Facts are not subjective!

Fauci has gone off the deep end. From a recent Fox News story on why Fauci has been changing his numbers regarding herd immunity:

Fauci indicated that he based his shifting statements on public polling on the popularity of coronavirus vaccines.

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

You can’t just raise or lower numbers based on what the public wants to hear. Well, unless you’re a politician…

The U.S. National Debt Clock

According to the U.S. National Debt Clock, our national debt is now nearing $27,500,000,000 – equal to approximately $83,000/person or $220,000 per taxpayer. This is a staggering amount of debt. The question is: why?

It’s because everyone is expecting someone else to foot the bill. But it’s not a game of musical chairs; your political leaders have simply sold you a bill of good. They’ve placated your demands for “free” government services and benefits by opening credit accounts in your name, and eventually the bill will come due. And when that happens, we’ll all be standing around in a room with no chairs.

Stop the absurdity!

Congress has been busy handing out our money – to us. Only we’re too stupid to realize that it’s our own money, or that it will have to be repaid (or worse, we think that someone else will be forced to foot the bill for us – aka, the “rich”):

Congress passes stopgap bill to avoid government shutdown; coronavirus relief deal reached

A couple of choice tidbits from the above-referenced article:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement their goal is to “crush the virus and put money in the pockets of the American people.”

Only I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution where it is the function of Congress to put money into our pockets – particularly money they have to borrow from us.

…the deal is expected to include $600 checks to most Americans…

Why?? If people are working like normal, what the hell is the government doing paying them a bonus? Don’t people realize that this is THEIR OWN MONEY being doled out to them by the government? Don’t they realize that the government has borrowed this money, money that they will eventually be required to repay? I wonder how many people would take these checks if they were presented as a loan rather than a bonus? Because in reality that’s what these payments are – a loan, plain and simple. And one day that loan will come due.

According to congressional leaders, the agreement would establish temporary $300 per week supplemental jobless benefits…

Extending unemployment benefits is a reasonable action to take, so long as the money used to pay these benefits is recouped through unemployment insurance premiums when the crisis ends. But increasing the amount of unemployment payments by $300 – which amounts to an additional $7.50/hour NOT to work – is absurd. The unemployment insurance system should pay only the benefits it would normally award, but extended the period for benefits as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. That is a reasonable response to the pandemic – not bonuses for being unemployed.

Stop the absurdity before it’s too late; there is no such thing as free money. We’ll eventually pay for all this spending with lost jobs (from overtaxing businesses) and/or lost wages (from lost employers and overtaxed workers).

Better start keeping those receipts…

One of my favorite blogs is from the Institute of Justice called “Short Circuit” This blog chronicles interesting court cases running through our legal system. Here’s a doozy of a case from last week’s blog:

After seeing a drug dealer repeatedly enter and exit a woman’s house, Parma, Ohio police search the home and find over $68k in cash. Sixth Circuit: Because she did not present any evidence to substantiate her claim that she owns the money, she lacks Article III standing to challenge its forfeiture.

OK, so let me see if I’ve got this right: If they had found drugs in her house, they’d assume that the drugs were hers and they’d throw her in jail pending trail. But when they find money in her house she has to prove that it’s hers or they get to keep it?

I’m no fan of drug dealers, but when we have to begin proving ownership of items in our possession – particularly on our own property – then we’ve lost our liberties with respect to private property. Shouldn’t the police have to prove that some piece of property is not yours before they seize it under color of law? Wouldn’t that be more reasonable under our “innocent until proven guilty” judicial system?

Can you imagine a robber’s defense being “Well, they didn’t have a receipt, your honor.” After all, that’s essentially the defense the government’s used…

Concealed or open carry?

There is plenty of evidence in state constitutions that the states wanted to maintain control over the carrying of concealed weapons in public. But does that mean they can use arbitrary standards to determine who can and cannot conceal carry (if they allow it at all), and to block open carry entirely?

Gun Groups Take Concealed Carry to the Supreme Court

I would hope that the Supreme Court would do away with the arbitrary approval process associated with “may-issue” concealed carry permit policies (permit issuance is left to the subjective review of bureaucrats), insisting that if concealed carry is allowed that a uniform and well-define set of approval criteria applies to everyone. This would effectively turn a “may-issue” policy into one of “will-issue”. However, with so much evidence existing that states sought control (via their own constitutions) over concealed carry it is unlikely to be shown that this was a right already controlled by the federal government. Coupled with the current pressure on the Supreme Court to act “balanced” (i.e.: liberal) and Robert’s unwillingness to tackle recent 2nd amendment cases, I just don’t think that the court will mandate concealed carry as a constitutional right.

 Unfortunately, this leaves the possibility of open carry as a constitutional right. This might sooth the fears of many gun rights activists, but I think it is the wrong policy to advance. Open carry is kind of stupid, in many ways:

1) It let’s the criminals know who to take out first, and could result in a shooting that would have been avoided had the perpetrators not known who was armed.
2) Many will feel very intimidated to see or speak with a person who is known to be armed, which will not help the gun rights cause.
3) I believe that keeping firearms in the public eye will make gun opponents more vocal. It will also likely sway some who are oblivious to concealed carry into the anti-gun camp simply because they are constantly reminded of the firearms in their presence.

I think the best that gun proponents can hope for is a constitutional right to open carry. That being said, I think a much better (but very unlikely) solution is a requirement that will-issue policies by used if concealed carry is allowed at all (in other words, everyone who meets the well-defined concealed carry criteria will be issued a permit with no “proof of need” or other subjective requirements).

Theft by any other name…

…is still theft.

It’s stunning how many people believe that the redistribution of wealth – wealth earned legally and by the mutual consent of all parties involved – is an appropriate task for the government. One of the few things more stunning is a politician willing to admit that wealth redistribution is their goal.

WATCH: Bill de Blasio Admits the ‘Mission is to Redistribute Wealth’

If you are one of those unfortunate souls who does not understand the problem with wealth redistribution, consider this example:

After several years as a plumber, you start your own plumbing business. Times are tough, but you’re squeezing by as you build your company. You provide quality service to customers for a reasonable price, by mutual consent and to mutual advantage of yourself, your employees and your customers. No one is forced to work for you, and no one is forced to use your services; you compete for your employees and customers alike, just like every other business. You’ve lived lean for the last few years so that you could build your business, but your labor and financial investment are beginning to paying off. It’s now five years later and business is good – unfortunately, too good.

Your customers and employees over the years now feel that your success is because of them, and so they want some of your money. They’ve voted into office politicians who are like-minded, and who have created new rules allowing them to seize your wealth. On the five year anniversary of your company you get a letter from the government claiming that you are not entitled to the money you’ve earned simply because your business has been too successful. The government sends you an invoice for “overcharging” your willing customers and “underpaying” your willing employees, then takes the money directly out of your checking account. They give some of the money to your customers/employees, keeping the rest to expand the government program that took your hard-earned money and create high-paying “government” jobs for some of their lucky friends and supporters.

If you were the plumber, would you think this seizure was fair?
If you witnessed this occurring on a regular basis, what incentive would you have to start your own business (only to have your proceeds seized)?

Bill de Blasio is (in my humble opinion) a moron, but he’s not as stupid as his constituents – a fact upon which I am sure he counts to maintain his political power.

Open and transparent government?

The Chicago police and legal departments are alleged to have worked very hard to prevent the release of body cam footage referenced in the article below, ostensibly to protect the police. Unfortunately, it’s the police from whom we need protection. Anyone wearing a badge, carrying a gun and wielding police power should be held to the highest levels of transparency, and attempts to reduce or limit that transparency should be met with fierce resistance.

Chicago mayor ‘blindsided’ by report of botched police raid, handcuffed naked woman

A couple of interesting tidbits from the article:

“…Previously, both Young and the station had sought access to the video through the Freedom of Information Act but the policed department denied their requests, the station reported.”

“I feel they didn’t want us to have this video because they knew how bad it was,” Young said. “They knew they had done something wrong. They knew that the way they treated me was not right.”

The city’s Law Department tried to prevent WBBM from airing the video just hours before the broadcast by filing an emergency motion in federal court, the station reported.

That’s a lot of effort to kill a story of police error….

If this is the liberal version of “transparency”, we’re pretty much doomed. Couple with a press that runs protection for liberal democrats and we may never know truth in government again.

Historical injustice?

Interesting:

California May Consider ‘Historical Injustice’ When Allocating Coronavirus Vaccine

A pertinent quote from the article:

For example, in divvying up the first doses for health care workers, the state is prioritizing hospitals located in low-income areas before those in wealthy areas.

“We will be very aggressive in making sure that those with means, those with influence, are not crowding out those that are most deserving of the vaccines,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said recently at a press conference.

Easy for Gavin to say; I’m sure he’ll be first in line for the vaccine. But, overall, I agree that those with means or influence (like politicians?) should not be allowed to sway the distribution of the vaccine in their favor. However, can someone please explain to me how being low-income makes one more “…deserving of the vaccines…”? Isn’t it just as unfair to distribute the virus first to those with the least influence as it is to distribute it first to those with the most?

Beyond the obvious first recipients (medical workers and school teachers), a lottery system would be a fair way to distribute the vaccine and prevent undue influence. This lottery system can be skewed somewhat (but not completely) for location, socio-economic standing, or other parameters shown by scientific evidence to result in a higher susceptibility or risk from the disease. However, I would be very leery of generalized groups being deemed more worthy than others of the vaccine without clear scientific support. In addition, I would be very skeptical of race or ethnicity-based distribution schemes that do not also account for location or socio-economic standing. I would also oppose distribution schemes that prioritize people based on risk resulting from self-imposed and intentional behavior – such as drug, alcohol or tobacco use.

Above all else, though, I’d like to not see the distribution process turn into a political marketing event….

Gun control under Harris?

Come on… we all know that the coming administration is that of President Harris. Why pretend otherwise? In any event, this is what happens when you have a constitutional right to gun ownership – where only the government decides who can exercise that right:

Are Mexico’s stringent gun control laws aiding a rise in cartel violence?