from regulations public support said regulations: it eliminates competition and therefore makes the good or service you provide more valuable.

When the state gets an idea in their head to regulation some inane process related to a business the large businesses will usually jump in and exclaim their undying support. They do this because they realize their smaller competitors won’t be able to afford complying with the regulation and will therefore go bankrupt.

The very same mentality went through the heads of machine gun owners when the Huges Amendment was introduced. Think about it for a minute, you own a machine gun that is valued at, say, $500.00. The value of your machine gun doesn’t go up because new ones are constantly being produced. Suddenly a politician comes out and says he wants to halt the production of new machine guns, which would mean new ones won’t get produced to compete with the one you own. It’s in your best interest to support the legislation because it will cause the value of your machine gun to increase over time as the pool of available machine guns slowly dries up and no new ones are being produced to refill the pool.

Another example of this are tax cabs, the number of which many cities put a limit on. This is one of the classic examples of state enforce monopolies given by Murray Rothbard and he talks about it extensively in his microeconomics lecture on monopolies. Needless to say, like machine gun owners supporting the Huges Amendment, taxi cab drivers support the cap on the number of taxis that can operate within a city. Let’s move on to more of this left/right paradigm destruction:

After Reagan, Bush the Senior outlawed the importation of ‘assault weapons’ and then Clinton stuck us for 10 years with the ban on over 10 round magazines. Fortunately, that last piece of anti-freedom crap had a sunset provision and died a natural, but none too soon, death and some sanity has been restored. We still wouldn’t have many different ‘assualt rifles’ if the 922(e) provision for American manufactured parts hadn’t been introduced. Otherwise, you would have AR’s, M-1A’s and, Oh Yeah, a whole bunch more AR’s and damn few other options.

Most gun owners remember how Clinton screwed us but few remember how Bush Sr. screwed us (or the fact Geore W. Bush said he would sign a renewal to the “assault” weapon ban if it crossed his desk). So what’s the conclusion? Can’t we just blindly vote for Republicans to defend our gun rights? Nope:

So, if you evaluate Presidents and political parties by what they’ve done and NOT by their soundbites, my feeling is the Republican Presidents have screwed gun owners more than the Democrats have. Only 2 Democratic Presidents have signed anti-gun, anti-freedom national legislation; Johnson and Clinton, while on the Republican side, we have Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush Senior.

There is no right and there is no left, there are no Republican and there are no Democrats. When it comes to issues there are only politicians who will screw you over at the drop of a hat if it means they gain money, power, or a better chance to be reelected so they can get more of the two latter things. Saying Romney will protect our gun rights more than Obama is an argument not backed with any factual information. Romney’s record on guns is horrible. Both Obama and Romney state support for “assault” weapon bans but only one, Romney, has actually signed a ban.

Between the two Romney will be the candidate promising gun owners protection but the rhetoric is irrelevant, whether or not he will deliver is the only important question. Judging by his voting record he won’t support us. Some people are claiming he’ll support us because he needs us to get elected , which is false. Romney doesn’t need to pander to us because he knows our options are either him or Obama and most gun owners hate Obama to such a degree that they’ll vote for anybody else.

When it comes to gun rights there is no lesser evil. I will not support either candidate and I encourage my readers to abstain from supporting either candidate as well. If two candidates who oppose my right of self-defense want to duke it out in a popularity contest they can, I don’t recognize the authority of the state anyways so whichever dictator gets into office is entirely irrelevant to me. Those of you who plan to donate your time and money to Romney know that you’re only helping sow your own destruction. Have fun with that, I’ll be sitting this out. While I may be powerless to stop any destruction of gun rights in this country I certainly will not help the bastards planning that destruction.

Another Failure of Gun Control

Last night I reported about the murder of Jody Lynmarvin Patzner Jr., the 22 year-old gunned down on his bicycle. The police have arrested a suspect in Patzner’s murder and if the suspect is indeed the murdered this story will certainly be yet another demonstration of how futile gun control is:

The man suspected of gunning down Jody Lynmarvin Patzner Jr. in a robbery attempt on a Minneapolis street Monday night was the subject of a mental health commitment hearing three years ago after he was found carrying a pistol without a permit, according to court records.

In Minnesota you first offense for carrying a firearm without a permit is a gross misdemeanor while a second offense is a felony. Furthermore anybody who has been found mentally incompetent to stand trail is a prohibited person [PDF, Page 11]. The suspect in Patzner’s murder wasn’t charged for carrying a weapon without a permit because he was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial:

His past includes proceedings in 2009 and 2010 in which court officials and county social workers determined he was mentally ill but not so dangerous that he should be locked up, according to records.

“The defendant is not at risk of imminent harm to self or others,” Judge Richard Hopper determined in a June 10, 2009, court order that found the man incompetent to stand trial on the weapons possession charge.

Therefore it was illegal for the suspected murder to own or carry the murder weapon. Once again gun control has failed as a person who is ineligible to own a firearm in the state of Minnesota managed to obtain a firearm in the state of Minnesota.

Whether or not the suspect is the murderer has no bearing on the fact he was able to get a gun even though the law forbid him from doing so. According to advocates gun control laws are the cure to the problem of bad people getting weapons. Every time there is a murder with a firearm the gun control advocates crawl out of their deep holes and demand a new piece of legislation be introduced, a piece of legislation they claim would have prevented the murder in the first place. Reality is not kind of gun control advocates though, as the laws they introduce to be the cure all are proven entirely ineffective. I don’t think they realize the fact that people willing to commit murder have no problem violating laws against possession of weapons.

Shootout in New Hampshire

I’m not sure if journalism can get much more shoddy than the coverage the shootout that just occurred in Greenland, NH:

The body of a man suspected of killing Greenland’s police chief and wounding four other officers was found dead inside his home early Friday morning, police said.

[…]

Greenland Police Chief Michael Maloney, 48, who was with the department for 12 years, was shot and killed trying to gain entry to the home while serving a drug-related warrant, Delaney said. He was set to retire in one week.

Maloney and four officers from the Attorney General’s drug task force arrived at the home at about 6 p.m. when Mutrie opened fire.

At first I thought this post would be discussion how the war on drugs has needless claimed more victims and caused the police to insert violence into an otherwise non-violent situation (manufacturing, possessing, and selling unapproved drugs is not a violent action). Unfortunately I ran into a bit of a problem since news articles didn’t go into any detail about the drug-related offense. Finally I came across this:

The Portsmouth Herald reported in February 2011 that Cullen Mutrie, 29, was a resident of the home on 517 Post Road and had been arrested and charged with possession of anabolic steroids.

The newspaper reported that the steroids were found in the home when officers went to confiscate guns after Mutrie was arrested on domestic assault charges. According to a police affidavit, the steroids were found in Mutrie’s living room on July 24, 2010, but were not verified by the state crime lab until Jan. 18.

A domestic violence charge lead to a drug charge. Domestic violence is, oftentimes, a violent situation and therefore intervention is justifiable. With that said domestic violence situations are one of the hardest situations to figure out because it is often an emotionally charged he-said-she-said argument. Sometimes a husband beats his wife, other times the wife beats her husband, and in other cases yelling and screaming leads to one party making false accusations against the other. Needless to say I have zero details on what happened and therefore can’t no comment on it.

What is interesting is the fact the police apparently confiscated Mutrie’s firearms yet he still had firearms to shoot the police with when they arrived to arrest him this time around. Apparently confiscation doesn’t actually work, who would have guessed? Likewise it should go without saying that Mutrie surrendered his firearms peacefully otherwise he wouldn’t have been at home when the police came to arrest him for the drug charges. Therein lies the key, this situation would have been unlikely to happen if it wasn’t for the drug charges so ultimately this case still boils down to the fact violence was used to enforce a decree against non-violent action.

The worst part about the war on drugs isn’t the cost, it’s the fact violence is being initiated against non-violent individuals. Manufacturing, selling, and using drugs are nothing more than commerce. People want the drugs so a market develops and that market is fulfilled legally or not. Since the state uses violence to enforce its decree prohibiting some drugs the obvious response to drug manufacturers, sellers, and users is to use violence to defend their business. In this way the war on drugs should really be called the initiation of violence against drug market actors. I realize that’s quite a mouthful but it would be far more accurate.

Volunteer Community Security

Many people seem to believe that the state is the only option for delivering community security. These are usually the same people who believe the state must build the roads, deliver the mail, deliver water, and provider fire services. In truth the state is needed for none of these things and one community has turned to volunteers to provider community security:

Redlands volunteers now outnumber paid officers five to one and, even with a 25 percent reduction to their police force in 2007, their violent crime rates have decreased steadily.

And it doesn’t cost tax payers a dime.

“Our volunteer program is completely self-sustainable,” Martinez says. “They raise their own money, they buy their own cars. None of the money comes out of the general fund.

The program even includes an air support unit, complete with 30 volunteer pilots and a prop plane.

There is a video at the link. Some people will point out that the volunteers are volunteering for the Redland Police Department (RPD) but that’s irrelevant as RPD doesn’t provide any funding to the volunteer organization, they raise their own money and buy their own equipment. If RPD went away the volunteers would still be able to function (except the state wouldn’t allow them to because they wouldn’t be volunteering for the state and therefore would be restricted in what they could do).

Kindle Touch 5.1.0 Firmware Released

Yes, I’m still madly in love with my Kindle. While I never actually got around to typing up a review of the Kindle Touch I can say it’s a great device with only a handful of caveats. One of the features that was removed from the Kindle Touch that was present in all previous models was landscape mode. Honestly, I never used it so I didn’t miss it but Amazon has finally added the feature back into the Kindle Touch in the new 5.1.0 firmware update:

  • Language Support: Customize your Kindle Touch with the language you prefer: English (US and UK), German, French, Spanish, Italian, or Brazilian Portuguese.
  • Landscape Mode: Switch between portrait and landscape orientation in books and PDFs to read maps, graphs, and tables more easily.
  • Instant Translations: Tap any word or highlight a section to instantly translate into other languages, including Spanish, Japanese, and more. Translations by Bing Translator.
  • Kindle Format 8: Formatting and layout improvements make Kindle books look even better.
  • Wi-Fi Enhancements: Connect your Kindle Touch to Wi-Fi with WPS and select WPA2 Enterprise networks.
  • Read-to-Me With Text-to-Speech: Have your Kindle Touch read English-language content out loud to you, now including summaries of newspaper and magazine articles when available from the publisher.
  • More Sharing Options: Tell others what you’re reading on Facebook or Twitter from anywhere within a book — just tap to share a link along with your comments.
  • Onscreen Keyboard Suggestions: Search and shop faster with automatic word suggestions as you type.

Landscape mode is accessibly in the menu, although I wish they would have placed it on the bottom menu bar that appears when you tap the menu button for consistency. Beyond the above mentioned changes the home screen has been updated a bit. The font used to display boots and collections appears to have changed a bit and the top now had three new combo boxes; one for filtering content that appears on the home screen, one for selecting how content on the home screen is sorted, and one for quickly jumping to a desired page on your home screen. Overall the home screen update is minor but welcomed.

The predictive text is a nice touch as well but I don’t type very often on my Kindle Touch so it’s really just a minor update for me. I will also have to play with the supposed WPA2 enterprise update just to fulfill my curiosity. Beyond those updates I doubt I’ll utilize any of the other new features, I mostly use my Kindle to read books and that’s really it.

Gary Johnson

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned that I met Gary Johnson as he was traveling through Minnesota. I also promised that I would do a writeup regarding my throughs on the man that weekend, a promise I entirely broke. They say it’s better to be late than never show up so here are my thoughts on Gary Johnson based on that meeting (if you would like to file a complaint about my tardiness with this article feel free to send me money so I actually get paid for this blog, when I’m getting paid my consideration of what others want goes up).

For those who are in the dark Gary Johnson was running for the Republican presidential nominee but was even more shunned than Ron Paul. He’s now running for nominee of the Libertarian Party, which means he won’t become the president but he’ll be running in the least evil party that currently gets any kind of media attention (sometimes they’re mentioned at the 06:00 news block as a group of kooks who want to destroy the American way of life).

How can I describe Johnson? In short I would describe him as a good man. He is a politician but he’s the least offensive politician I’ve met in ages. Unlike most of his counterparts, Johnson appears to have little interest in controlling others and is actually willing to admit when he’s been wrong. Like Ron Paul, I would say Johnson is a politician for self-defense reasons. That is to say he wants to get into office in order to protect himself against the state by vetoing the attempts by other state agents to increase governmental authority.

Why run as a Libertarian Party candidate? The election system in this country is so rigged that it’s practically impossible for anybody not running as a Republican or Democrat to get into office. When asked about this Johnson stated he wants to spread the message of liberty. His argument was basically this; when you only have one man expressing an idea people will say it’s crazy, but when you have multiple people expressing an idea people will be more apt to listen. At the moment Ron Paul is the only candidate expressing an actual liberty message and Johnson wants to be the second candidate doing so. It makes sense and Johnson has no delusions about getting the presidency, but he wants to get federal campaign money for the Libertarian Party in the hopes of spreading the message further. I’m glad he’s grounded in reality, too often politicians become delusional and begin believing the malarkey they speak.

Where does he stand on the issues? No, not the real issues, the issues the average public actually argue about? Let’s start with the social issues. Johnson supports gay marriage, women’s right to choose, and legalizing marijuana. I don’t feel the first two items need any clarification but I do want to expand on the final item; Johnson was very straightforward about his support for legalizing marijuana but vague on legalizing other drugs. When asked whether or not he would support decriminalizing drugs beyond marijuana he mostly ducked the question by stating drug usage needs to be viewed as a health issues instead of a legal issue and we need to start with marijuana because that’s the drug most people support decriminalizing. I was not impressed by that answer, it’s a convenient way to copout of actually giving a straightforward answer.

What about other issues, issues that actually matter? Johnson stated he would support abolishing the Federal Reserve, wanted to bring all the troops home, and opposes all foreign aid.

Let’s talk about the fun issues, issues that are generally discussed solely in libertarian circles. I asked Johnson if, as president, he would individuals currently imprisoned for victimless crimes. One of my pet peeves is the punishment system currently implemented in the United States as it leads to the imprisonment of individuals who haven’t actually committed any crimes. Failing to meet government regulations; selling, possessing, and using drugs; and avoiding paying taxes are crimes that have no victims (the state can’t be a victim since you can’t steal from a thief). Surprisingly Johnson didn’t attempt to duck this question and very clearly stated he would pardon any person currently in prison for victimless crimes. Beyond that he specifically brought up individuals currently in cages because they failed to comply with government regulations. His statement on this alone put him far ahead of any other candidate besides Ron Paul (he has stated he will do the same thing).

Libertarianism, like any philosophy, has many different branches. Some libertarians are simply advocates of smaller government, some are strict constitutionalists, others are minarchists, and there even individuals who oppose the state in its entirety and openly refer to themselves as anarchists. As a voluntaryist I fall into the last category and firmly believe the ultimate goal of libertarianism should be the complete abolition of the state. Needless to say I was taken by surprise when Johnson, without being prompted by any other questions or statements from the audience, dropped the ‘A’ word. What is the ‘A’ word? Anarchism. In politics anarchism is the dirty word, it’s is the word to always avoided using, it is the thirteenth floor of the political tower.

During his speech Johnson thew political caution to the wind and actually stated that the eventual goal of libertarianism is anarchism. I had to do a double take on that and asked him if I heard correctly, did he actually say he is supportive of the idea of entirely eliminating the state. Although he did hem and haw a bit by saying a stateless society was not possible in our lifetime but eventually stated support of the idea. That takes guts when you’re running for office (although not so much when you’re running as a candidate in the Libertarian Party) and I have to hand it to Johnson for brining up the ‘A’ word during a campaign speech (technically it was more of a conversation than a speech).

So Johnson is a libertarian through and through. But this is a gun blog so the obvious question many readers are likely to ask is if Johnson is pro-gun or not. Yes, Johnson is pro-gun. I asked him if, as president, he would be willing to work on abolishing federal regulations regarding firearm ownership and he flat out said he would. Obviously such a feat can just be done by the waving of a magic wand so I asked him if a piece of legislation were put on his desk legalizing the unrestricted ownership of suppressor would he sign it and he said absolutely. Furthermore he also signed one of my friend’s loaded Springfield XD magazines, which I thought was a nice touch (I started a fad).

As the race appears to be nothing more than Obama vs. Other Obama the only real pro-gun candidate on the ballot is likely to be Johnson. If you support gun rights your only option will likely be to vote Johnson. I know most gun owners will vote for Romney after buying into the bullshit that voting for the “lesser” of two evils will somehow protect gun rights but I can’t help people who are unwilling to learn. If you go to vote and want to vote for gun rights check the box next to Gary Johnson.

The last thing I want to mention is the fact Johnson is actually human. What I mean by that is he admits when he feels slighted and when he’s made mistakes. Another attendee of this meeting asked Johnson if he felt slighted during the Republican debate where the moderator asked who, of the onstage candidates, each candidate would select as vice president. Johnson said Paul was his pick whereas Paul refused to answer the question. Most of us who support Paul felt he slighted Johnson there and it was refreshing to hear Johnson admit he felt slighted as well. It’s rare to hear a politician actually admit to having feelings, perhaps because most of them are cylons. The other thing Johnson expressed regret over was signing several pieces of legislation when he was governor of New Mexico. While the legislation he signed appeared to have good intentions he saw how those laws twisted and fulfill the desires of other politicians. Admitting mistakes is something politicians almost never do, once again it’s likely because they’re cylons.

Overall I admit I really like Johnson, he’s a good man and I would actually have no regrets voting for him. Although it’s unlikely I’ll actually vote in November if I do it’ll be for Johnson (unless Hell freezes over, unicorns becomes a real species, and Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination).

Romney vs. Obama

With Santorum pulling out, Gingrich remaining entirely irrelevant, and the Inner Republican Party members doing everything in their power to prevent Ron Paul from getting the nomination it appears as through this election will likely boil down to Romney vs. Obama. I’ve already stated my opion about a Romney vs. Obama election but I think it’s time we stop, take a deep breathe, and consider the wisdom of George Carlin:

Give Them What They Want and They’ll Go Away

We hear advocates of gun control constantly repeat variations of the phrase “If you just give them what they want they’ll go away.” What happens when they want your life? From what I can tell about this recent murder in North Minneapolis that was the case:

A food delivery to a neighbor three blocks away turned deadly for Jody Lynmarvin Patzner Jr., 22, on Monday night when three boys confronted him as he biked on Fremont Avenue in north Minneapolis, according to family members and a witness.

The boys yelled at him that they wanted his bike, then shot at him twice, running away as Patzner continued to bike for 30 feet before collapsing on the sidewalk. He died moments later in the 3500 block of Fremont Avenue N. as neighbors along the street tried to help, according to a witness.

Three people approached Patzner, demanded his bike, shot him dead, and didn’t even take his bike. To me that shows this case had nothing to do with Patzner’s bike, the three punks were probably just looking for somebody to murder that night. From what the story states I must say Patzner did the right thing, unfortunately the right thing doesn’t always save you life:

A neighbor who said she witnessed the attack said the three assailants were walking on the east side of the street when they confronted Patzner, who was biking past.

“They was harassing him and stuff,” said the woman, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. “He didn’t give them no feedback or nothing.”

“They said ‘Give me your bike … give me your bike …’ Pop! Pop!”

The assailants ran off as Patzner biked on, passing the witness before collapsing.

When the three punks began harassing Patzner he ignored them and continued on his way. In a situation like this I must say I’d have likely taken the same course of action. When you’re on a bike you’re far more mobile than persons on foot so if a situation looks bad it’s best to ride away as fast as you can.

The value of running is a topic often overlooked when discussing self-defense. A fight always carries the risk of bodily harm or death, so it is in your best interest to avoid fights whenever possible. Often it is not possible but if you’re in a position to be far more mobile than a potential attacker, whether by car or bike, it makes sense to run. I bring this up because several people have commented to me that this cased is why everybody should carry a gun.

While carrying a gun is a great way to increase your chances of survive an encounter with a violent attacker it’s not a magic talisman. Realistically, were Patzner armed, he would have had to come to a complete stop and dismount his bike in order to draw a weapon. In that span of time he could have easily been murdered by his assailants. Although I don’t like to speculate on self-defense situations as they’re are too many variables to know what the right course of action would be, I find myself thinking I would have taken the same course of action as Patzner were I in his position but armed. On a bike you have movement and it’s always best to be moving when in a self-defense situation unless you have appropriate cover available. Moving targets are harder to his but a target on a bike coming to a complete stop is an much easier target. The path a stopping bike follows is fairly predictable, usually it’s straight forward until the bike has come to a complete stop. Because of the ease of predicting the path a stopping cyclist will follow it’s easier to gun them down than if they keep moving, especially if they move erratically.

Unfortunately I don’t know if there was a way for Patzner to escape his fate that night, the situation just seems entirely bad. Had he stopped his attackers would likely have killed and moving away didn’t save his life either. From the details provided in the story I don’t believe being armed would have helped in either, the assailants had the element of surprise and motive to kill. Situations like this are important for those of us who carry to consider, because we may very well be in a situation where using our firearm may not be the best option available.

Get Them Started Early

The hardest part about implementing a police state is getting the people to fully submit to it. Sure we see mindless submission to the state left and right but if the state inconveniences the populace too much the populace will eventually give the state a jolly old send off. What you really need to do is get people used to the police state while they’re still young, which is what Texas has been doing:

He is looking down on a courtroom full of teenagers and their parents who are facing “Class C” misdemeanour offences for skipping school.

At the truancy courts of Dallas in Texas, absence from class or repeated late arrivals are punishable with fines of up to $500 (£316).

“A Class C misdemeanour is the lowest level of all the criminal offences, it would be the equivalent of a traffic ticket or not abiding by a stop sign on the street,” says Judge Sholden, who can also hand out sanctions like essays and book reports in his sentence.

The use of the court system to correct student behaviour is a popular policy used in schools across Texas.

A recent study put the number of Class C tickets issued to young people at around 300,000 per year.

Using the judicial system to punish students for skipping class? If that doesn’t scream police state what does? But wait, there’s more:

“I ran into a mother recently whose daughter wrote her name on a school desk in highlighter and she was given a felony conviction for that.

Felony. Conviction. Because a girl wrote here name on her desk with a highlighter she is barred the right to own firearms and vote (unless Texas expunges juvenile convictions, including felonies, when a kid becomes and adult but that is becoming rare). Back in my day (now I’m sounding old) we were merely made to clean off the graffiti and sent on our way. Instead of ruining the life of a student for nothing more than easily washed off graffiti we simply had to correct our wrong, which is how it should be.

Of course this kind of school disciplinary system has two benefits to the state; it gets students used to the police state and raises money. If skipping class can net you a fine of $500, how much money do you think is brought in through fines in the Texas school system? I’m guessing it’s quite a bit. After all, fines exist for the sole purpose of raising money for the state.

I’m guessing this method of dealing with transgressions by school kids will spread beyond Texas, it’s just too authoritarian not to.

The Unemployment Scam

Unemployment statistics, like everything else political, is entirely deceptive. When you see unemployment statistics released by the state you should know they are being manipulated to make the situation look better or worse, depending on what the state goons need. One of the most interesting massages to the unemployment numbers made by the state is taking anybody who has been unemployed for more than six months off of the statistics as they’re considered bums and no longer looking for work. Shadow Stats has a nice graph that shows the publicly announced unemployment numbers, the unemployment numbers according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the actual unemployment numbers.

Well color me skeptical but I’m guessing there is some kind of ulterior motive to the sudden claim of honesty being made:

A Republican lawmaker is intensifying his push for legislation that would change how the government measures the unemployment rate.

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to press GOP leaders to move his bill to include the number of individuals who gave up looking for work in the percentage of jobless claims.

Should the government measure unemployment with Hunter’s figure, the unemployment rate would be higher than the current rate of approximately 8 percent– a potentially devastating assessment for the White House, especially in an election year.

And I believe the actual ulterior motive was actively denied by Hunter himself:

The San Diego-based lawmaker contends that he did not introduce his bill to make the president look bad, since the number would reflect poorly on all individuals in charge of government.

On a recent interview with Fox News Channel’s Martha MacCallum, Hunter said, “it makes me look bad too when unemployment is sliding … it makes the Republican Congress, the president and the Democratic Senate – anybody who is an elected representative and in charge look bad. I don’t think it goes one way.”

Hunter isn’t an idiot, he realizes that all problems in the United States are blamed on the president. For example, people are currently blaming Obama for high gas prices even though the president has nothing to do with setting those prices. Whatever major crisis is being faced by the nation is blamed on the guy in the Oval Office, and if the unemployment numbers suddenly “spike” it to will be blamed on Obama.

Politics is a dirty business and any underhanded trick goes. While Hunter claims his move isn’t meant to make Obama look bad it really is, and it could pave the way for a Republican victory in November. Don’t be me wrong though, I’m all for most honesty coming out of the state, but I also realize such honesty only happens when it benefits agents of the state in some manner. What this bill pass, the news report about the sudden “spike” in unemployment, Romney get a narrow presidential victory, and a new bill changing the way unemployment is tracked back to the way it is today. It’s all a big shell game.