Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

by baldilocks

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that a goodly portion of the 2020 Democratic Party candidates for president are working for Donald Trump.

At the Democratic-primary debate in Houston [on Thursday], Beto O’Rourke formally killed off one of the gun-control movement’s favorite taunts: The famous “Nobody is coming for your guns, wingnut.” Asked bluntly whether he was proposing confiscation, O’Rourke abandoned the disingenuous euphemisms that have hitherto marked his descent into extremism, and confirmed as plainly as can be that he was. “Hell yes,” he said, “we’re going to take your AR-15.”

O’Rourke’s plan has been endorsed in full by Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, and is now insinuating its way into the manifestos of gun-control groups nationwide. Presumably, this was O’Rourke’s intention. But he — and his party — would do well to remember that there is a vast gap between the one-upmanship and playacting that is de rigueur during primary season, and the harsh reality on the ground. Prohibition has never been well received in America, and guns have proven no exception to that rule. In New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, attempts at the confiscation of “high capacity” magazines and the registration of “assault weapons” have both fallen embarrassingly flat — to the point that the police have simply refused to aid enforcement or to prosecute the dissenters. Does Beto, who must know this, expect the result to be different in Texas, Wyoming, or Florida? (…)

Unwittingly or not, O’Rourke and his acolytes have stuck a dagger into the exquisitely calibrated gun-control messaging on which their party has worked for the better part of 20 years. No voter can now say he wasn’t warned.

Many of my Facebook friends are still anti-Trump – some of them are conservatives who are trouble by the president’s in-your-face demeanor. Others are slightly left of center liberals. But since O’Rourke came out of the confiscation closet, some of them are talking about sitting out the 2020 election or doing what many of us did in 2016: holding their noses and voting for Donald Trump

My friends understand that it’s all fun and games until the government starts seriously talking about mandatory “buybacks.”

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

by baldilocks

Dennis Prager:

Our age loves scientific equations. Here’s one you weren’t taught at college but which affects you as much as the law of gravity:

GI – W = E

Good Intentions (GI) minus Wisdom (W) leads to Evil (E)

Prager uses an example that’s obvious — at least to the sane.

Communism, the greatest mass murder ideology in history, was for almost all its rank-and-file supporters rooted in their desire to do good. (This was rarely true for its leaders, whose greatest desire was power.)

The many millions of people all over the world who supported communism did not think they were supporting unprecedented levels of mass murder and torture or an equally unprecedented deprivation of the most fundamental human rights of a substantial percentage of humanity. They thought they were moral, building a beautiful future for humanity — eliminating inequality, enabling people to work as hard or as little as they wanted, providing their fellow citizens “free” education and “free” health care. They were convinced that the moral arc of history was bending in their direction and that they were good because their motives were good.

That’s why leftists have such moral contempt for those who differ with them. Because those on the left are so good, only bad human beings could possibly oppose them.  (…)

The problem with communists and with leftists who don’t consider themselves communists is not that none of them mean well. It’s that they lack wisdom.

As Thomas Sowell would put it, such people fail to ask this question: “And then what happens?” Should someone ask question, the wisdom-less doer of good will give a rainbow and unicorns answer, and that answer will be a revelation.

Take Robert “Beto” O’Rourke and his promise to institute mandatory “buyback” of AR-15s and other firearms should he become president.

“No. I don’t see the law enforcement going door to door. I see Americans complying with the law. I see us working with gun owners, non-gun owners, local, county, state, federal law enforcement to come up with the best possible solution. I have yet to meet an owner of an AR-15 who thinks it’s OK that we have these kind of mass killings in this country,” O’Rourke said when asked by the Washington Examiner about specifics of his plan.

When pressed further about how he plans to enforce his proposal for those who would not comply, he responded, “How do you — how do we enforce any law? There’s a significant reliance on people complying with the law. You know that a law is not created in a vacuum.”

Got that? He won’t use the enforcers to enforce such a law, but the law will be enforced.

Magically.

Beta Male is an easy target — if you’ll pardon the expression — but it’s clear that his “plan” is a perfect example of Prager’s equation. Does O’Rourke want to do good? I doubt it and think that he and other politicians who would forcibly disarm law-abiding Americans have tyranny as their ultimate goal.

O’Rourke knows that his proposal would lead to lots of dead bodies but he’s too big of  a coward to admit it, much less admit that the body bags would be a feature rather than a bug, from his point of view.

President O’Rourke presiding over a disarmed America would have enormous power.

It’s certain, however, there are some voters who do want to do good and who would vote for him or for one of the other Democrat candidates who are promising — as president — to confiscate private firearm property. Such voters want there to be no more mass shooters ever and believe that if the government just takes the tools away, mass shootings will simply stop happening.

Magically.

And it is here where the dearth of wisdom is most glaring among all good-faith advocates of gun confiscation: they think that government can fix humans. This notion has remained pervasive over centuries.

On the contrary, we human beings cannot change our flawed and sinful nature. Politicians can’t. Laws can’t. We can only be mindful of our individual natures and attempt to protect ourselves against those who abandon themselves to their sinful natures, mass shooters being among this number.

Those who are without wisdom believe that humankind is innately good — in spite of the evidence to the contrary that each one of us observes every day.

The perfect sinless, gun-less world that the doers of good say they want is promised by God, But He has conditions which a lot of them aren’t willing to meet. They’d rather let politicians like O’Rourke do the dirty work for them.

And that road will end in the same place it has all the other times.

O’Rourke has no chance of becoming president in 2020, but the front-running Democrats want to take the guns, too.

P minus G equals D. I’ll let you figure out what the variables indicate.

(Thanks to Bearing Arms)

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Follow Juliette on FacebookTwitterMeWePatreon and Social Quodverum.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar !

Or hit Juliette’s!

There are a lot of things you can say about Nancy Pelosi, but there are two things about her that remain solid.

She knows how to count nationally.

 

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

and as long as those impeachment numbers are below water she isn’t going to risk her majority and give the GOP a 2nd chance to play with all three houses.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still isn’t ready to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

Pelosi told House Democrats on a conference call Friday, “The public isn’t there on impeachment.”

She told them the case needs to be “as strong” as possible.

“If and when we act, people will know he gave us no choice,” Pelosi said, according to an aide granted anonymity to discuss the private call.

Of course the closer you get to an election the less viable impeachment is because you’re basically taking the vote out of the people hands. Pelosi isn’t going to pull the trigger on this until or unless it reaches the point where the party is more likely rather than less likely to lose in 2020 over it.

and the 2nd thing, she knows how to count locally

If there is anything that you would think could generate a liberal revolt in very very liberal San Francisco and generate a primary challenger a “No!” on impeachment would be it, and I suspect if she thought there was one chance in twenty that it would cost her that seat, she might go for it and let the chips fall where they may.

But she just doesn’t know how to count nationally, she know how to count locally and so she is able to stand up to her caucus without fear.

Pelosi’s willingness to stand shows just how empty the deep left’s threats are, it’s a lesson worth learning on the right.

Via Kurt Schlichter I saw this thread concerning responding to this Washington Post story about these anti Trump republicans efforts to find a primary challenger to Donald Trump. My answer to the thread is that not only does it not surprise me in the least but I’d be shocked if they gave it up.

At first I was going to compare them to Dick’s sporting goods dumping guns, after all if you have a different customer base there is no point it trying to cater to the old one but on sober reflection this is more analogous  to this question as to why dissident Catholic groups and theologians remain in the church. 

Someone once asked a famous dissenting theologian why she remained in the Church if she found so much of its doctrine and practice so detestable.

She answered, “It’s where the Xerox machine is.” In other words, she remains b/c the Church butters her bread and pays her rent. The Church provides her with the resources she needs to undermine the Church.

as I put it in another post about a dissident group of protestants:

If they join other denominations they’re just another face in the crowd and are no longer significant, if they form independent churches they become a small congregation that won’t last a generation but as long as they remain dissenters within the the UMC then they are assured of getting attention, fawning press and financial support from outside organizations opposed to this vote and anxious to redefine sin for their own purposes.

As long as they are still nominally republican they remain newsworthy, once they decide to leave the party then they aren’t worthy of coverage or financial support from the left.