Tag: Politics

Read the Bills Act

Here’s a novel idea I stumbled upon yesterday. It’s a website proposing an idea for a bill that they title the Read the Bills Act. The idea of the bill is simple, require every bill and amendment to be read aloud before the Senate and House can vote on it:

  • Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.
  • Every member of the House and Senate must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.
  • Every old law coming up for renewal under the sunset provisions must also be read according to the same rules that apply to new bills.
  • Every bill to be voted on must be published on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill.
  • Passage of a bill that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court.
  • Congress cannot waive these requirements.

Novel concept huh? Just imagine our representatives having to actually read bills and amendments before they pass them. Just thinking about how much this would slow down Congress makes me love this idea. Of course if introduced to the floor it would never pass since it would require those voting on it to do real work in the future (then again they may no actually read it and vote it through anyways, that would be irony).

Inexperience and Government

Yesterday I posted a good article that related to Minnesota’s own “gun show loophole” that isn’t a loophole. Something has been eating at me about that article, namely this:

Paymar has never fired a handgun, nor has he ever attended a gun show. He was moved to act, he says, after seeing a YouTube clip. In it, Colin Goddard, a Virginia Tech massacre survivor who was shot four times, attends gun shows and successfully buys firearms without undergoing a background check or even being asked to show identification.

I touched on it briefly in yesterday’s post but it’s something that has bugged me about government forever. Why do we find it acceptable to allow people with no knowledge or experience in a field to legislate that field? Paymar isn’t the only example. Ted “Series of Tubes” Stevens we put in charge of Internet regulation even though he obviously had no knowledge in the field.

This seems to be a common thing with government. We find the most incompetent people and let them be in charge of something. This kind of incompetence doesn’t fly anywhere else but government (normally). Generally if you’re put in charge of something at a company it’s because you portrayed some kind of competence in the area of concern. If you’re not competent you are eventually fired.

But here Paymar has never been to a gun show in his life yet he feels justified in creating legislation that would affect gun shows. Now his bill was shot down in committee thankfully but he’s vowed to reintroduce the bill at a later time. This raises the question, what the Hell is he thinking? He can’t claim it’s to get voter favor since the bill doesn’t seem to have much traction here in Minnesota. The only people who really seem to care are us pro-gunners and the anti-gunners who generally don’t know what they’re talking about.

We shouldn’t stand for this. Instead we should demand that in order to legislate something the person writing the law much either have direct experience with the topic or have hired independent consultants who have said experience.

Obama Really Can Bring People Together

So Obama showed up in San Francisco to help raise money for Barbra Boxer’s campaign (apparently she’s with the program and does what she’s told). One thing I will say about Obama I may not like the man or his policies but he does bring people together:

While wealthy people who had paid as much as $2,000 each lined up to enter the Fairmont, across the street was a large and raucous protest against Obama and Boxer. And it wasn’t just one group, or even one half of the political spectrum. Obama was whipsawed, pummelled from all sides simultaneously. Left-wingers, right-wingers, pacifists, libertarians, communists, conservatives, people angry about the BP oil spill, people angry that Obama’s healthcare reform bill didn’t go far enough, others angry that it went too far, extremists, moderates, and everyone in between on both sides of the aisle.

I love it when people unite.

We’re Not Happy Until Everybody is Watched

As it sits right now if you want a cellular phone without having to be on a list (the phone company’s subscriber list in this case) the only way to go is pre-paid. In this case you walk into a store, grab a pre-paid cell phone, and pay for it using cash (it’s that funny green colored paper for those of you who only know how to pay for things using plastic cards). A couple of senators have decided that any means of avoiding the government knowing what you’re doing is a bad thing.

Senators Charles Schumer and John Cornyn have introduced legislation that would require people buying pre-paid cell phones to show identification and be recorded. For a quote from the stupid:

“This proposal is overdue because for years, terrorists, drug kingpins and gang members have stayed one step ahead of the law by using prepaid phones that are hard to trace,” Schumer said.

So now what? They’ll have to go back to either using phone booths or stolen cell phones? Face it this law won’t change anything, criminals are always one step ahead of the authorities. Oh but best of all:

Faisal Shahzad, the 30-year-old suspect in the Times Square plot, allegedly used a prepaid cellphone to arrange the purchase of a Nissan Pathfinder that he attempted to turn into a car bomb, the senators noted.

Wait a minutes doesn’t a car require tax, title, and license? That generally means you have to register it with the state. So how exactly would having a law preventing people from buying pre-paid cell phones without identification help? Oh that’s right it wouldn’t.

Let’s hear some concerns from the people who actually think things through:

Civil liberties advocates have concerns about the proposal, saying there must be a role for anonymous communications in a free society. “They remain important for whistleblowers, battered spouses, reporters’ sources,” said James X. Dempsey, policy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology. And yet, he said, the space for such anonymous or pseudonymous communications has been narrowed. Pay phones, for example, have largely disappeared.

Pre-paid cell phones obtained with cash are also useful to those who want to keep the government out of their business.

Thankfully there currently is no similar bill in the House. But I’m sure that will change in about two days since this is needed to “fight the terrorists” (terrorists being anybody who doesn’t step into line with the government).

Even More on Arizona’s Illegal Immigrant Law

A while back a certain state passed a certain law that was really unpopular. I expressed my worries about the wording of the law as well. My main beef was the fact the bill simple stated:

OR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

I feel that wording is poorly chosen as “lawful contact” could mean any number of things. Well I’ve been doing a little more digging into this law and found out that Arizona’s House actually corrected the wording in their HB 2162:

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

I don’t know why I didn’t find this earlier but I can see why it was never really reported by the big media companies. This rewording pretty much takes care of my biggest gripe with this law. It does seem reasonable to check a person’s immigration status upon enforcement of other laws being background checks are usually run anyways.

There is still the potential issue of an officer pulling a person over solely to check their immigration status by making up some phony bull shit about a light being out but that threat exists for every law on the books. But I will openly admit I was wrong here and should have done more research at the time of writing about my issues with the law.

When You’re All Alone

Jay, as the title of the linked post implies, brings up a tough question. Greg Baer, a higher up employee of Bank of America, had a slight dilemma on a Sunday morning when 500 SEIU hoodlums showed up in his front lawn screaming and holding placards. Of course Mr. Baer wasn’t home at the time only his 14 year-old son was but he did arrive at the scene while the hoods were doing their “protest.”

The question being asked by Jay is when is it OK to introduce such crowds to the business end of a defensive weapon. On one hand they didn’t hurt anybody but on the other hand there is good reason to believe lives were in danger (an angry mob is never a safe thing). Of course most people would say you should barricade yourself in your home and call the police. Of course that’s the best advice except for one little detail:

Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might “incite” these trespassers.

In this case the police were going to be of no assistance.

I believe there most certainly was a reasonable fear of life in this case. These protesters numbered in the hundreds (large crowds develop a hive mentality and all it takes is one person to turn violent for the entire crowd to follow suit) and were fired up big time. In addition the protesters weren’t protesting on the sidewalk or other public property but walked right up to his home. If they decided to go bursting in there would not be enough time for the police to react and with that many hoods the three officers on site couldn’t do anything anyways (gee maybe they should have called for backup).

Personally I think the best solution to this type of problem would be to call barricade yourself and family members in the home where a natural choke point exists (at the top of the stairs in a two story home for instance). Have every weapon available at hand along with as many loaded magazines as possible. I’d also ensure everybody capable of shouldering a weapon would be armed.

Why not give the invaders (what those hoods really were) some warning shots and hope they disperse? Well legal issues aside you’re facing odds of 500 to maybe one or two in most cases. No matter how well armed you are those odds aren’t going to look so survivable. You can only hope the crowd will disperse on their own without attacking, the police will show up and disperse the crowd (which they weren’t looking to keep on doing), or realize you’re surrounded by a superior force.

One thing I would do though is try to get a camera on hand to record or photograph the protesters. This would give a record and source of identifications so you could bring up changes at a later time (trespassing at the very least).

Of course Mr. Baer’s situation was different and worse in my opinion. He was not at the house but his kid was. What he did required major balls:

Baer, on his way home from a Little League game, parked his car around the corner, called the police, and made a quick calculation to leave his younger son behind while he tried to rescue his increasingly distressed teen. He made his way through a din of barked demands and insults from the activists who proudly “outed” him, and slipped through his front door.

I don’t care who you were walking through a crowd of people who outwardly hate you takes guts.

This entire situation was messed up to say the least. As usual the SEIU thugs were using fear and intimidation in an attempt to get what they want. This becomes more obvious when you see how cagey they are:

Targeting homes and families seems to put SEIU in the ranks of (now jailed) radical animal-rights activists and the Kansas anti-gay fundamentalists harassing the grieving parents of a dead 20-year-old soldier at his funeral (the Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the latter). But that’s not a conversation that SEIU officials want to have.

When I asked Stephen Lerner, SEIU’s point-person on Wall Street reform, about these tactics, he accused me of getting “emotional.” Lerner was more comfortable sticking to his talking points: “Millions of people are losing their homes, and they have gone to the banks, which are turning a deaf ear.”

Millions of people may be losing their homes but that doesn’t give them the right to trespass on the property of those who still own a home. And not only trespass mind you but in an obviously threatening manner. Then the obvious question:

Okay, fine, then why not continue SEIU protests at bank offices and shareholder meetings-as the union has been doing for more than a year? Lerner insists, “People in powerful corporations seem to think they can insulate themselves from the damage they are doing.”

Wait what? That makes no fucking sense. They aren’t insulating themselves from damage they are going to work. Oh right I forgot the SEIU wanted to scare Mr. Baer, not make a statement against him or his company’s policies. They are probably also trying to get out of the massive loan Mr. Baer’s company was so good to give them:

Complicating this picture is the fact that BofA is the union’s lender of choice — and SEIU, suffering financially, owes the bank nearly $4 million in interest and fees. Bank of America declined comment on the loans.

I’m just saying. Oh and to just judge the intelligence of the SEIU’s supporters in this particular matter:

Of course, HuffPost readers responding to the coverage assumed that Baer was an evil former Bush official. He’s not. A lifelong Democrat, Baer worked for the Clinton Treasury Department, and his wife, Shirley Sagawa, author of the book The American Way to Change and a former adviser to Hillary Clinton, is a prominent national service advocate.

In the 1990s, the Baers’ former bosses, Bill and Hillary Clinton, denounced the “politics of personal destruction.” Today politicians and their voters of all stripes grieve the ugly bitterness that permeates our policy debates. Now, with populist rage providing a useful cover, it appears we’ve crossed into a new era: The politics of personal intimidation. To top of page

Yeah they’re supporters are mostly uninformed nitwits.

More Bad Ideas from New York

Seriously that state is fast becoming the bad idea capital of the Union. Tam found another bad idea brewing the in the state mostly run by a single city. Meet the “minimum force” bill:

Under present NYPD training, cops are taught to shoot at the center of their target and fire their weapon until the threat has been stopped.

Which is how it should be done. You aim for the largest target that also house organs which the human body stops without. It’s pretty much a win-win area to target. Well that makes too much sense so:

This legislation would require officers to literally shoot the gun out of someone’s hand or shoot to wound them in the leg or arm.

So this legislation would require the police to do the impossible (shoot a gun out of the criminal’s hands) or aim for very small targets that, when hit, won’t incapacitate the criminal in most cases. I’m all for restricting police powers and limiting the use of deadly force to when it’s needed. With that said the gun generally comes out when deadly force is needed and when it’s needed it’s needed. If a criminal is endangering the life of another the quickest way to stop the situation should be taken which is almost always shooting the punk until he stops. A punk will stop a whole lot faster if bullets enter critical areas like the head or chest as opposed to limbs which the human body can very well survive without.

What He Really Said

So I’ve noticed a meme going around that is pegging Rand Paul as a racist. I thought that was pretty surprising being he just won the Kentucky Republican nomination and thus coming out as a racist would not seem the wisest political maneuver ever. Needless to say I did a little digging and found out he didn’t say anything racist at all.

What Rand Paul did say was the Civil Rights Act is in direct conflict with private property rights. Of course when he came under fire he went and said the opposite which I think was just plain dumb.

I agree with the fact that private property rights give you the ability to do what you want on your property including being a racist bigot. If you don’t want to allow black, brown, white, or indigo people into your place of business that’s fine it’s your right to determine your clientele. If you want to require all customers of your business to wear red shoes before they walk in that’s your right as well. Likewise if I don’t support your rules of business I can take my money elsewhere.

What the Civil Rights Act should have done is required all facilities receiving public funding to recognize all races and serve them equally. In essence it should have only applied to government and people receiving tax payer money. Our system of laws are supposed to protect us against our government not protect us against idiots who are willing to turn down business from customers who have a different skin color than themselves.

Needless to say Rand Paul doesn’t seem to have quite the backbone as his father but he most certainly is on the right track.

People Not to Ask Advice From

Often times you need to known something so you ask somebody to advice. A lot of the time people ask the wrong person through. For instance if you’re one of the freest countries in the world asking the president of a economically depressed, crime ridden, Hell hole run almost entirely by drug gangs probably isn’t going to net you good advice. Let’s just hope our government doesn’t listen to the President of Mexico’s advice:

On Thursday, Felipe Calderon, the president of Mexico, where prohibitive gun laws prevent good people from having firearms for protection against criminals and governments of dubious legitimacy (historically the norm in Mexico), encouraged Congress to reinstate the federal “assault weapon” ban.

Why the Hell would he care what we do in this country?

Calderon also misinformed Congress, claiming that violence in Mexico rose significantly after the U.S. ban expired in 2004.

Surprisingly enough the president of a corrupt country lied:

In fact, Mexico’s murder rate has been stable since 2003 and remains well below rates recorded previously

Why did we even invite him into the country?

Mayor Daley Threatening Butt Rape with Guns

How the Hell does this douche keep getting re-elected? Or right he’s the mayor of Chicago the single most corrupt city in the Union. Well when he’s not parroting about how guns are evil he’s making threats to Supreme Court justices and reporters. As Days of our Trailers points out High Priest Douche Daley likes to keep himself classy:

“You have to have confidence in the Supreme Court, Maybe they’ll see the light of day,” Daley said at a City Hall news conference. “Maybe one of them will have an incident and they’ll change their mind over night, going to and from work.”

Yes maybe they’ll have an “accident” because they forgot to pay their “protection money.” Seriously that’s just downright violent. I’m so thankful I’m on the peaceful side of gun owners instead of the violent side of those who hate civil rights. But as much as High Priest Douche Daley hates peaceful coexistence he loves his sodomy:

During the news conference, Daley reacted with the help of a prop when a reporter suggested the city’s handgun ban has been ineffective, given the number of shootings that still occur in Chicago.

“It’s been very effective,” Daley said, picking up a gun from the dozens displayed on a nearby table. “If I put this up your butt, you’ll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know.”

That’s right support High Priest Douche’s gun ban or he’ll shove a gun up your ass and probably also give you AIDS! Got that? Seriously mayor means serious business and anal rape is seriously business. Oh finally Sir Sodomy (his new name) also states:

“But that’s why you want to get them out,” he continued. “You want to get these out. This gun saved many lives. It could save your life.”

No that gun couldn’t have saved anybody’s life before it’s in the hands of your police station (and possibly later hidden up the reporter’s ass). A gun can only save lives if somebody can use it to defend themselves. If I’m attacked and my gun is at home it does no good. On the other hand if I’m attacked and I have my gun on me I have a fighting chance of surviving.

Although I have to give Sir Sodomy some points, he’s got balls. I certainly wouldn’t have the balls to go around making off handed threats against Supreme Court justices. Oh wait that’s not balls, it’s stupidity.