Tag: Politics

Another NRA Shit Storm

This week is just riddled with NRA shit storms. First they drop opposition to the DISCLOSE Act after being granted an exemption and now they’re endorsing Democrat candidate Ted Strickland.

Being one to share my opinion with everybody (because this is my site and I get to do that) I thought I’d jump into this fray as well. What do I think about this? Well I’m not a fan of Governor Strickland nor most of his polices. But the NRA endorsing him makes nothing but sense. When it boils down to it the NRA’s main focus are gun rights. That’s their thing*.

There is no way the NRA could have endorse the Republican candidate because he has an F rating from the NRA. The R in NRA doesn’t stand for Republican. Further many people are parroting how the NRA is working against freedom as a whole by endorsing a Democrat. Guess what? If you personally endorse either the Republican or Democrat party you’re working against freedom as a whole. Neither party is pro-freedom. They both want to take your rights, they just want to do it in different orders. So the excuse that the NRA is working against freedom as a whole by endorsing a Democrat holds no water with me, I despise both major political parties for their polices towards my freedoms.

The NRA endorses candidates based on their stance in regards to gun rights. That’s what they rate representatives on, their stance on gun rights. If you want to know where a candidate stands on gun rights go to the NRA. If you want to know where they stand on other issues go to other organizations. An NRA endorsement simply states the candidate is better on gun rights than the opposing candidate. That’s it. It’s pretty simple.

* For those about to jump at me and claim I just ripped on them for being single-issue in the last post please realize that my complaint with them abandoning opposition to the DISCLOSE Act is due to the fact that was a direct attack against them. They left the second the government gave them an exemption even though nothing is going to stop the same government from later making an amendment repealing that exemption and nobody is going to be willing to help the NRA to fight it. It’s a long term defensive strategy failure in my book.

Who Cares so Long as Our Dog Isn’t in the Fight

I’m sure you’ve already heard about the veritable shit storm hitting the gun blogs today as the NRA pulled it’s opposition of the DISCLOSE Act. Well they made an official statement stating they are a single-issue organization and this issue isn’t their issue. Needless to say this has created somewhat of a rift between the NRA and many of it’s members.

Sebastian says this is OK being the NRA is a single-issue organization. Robb made an analogy regarding how only fighting for a single issue can not win your the fight, even on that single issue. Sailor Curt lays it out that the NRA doesn’t seem to care since they have an exemption everybody else can fend for themselves. Alan brings up the fact issues don’t exist in vacuums all to themselves.

Well I love giving my opinion on things so here it is. The NRA fucked up big time here. With all due respect (never mind when anybody says that it’s instantly followed by a lack of respect) regard to the fact the NRA does the most when it comes to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms they are being juvenile and idiotic with this. I agree with the general sentiment that the NRA is more than happy to drop this issue now that they no longer have to worry much about it. More or less they went from fighting this bill as a crusade against the freedom of speech to a “single-issue organization” that only has focus on the second amendment. That’s just plain short sighted and dirty.

Let me make an analogy since they’re fun. Let’s say you and two friends get into a fight with four other people. The reason for the fight is irrelevant but you are outnumbered and stand less than a 50/50 chance of winning. You’re one of the larger and more capable fighters in your little group of three and the opposition want you out of the fight. To that end they make you an offer, they will not pursue you to kick your ass if you leave right now. If you leave you may save yourself an ass whoopin’ but your two buddies are going to be even more unlikely to escape without a few broken bones. What do you do? Personally I’d stand with my two friends if for no other reason than someday I may need their assistance and abandoning them now is not going to motivate them to help me later.

The NRA is a powerhouse in Washington D.C. They have a lot of weight and thus clout with the people on Capital Hill. By pulling out they abandoned other pro-rights organizations and their own members who happen to be members of those other groups that will still be affected by this legislation. Those other groups and those members will remember this and are likely going to be less than cooperative with the NRA in the future should they need help.

All they had to do was keep opposing this legislation. That’s it. Really other organizations could do the lobbying while the NRA could have been in it name only. But they second they were cut a deal they cut out of the opposition. Classy.

Basically they fucked up and I’m joining those who are calling them on it in the hopes they do better in the future.

Shut Up Slave

Although they often claim to be working for us our representatives seems to really believe they are above us. For instance find out what happens when a lowly slave questions the mighty congressman Bob Etheridge:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60oNUoHBYM]

You don’t ask questions, you shut up and do as you’re told.

And for those saying the Congressman didn’t physically harm the student I ask you this; what would have happened if the student had done the same to the Congressman? The answer is he’d probably be in jail on the charge of assault. I don’t ask for much but I do demand the elimination of double standards when it comes to our representatives. Remember they are not above us, they are not higher than us, they are our public servants. They answer to us.

Does this Mean More Warrantless Wiretapping

Apparently the Obamessiah is comparing the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico to the terrorist attack on 9/11:

“In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come,” he said in the Politico interview.

Does this mean the oil leak is going to be used an excuse to expand government power over the surfs citizenry? What am I saying, of course it is. I’m waiting for the next OIL LEAK Act (no idea what they’ll make that acronym mean but if they can come up with an acronym for PATRIOT they can do anything) which will expand government powers allowing even more warrantless wiretapping, harassment at airports, and detaining of citizens suspected of colluding with oil companies.

Our Government at Work

Whether you’re on Israel’s or the Gaza Strip’s side in the recent incident you should agree with my sentiment: why the fuck are we giving either of them taxpayer money:

US President Barack Obama has said the situation in Gaza is “unsustainable” and promised millions of dollars in new aid for the territory.

Seriously we have a massive national debt. I know $400 million isn’t even on the register of our debt by why the fuck are we giving money to other countries when we don’t have any money? Shouldn’t we use every dime we can get to lower our outrageous spending? Cripes!

Diplomacy Only Works When You Have Guns to Back You Up

I stumbled upon an excellent post on Borepatch titled Why Britain needs America around to shoot bad guys. More or less it talks about how Europe loves to think of themselves as far more civilized than the United States because they solve their problems through diplomacy and negotiations. Of course this only works for them because they can point to us and say if the other negotiating party doesn’t comply Europe can send their friend (the United States) to beat them up.

Do as I Say Not as I Do

That was Obama’s message to a group of graduating Michigan high school students:

President Barack Obama is telling high school graduates in Michigan not to make excuses, and to take responsibility for failures as well as successes.

It’s OK I’m sure if this gets taken out of context Obama can just find a way to blame it on Bush.

Tennessee Governor’s Veto Overridden

Well here’s some good news for anybody that’s been keeping track of the shenanigans that have been going on in Tennessee over the restraunt carry bill. Their House and Senate voted for legislation that would allow people with carry permits to carry their gun into establishments that served alcohol (they still can’t drink which is what most mass media sources forget to mention). Once the legislation hit the Governor’s desk it was vetoed. Well that veto has been overridden.

Good work people of Tennessee.

Drinking, It’ll Give You AIDS

Via No Agenda I learned that the World Health Organization has started a campaign against alcohol (because they research Prohibition in the United States and found that it worked so well). They have a page up titled Call for action to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. There are some real doozies on this page but my favorite is this:

Harmful drinking is also a major avoidable risk factor for noncommunicable diseases, in particular cardiovascular diseases, cirrhosis of the liver and various cancers. It is also associated with various infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS and TB, as well as road traffic accidents, violence and suicides.

Holy shit drinking can give you AIDS!

Making Recording the Police Illegal

There is a rather frightening article about the police and their love of cameras, so long as they’re the only ones who have them:

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer.

Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

More or less the same group of individuals who often say nobody should fear being under surveillance unless they’re doing something wrong doesn’t like being under surveillance. This seems to imply they know they are doing something wrong using their logic. The justification for these laws is also sickening:

The legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.

If you or I are out in public we can’t sue somebody for recording us specifically because there is no expectation of privacy under the law. Apparently since the police are better than us lowly surfs they are getting an exception in some states. This is a classic case of rules being applied differently depending on your status (in this case a police officer is a civilian but since they’re employees of the government the government is giving them special treatment). Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying all police officers are beating people on street corners but any officer supporting laws banning citizens from recording their actions while on duty makes it appear as though they have something to hide (by many officers’ own logic).

Society and technology are now at a point where a majority of people are carrying video recording devices in the form of cell phones. Coupled with the cellular Internet access we can share recorded videos with the entire world instantly. Even if the police confiscate your cell phone upon discovering you are recording them the video can already be uploaded to any number of websites making the confiscation meaningless.

This has been used quite a few times to record instances of police abuse which is later used to reprimand the recorded officers. So now the citizens can monitor the police force instead of only the police force being able to monitor the citizens. Some people join the police force because they want the authority and power that goes along with it. Of course these same people don’t want to responsibility and accountability that also goes along with it hence empowered citizens are a bad thing to them.

Banning the recording of police officers (or any public servant) while they are on duty is nothing more than government empowerment at the sacrifice of the peoples’ liberty (which is always the case). It’s one of the few methods we have at our disposal to play checks and balances with the police force. Otherwise it simply becomes a case of our word against theirs which almost always goes the way of the officer under question.