Let me offer up a few truisms for my discerning readers:
1. The Government has no money of its own. Nope, none. Before it gets any, or then spends it, it first has to take it from somebody. Under the threat of force. Which is the only reason we pay our taxes voluntarily.
("Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that man behind the tree!")
2. Regardless of what Democrat candidates for POTUS might tell you, the Government does not create jobs. With the exception of Government jobs, that is, of which there are more than Seventeen Million! The Government does not hire privately-employed people, or fire them, or give them raises. All the Government can do is create the proper environment into which jobs are drawn; i.e., a favorable legal, regulatory and taxation climate that causes investors to decide to invest their discretionary income.
3. And lastly, jobs can only be created by those who choose to invest private capital. In other words, somebody has to take a chance before anything else happens. And that capital comes from what's left over after Government has taken its overarching taxes and fees and penalties from our puny, insignificant, plebeian lives. And it makes no sense to invest that left-over capital to create a job for somebody else, until or unless a reasonable return (i.e., "profit") can be realistically expected for oneself.
That's called "enlightened self-interest."
(NOTE: Those of you with socialist tendencies who just abhor the profit motive are invited to take a trip to any socialist country and see how well it works in absentia.)
So when a politician tells you he's going to create jobs by taxing the "rich," just remember he's telling you he'd stifle job growth by forcibly removing some of the excess capital the public might otherwise choose to invest.
("Trying to make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor, is the same as standing in a bucket and trying to pull oneself up by the handles.")
- Sir Winston Churchill, Famous Guy
If you doubt me, just look back at recent history. Obama's "Progressive" policies resulted in 8 straight years of abysmal 1% - 2% economic growth, the very lowest since WW2. Under Trump? 3+% growth right out of the chute, the very highest since Ronnie Reagan did exactly the same thing, for the same reasons, and in the same way, back in the 'eighties.
It's no secret to economists: lower the taxes and eliminate stultifying regulations and the miracle of capitalism will be unleashed!
It's nice to think about how much better our miserable, unimportant little lives would be if we could just pry loose some of the money the "rich" keeps in its mattresses. I mean, they don't need it, right? And we could sure use it, right? And why not give socialism a try? We could finally get rid of all this "income inequality" thing, right?
I mean, they tell us socialism is just fine. It's just never been tried "correctly." Out of the dozens and dozens of times it's been tried. And the dozens and dozens of times it has failed...
NOTE: They're eating their zoo animals in Venezuela.
The Truth: The "Progressives" demand that we make the rich pay "their fair share." They do, Mr. and Mrs. America! The top "1%" of Americans pay 37.3% of all income taxes. Yet, they earn only 19.7% of all income. Do I hear anyone screaming for "paying their fair share?" How about a tax break for these poor downtrodden folks! Why, I ask rhetorically, do those who pay no income taxes constantly rail against tax breaks for those who do?
You might want to read that last sentence over again.
Does it make anybody wonder why these uber-rich don't take their saddlebags full of cash and beat feet out of overtaxed America and head off in their Gulfstream 5's for Belize, or Costa Rica or Panama?
The Bottom Line: If we took Every. Single. Penny. these folks make, it still wouldn't be enough to accomplish all the giveaways the "Progressives" have in mind.
Of course, if we did, the jobs those once-rich, and now newly-poor might have created won't get created. And once we've taken their money and sprinkled it around liberally, doing their little socialist best to correct "income inequality," they won't have it left to spend and grease the economy, right? But hey, it would sure make us feel better for a little while, right? Sort of like the very best and most expensive sugar high in America's history, right?
Whether you like Big or Small Government, ask yourself this: Do you feel good about having folks you never met in some far-away place you never visited spend your money for you, or would you just as soon spend it for yourself? The unfolding mass exodus from high- to low-tax states tells you how many of your fellow Americans are answering that question...with their feet.
Some food for thought...
Monday, May 20, 2019
Friday, May 17, 2019
Pasture Pool...
What's with this whole golf thing?
I've been trying to figure out the intense draw this perplexing little game holds for so many of my fellow carbon-based life forms. Not me, others. It's possibly the one very bad habit I've managed to avoid. And God knows, I've warmly embraced most of them...
It seems a significant percentage of the citizenry actually enjoys spending loads of discretionary income to buy scads of specialized equipment that invariably will not work, in order to spend waaaaay too much time and effort smacking a little white ball while walking around a few hundred acres, in funny looking clothing, carrying a bag full of weapons with which to do battle.
And at which none of them, unless in the hands of one Mr. Woods, are worth the powder it would take to blow them to Hell.
Golf has always left me cold. First, you have to get up last night sometime in order to get to the course in time to...waste time ahead of some other time-waster. Second, you have to have all this heavy, cumbersome equipment. Like, 24 different clubs to negotiate your way around the course. Whatsamatta? Can't make up their minds? Just pick a club and deal with it! The very fact that you need so many clubs tells me they haven't figured it out yet. Making one club do would also get rid of lots and lots of excuses for why you played poorly today. And it would make it a whole bunch cheaper to waste time on this devilish game.
And second, you're looking over "here" and trying to make the little white ball go over "there!" Name me another "sport" where you don't aim where you're shooting? Imagine how much tougher it would have been for Shaq to make free throws if he'd been facing the snack bar instead of the hoop. And if you do look, then you tend to slice it or cut it or smoke it or zip it or juice it or whatever they call it, which makes the awful little ball go anywhere except where you intended!
Frustraaaaating!
Third, it's expennnnnsiivvv! It costs like $100 to walk around 18 holes for a few hours and take whacks at the ball. At some places, the reeeely tony places, it can cost two or three or four times that much! Just to waste time taking licks at a little ball that never did a single thing to you!
Yes, I have personal experience. I actually tried to play once. A friend and I rented some clubs and a couple of electric carts at a public course. We brought a case of Coors Light which powered us through almost to the 9th hole. We hacked and whacked and sliced and shanked all over the place, while inhaling mass quantities of this tasty adult beverage. Apparently, racing electric carts, side by side, while trying to play polo with 5 irons isn't viewed with approval by reputable golf course management. At least ours wasn't.
We were (im)politely asked to vacate the premises, immediately, thus bringing to a close my one and only golf experience. But I learned enuff that day to pester you now with my opinions. To continue.
Mark Twain once said, "Golf is a good walk ruined." Now, I wouldn't go quite that far, but if you need to go for a walk, why drag a bag of heavy clubs with you? No, I've never caught the golf bug.
But I DO have suggestions as to how this game could be made better. Mucho better.
I suggest we simply do away with clubs. No clubs. At all. Just take the little ball, throw it as far as you can, walk up to it, pick it up, and then throw it again. Again and again. Keeping count of the "throws," doncha' know. Just kind of saunter along, smelling the flowers, enjoying the cool breeze, humming a little tune...
BTW, when was the last time you saw the word "saunter?"
When you get to the greens, you simply kick the ball in the hole with your foot. That's it. Choose tennis shoes, or golf shoes, or sandals, or cowperson boots, your choice. You count the strokes just like now, but without the expense or hassle of lugging around those heavy clubs.
And you can do without the cart as well. No clubs, no need for a cart. Thus, you get to walk all around the course, which is faaarrr betta' for you than riding around on your ass. And if folks stopped playing golf, then the thousands of courses around our fruited plain could be repurposed into homeless shelters, thus solving this very thorny problem once and for all.
Annnnd, considering that the planet is burning up in a fiery Hell of "Global Something-or-Other," just think how much electricity we could save without those pesky little carts? "A volt saved is a volt earned," or something...
But the one thing that my little "fix" won't fix is, the major flaw with golf: The better you play this stupid game, the fewer strokes, or "throws" you'll need. You'll get better, one would hope, and getting better means negotiating the course with fewer strokes/throws. How's that work? You pay $100s to play, and the better you get, the less you get to play it? What's up with that?
I suggest we change the rules of golf to let you either (1) pay less for fewer strokes/throws; or (2), get to take more strokes/throws when you improve at the game. Or, do as I did, and choose billiards, or "indoor golf," or "pasture pool," as I call it. Same basic game played on a much smaller course, with no concern as to the weather. Night or day, inside or out, hot or cold, wet or dry, and no little cart required. And the best news is, you can play pool just as badly as you play golf, but do it quicker, cheaper and easier, and you get to meet an entirely different (and in many respects, much more interesting) kind of people.
Make sense to you? It does to me...
I've been trying to figure out the intense draw this perplexing little game holds for so many of my fellow carbon-based life forms. Not me, others. It's possibly the one very bad habit I've managed to avoid. And God knows, I've warmly embraced most of them...
It seems a significant percentage of the citizenry actually enjoys spending loads of discretionary income to buy scads of specialized equipment that invariably will not work, in order to spend waaaaay too much time and effort smacking a little white ball while walking around a few hundred acres, in funny looking clothing, carrying a bag full of weapons with which to do battle.
And at which none of them, unless in the hands of one Mr. Woods, are worth the powder it would take to blow them to Hell.
Golf has always left me cold. First, you have to get up last night sometime in order to get to the course in time to...waste time ahead of some other time-waster. Second, you have to have all this heavy, cumbersome equipment. Like, 24 different clubs to negotiate your way around the course. Whatsamatta? Can't make up their minds? Just pick a club and deal with it! The very fact that you need so many clubs tells me they haven't figured it out yet. Making one club do would also get rid of lots and lots of excuses for why you played poorly today. And it would make it a whole bunch cheaper to waste time on this devilish game.
And second, you're looking over "here" and trying to make the little white ball go over "there!" Name me another "sport" where you don't aim where you're shooting? Imagine how much tougher it would have been for Shaq to make free throws if he'd been facing the snack bar instead of the hoop. And if you do look, then you tend to slice it or cut it or smoke it or zip it or juice it or whatever they call it, which makes the awful little ball go anywhere except where you intended!
Frustraaaaating!
Third, it's expennnnnsiivvv! It costs like $100 to walk around 18 holes for a few hours and take whacks at the ball. At some places, the reeeely tony places, it can cost two or three or four times that much! Just to waste time taking licks at a little ball that never did a single thing to you!
Yes, I have personal experience. I actually tried to play once. A friend and I rented some clubs and a couple of electric carts at a public course. We brought a case of Coors Light which powered us through almost to the 9th hole. We hacked and whacked and sliced and shanked all over the place, while inhaling mass quantities of this tasty adult beverage. Apparently, racing electric carts, side by side, while trying to play polo with 5 irons isn't viewed with approval by reputable golf course management. At least ours wasn't.
We were (im)politely asked to vacate the premises, immediately, thus bringing to a close my one and only golf experience. But I learned enuff that day to pester you now with my opinions. To continue.
Mark Twain once said, "Golf is a good walk ruined." Now, I wouldn't go quite that far, but if you need to go for a walk, why drag a bag of heavy clubs with you? No, I've never caught the golf bug.
But I DO have suggestions as to how this game could be made better. Mucho better.
I suggest we simply do away with clubs. No clubs. At all. Just take the little ball, throw it as far as you can, walk up to it, pick it up, and then throw it again. Again and again. Keeping count of the "throws," doncha' know. Just kind of saunter along, smelling the flowers, enjoying the cool breeze, humming a little tune...
BTW, when was the last time you saw the word "saunter?"
When you get to the greens, you simply kick the ball in the hole with your foot. That's it. Choose tennis shoes, or golf shoes, or sandals, or cowperson boots, your choice. You count the strokes just like now, but without the expense or hassle of lugging around those heavy clubs.
And you can do without the cart as well. No clubs, no need for a cart. Thus, you get to walk all around the course, which is faaarrr betta' for you than riding around on your ass. And if folks stopped playing golf, then the thousands of courses around our fruited plain could be repurposed into homeless shelters, thus solving this very thorny problem once and for all.
Annnnd, considering that the planet is burning up in a fiery Hell of "Global Something-or-Other," just think how much electricity we could save without those pesky little carts? "A volt saved is a volt earned," or something...
But the one thing that my little "fix" won't fix is, the major flaw with golf: The better you play this stupid game, the fewer strokes, or "throws" you'll need. You'll get better, one would hope, and getting better means negotiating the course with fewer strokes/throws. How's that work? You pay $100s to play, and the better you get, the less you get to play it? What's up with that?
I suggest we change the rules of golf to let you either (1) pay less for fewer strokes/throws; or (2), get to take more strokes/throws when you improve at the game. Or, do as I did, and choose billiards, or "indoor golf," or "pasture pool," as I call it. Same basic game played on a much smaller course, with no concern as to the weather. Night or day, inside or out, hot or cold, wet or dry, and no little cart required. And the best news is, you can play pool just as badly as you play golf, but do it quicker, cheaper and easier, and you get to meet an entirely different (and in many respects, much more interesting) kind of people.
Make sense to you? It does to me...
Monday, May 13, 2019
A Study in Contrasts.
I, The Chuckmeister, was asked by a good friend recently why I'm so strident on the subject of gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. Especially, my friend asked, when society in general is moving away from owning and using guns.
The answer was easy. I bang this drum incessantly exactly because society is in a dangerous and unwarranted transition. One that continues to be fueled by a well-funded, Leftist propaganda campaign run by those dedicated to all-out confiscation.
And in an effort to paint a more vibrant picture of my thinking on this subject, I offered up the following:
It was just gleefully reported by the MainStreamMedia that 2 male students at a New Jersey Township high school were suspended for three days of school, plus a weekend detention.
What did these kids do? They posted a picture on Snapchat of themselves during their visit to a local shooting range. They were off campus, during non-school hours, on a non-school day. It was a legal gun range, they used legal guns, shot them legally and there were zero complaints from anyone.
Accept from their school. Its administration believed their "zero tolerance" policy against guns extends to all aspects of its students lives. Whatever they're doing, wherever they are, anytime and any place.
How ironic, I thought. And alarming. And sad. And deserving of a flashback or two from my storied youth.
I was born and raised in what those on either coast might call "flyover country." I lived in a small town, a county seat, right in the middle of the country. God's country, it's been called.
And it was one of the very safest. I recall being told back then that nobody locked their doors at night. Why? Everybody is armed, I was told, so nobody would be stupid enough to break in! Makes sense, right?
And no one did. There hadn't been a murder there in more than 100 years.
I used to tag along with my Dad and Grandfather as they went hunting and fishing and camping when I was only 5 or 6. They taught me to bait a hook, pitch a tent, start a fire, nock an arrow and shoot a gun before I started grade school.
My 8th birthday present was a nice, new Stevens .22 single-shot, bolt-action rifle. Just perfect for a small kid just starting out. Within weeks I was hitting the bullseye with every shot.
I started hunting quail and rabbit with Dad by the time I was about 9. Duck and goose hunting came later that winter. And I joined in on my first deer hunt when I was eleven years old. I took a deer that next year and every year thereafter for the next few.
Just like most of the folks I knew.
I gravitated to firearms from the beginning as did many of my friends. I found them interesting and intriguing and liberating and empowering and equalizing. I found a buddy and mentor in Kenney Frost, the owner of our local "Army/Navy Store." He bought and sold and fixed and created firearms of all types. He took me under his wing and made me an apprentice gunsmith by the time I was 11.
By the following year I was helping him build custom sporting rifles for his discriminating clients, with a primary emphasis on the smaller "varmint" calibers suitable for coyotes and prairie dogs and such (.220, .222, .22-250, .243, .25-06, .270, etc). And that would include finding and fitting barrels, actions, custom stocks and telescopic sights together into a cohesive, beautiful, finely-tuned and high-performing whole, and then finishing them so fine and so well that they shined like a diamond in a goat's ass.
I also built one for myself about this time. And of interest, I was asked by my 8th grade teacher to bring it to "show and tell" day at school (in view of today's hysterical anti-gun climate, let that sink in!). So while others were displaying pictures from their summer vacations, I was showing off my shiny new .270 Winchester, hand-built varmint rifle.
(A couple of folks on this distribution list were in class that day. Let's see if they remember...)
It was a truly special rifle. I used a Fabrique Nationale Mauser magnum bolt action receiver chambered in good, all-around .270 Winchester; 28" Bueller Timken Bearing Steel heavyweight bull barrel; Jaeger trigger, ACE trigger shoe; Lyman Wolverine 10x scope with Redfield, Jr. helium-filled mounts; and a Reinhardt Fagen Circassion Fiddleback walnut beavertail forend stock. All hand-fitted, hand-assembled, action glass beaded, free-floating barrel and hand-finished into a gorgeous 13.5 pound beauty!
And, oh yeah, it was capable of placing a hand-loaded 110 grain Sierra Openpoint bullet, propelled by 50 grains of #4350 Dupont powder, using Norma cases and Peters primers, inside the area of a playing card at 600 yards! Time after time. Clearly, being a no-good varmint was a bad idea anywhere in my zip code.
My fellow students loved my presentation. So did the teacher. I received an "A." One of the few I received, as I recall...
By the way, I went on to win numerous rifle, pistol and shotgun competitions throughout my life. I had, and may still have, the all-time high score on Fort Leonard Wood's rifle range (996 - 1,000). And I came within "this much" of qualifying for the 1968 Olympic pistol team. For Germany. Yeah. It's a long story. Maybe I'll tell you sometime.
Anyway, that could have been fun! Can't you see it? "Ummm, Colonel, I'm going to need a few days off..."
As Range Officer for two Army bases I've trained more than a thousand soldiers how to safely hold, load, shoot, carry, clean, maintain and store weapons of all types. I've trained every member of my family how to do the same. And many of their friends. There are more than 100 million American gun owners who very likely do the same for their family and friends.
As well they should.
I was raised to believe that I am responsible for me, my family and any friends anywhere near me. And that so are you. And I have equipped myself to succeed in that quest. I believe the police cannot post a security guard on my property 24/7. And unless and until they do, I'll be that security guard. I fear for those who do not share my beliefs. Of which there apparently are many.
It's amazing to me how "right" some ignorant people think they are, while being so indelibly wrong.
So when you read about a school in New Jersey, or anywhere else, clouding up and raining all over its students for exercising their individual Constitutional Rights, guaranteed them under the 2nd Amendment, and affirmed by Supreme Court decision (D. C. v. Heller), you can well understand that at least half of America thinks they are dangerously fascistic, ham-handedly dictatorial, unbelievably ignorant, and bottom line anti-American.
And, oh yeah, scary!
And that if this seemingly unending quest to disarm one-third of America, which is armed, by the 2/3rds majority that isn't, doesn't abate, and soon, I also can predict the likely outcome. And it's not the one the gun control crowd would find desirable
But that's just my opinion...
Saturday, May 11, 2019
Thanks, Eric!
I would like to personally thank Representative Eric Swallwell (D-CA) for his recent hat-in-the-ring commentary.
That's on behalf of the National Rifle Association, true Patriots, Constitutionalists, Bill of Rights activists, 2nd Amendment supporters, freedom-loving people and more than 100 Million Gun Owners nationwide.
Anyway, during his announcement for POTUS speech, Mr. Swallwell was kind enough to share with us his vision for a Swallwell Administration. His major focus, he told us, was to solve "...the problem of gun violence in our Country."
Why gun violence? I can only assume all the other good goals were already taken by his opponents. Global warming? Taken. Medicare for all? Taken. Green New Deal? Taken. Tax the "rich" into the Stone Age? Taken. Since all the good stuff was already taken, he lit upon preventing gun violence. And this is how he'd do it...
1. He'd start by forcing the licensure of all gun owners. I'm kind of wondering why we would be expected to purchase a license to exercise one of our Rights under the Constitution. Should we be required to do that to exercise free speech under the 1st? To claim our Right to remain silent under the 5th?
(Perp: "I'm taking the Fifth!" Cop: "You'll need a license for that!")
2. He'd then force all gun owners to buy and carry accident insurance on their guns and their actions while using them. Should we be forced to buy insurance against others of those pesky Rights granted us by the Constitution? Should we be forced to show our license before we utter a controversial comment? And who decides what's controversial? Facebook? Twitter? Eric?
3. Then he says he'd breathe life into a new Federal Database of all gun owners. Why? Of course, there's only one obvious reason "why." How else would they know where to go when they decide to confiscate them?
4. And just to make sure he hadn't missed angering anyone, he'd then make it a criminal offense to transfer a gun, any gun, to anyone, without Federal approval and licensure. Grandpa wants to give Junior his shotgun? Ummm, nope! No can do according to Eric. That'd be a felony! Grandad has to ask permission first. Of the Government! How do think that would go?
There's gonna' be a New Sheriff in Town! And it's Eric!
5. Then Swallwell would outlaw all so-called "assault weapons." Now, we don't have any "assault weapons" for sale here in America, and haven't since the 1930's (Automatic Weapons Act of 1934). That's a name given to certain rifles by Senator Diane "Lady Di" Feinstein back in 1992. But don't confuse the Leftists with the facts. They just hate those evil-looking all black and scary, semi-auto rifles. And even though they're used in less than 3% of mass shootings, they just have to be outlawed. Why? Because Eric wants to be President...
Did you know more people are killed every year in the U. S. by hammers than rifles of all types? Should we outlaw hammers as well? Hmmmm...
6. And for a follow-up, our boy would institute a forced buy-back of all 15 million-or-so of these rifles in circulation here using your tax money to do it. As if the Gummint actually owned these weapons and Eric is just going to "buy them back."
And, he says, if we don't cough them up when called upon, he's threatened to use nuclear weapons on us! Yes, my friends, he's actually said that. I wonder, does this put him out of the mainstream? Nuking your citizens if they disobey your commandments? Has he heard about the likelihood of collateral damage? Dictator much?
He goes on to say that he would jail anyone who refuses to turn over their guns when he and his minions come for them. Jail. For having legally purchased a legal gun, and having the temerity to own it. And keep it. And bear it. Legally.
I presume the jails would be used only for those who managed to somehow survive the nuclear blast...
7. And lastly, for now, I guess, he wants to establish an Australian-style gun control program. That means a no-gun-to-control program, I think. Because once you've forcibly taken the guns from the people, assuming you ever could, then he's got to make sure they don't get any more of them, right?
Of course, Australia is filled back up with guns, its citizens having now recognized that they need to protect themselves and each other from the Bad Guys who just do not care what the law says; they're criminals. They break the law. That's the very definition of criminals. They're buying them illegally now. But the Media isn't telling you about that.
AU's murder, burglary and rape rates are up more than 10% post-confiscation. And their burglary/ assault/breaking and entering rates are up more than 50%! Cause and effect?
(NOTE: A recent FBI survey of more than 8,000 incarcerated felons in the U. S. indicated that less than 8% of the guns they bought were purchased legally. The rest were bought in a back alley or stolen.)
Those on the Left, the rabid gun-haters among us, have told us for decades that they do not want to confiscate our weapons. They've told us that. We didn't believe them then, we don't believe them now, and now you know why; this dweeb has actually come out and verbalized what all the others are thinking. And here it is:
We already know they don't trust us to make decisions regarding our own lives and the lives of our families. They don't think we know what to drive, and what to eat, and how to raise and educate our children. And they certainly don't think we should be trusted to actually own and keep and use and carry an actual GUN! I mean, why would you need a gun? We have police, doncha' know! In short, you'd be a lot easier to manage if you were disarmed.
"Remember, they just want to be left alone to live our lives." - The Chuckmeister
Something tells me Swallwell will be named the new "Gun Salesman of the Year" by the National Rifle Association. There's nothing quite like the threat to confiscate our guns that will cause a run on the gun shops. It happened the day after Obama was elected and continued unabated for his entire 8-year term. In fact, gun ownership in America DOUBLED under Obama, from about 150 million to more than 325 million guns! And it'll happen again now with this bozo!
Can't you hear that sound? It's the sound of the turn style turning at gun shops nationwide. Sales took a downturn once Trump was elected. The threat, we believed, was over. But now you can expect a yuuuuuge increase! Production is gearing up at Remington, and Smith and Wesson, and Colt and Browning and Savage and all the others as this is written. Thanks again, Eric!
I wonder if this wannabe' Boy Scout knows he'll be partially responsible for the run-up in stock valuation for America's gun manufacturers?
I predict the NRA will add another million or so members as a consequence of Eric's little plan. And they'll probably reap a few $Million in extra donations from 2nd Amendment supporters who simply detest what this lame, misguided, ignorant, pandering fool is advocating. Do you think gun owners or their families and friends will vote for this smarmy leech?
NEWS FLASH!: As I was preparing to push "publish" and send this little missive off into the ether, Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, both lawyers, of course, and both candidates for the Democrat POTUS nomination 2020, decided to juice their flagging campaigns by launching their own anti-gun tirades! Booker says he'd require everyone to be licensed by the Federal Government before they could buy a gun. He supports his plan by saying, "You need a license to drive a car. Why not one to own a gun?" And, he says, he'd "throw them in jail" if they don't turn them in.
Obviously, Mr. Booker is unaware that driving a car is a privilege and owning and using a gun is a Constitutional Right.
What are they teaching at Yale and Haaaavid Law Schools these days?
And Harris? She just stated that she would give the Congress only 100 days after her election to come up with "reasonable gun safety laws" or she would undertake Executive Action to do it all by herself. Hmmm.
Errr, Kamala, are you unaware we have more than 25,000 gun control laws already on our books? Did you know they're not being enforced? Why don't you start?
So, these reality-challenged, obviously under-educated laughing stock lawyers are unaware that we have a thing called the 2nd Amendment. And to obviate it requires an Act of Congress! That means two-thirds of the States have to ratify the Constitutional change, and two-thirds of the Congress has to agree. The chance of that happening is slim and none. And Slim is out of town...
To think we have a candidate for President who thinks she could use a little memo to remove our 2nd Amendment Rights is a laugh-out-loud condemnation of both her and her seriousness as a candidate. And what if we complained? Another E.O. to remove our Right to free speech?
Stay tuned, America. Remember, every action has an equal and opposite reaction!
That's on behalf of the National Rifle Association, true Patriots, Constitutionalists, Bill of Rights activists, 2nd Amendment supporters, freedom-loving people and more than 100 Million Gun Owners nationwide.
Anyway, during his announcement for POTUS speech, Mr. Swallwell was kind enough to share with us his vision for a Swallwell Administration. His major focus, he told us, was to solve "...the problem of gun violence in our Country."
Why gun violence? I can only assume all the other good goals were already taken by his opponents. Global warming? Taken. Medicare for all? Taken. Green New Deal? Taken. Tax the "rich" into the Stone Age? Taken. Since all the good stuff was already taken, he lit upon preventing gun violence. And this is how he'd do it...
1. He'd start by forcing the licensure of all gun owners. I'm kind of wondering why we would be expected to purchase a license to exercise one of our Rights under the Constitution. Should we be required to do that to exercise free speech under the 1st? To claim our Right to remain silent under the 5th?
(Perp: "I'm taking the Fifth!" Cop: "You'll need a license for that!")
2. He'd then force all gun owners to buy and carry accident insurance on their guns and their actions while using them. Should we be forced to buy insurance against others of those pesky Rights granted us by the Constitution? Should we be forced to show our license before we utter a controversial comment? And who decides what's controversial? Facebook? Twitter? Eric?
3. Then he says he'd breathe life into a new Federal Database of all gun owners. Why? Of course, there's only one obvious reason "why." How else would they know where to go when they decide to confiscate them?
4. And just to make sure he hadn't missed angering anyone, he'd then make it a criminal offense to transfer a gun, any gun, to anyone, without Federal approval and licensure. Grandpa wants to give Junior his shotgun? Ummm, nope! No can do according to Eric. That'd be a felony! Grandad has to ask permission first. Of the Government! How do think that would go?
There's gonna' be a New Sheriff in Town! And it's Eric!
5. Then Swallwell would outlaw all so-called "assault weapons." Now, we don't have any "assault weapons" for sale here in America, and haven't since the 1930's (Automatic Weapons Act of 1934). That's a name given to certain rifles by Senator Diane "Lady Di" Feinstein back in 1992. But don't confuse the Leftists with the facts. They just hate those evil-looking all black and scary, semi-auto rifles. And even though they're used in less than 3% of mass shootings, they just have to be outlawed. Why? Because Eric wants to be President...
Did you know more people are killed every year in the U. S. by hammers than rifles of all types? Should we outlaw hammers as well? Hmmmm...
6. And for a follow-up, our boy would institute a forced buy-back of all 15 million-or-so of these rifles in circulation here using your tax money to do it. As if the Gummint actually owned these weapons and Eric is just going to "buy them back."
And, he says, if we don't cough them up when called upon, he's threatened to use nuclear weapons on us! Yes, my friends, he's actually said that. I wonder, does this put him out of the mainstream? Nuking your citizens if they disobey your commandments? Has he heard about the likelihood of collateral damage? Dictator much?
He goes on to say that he would jail anyone who refuses to turn over their guns when he and his minions come for them. Jail. For having legally purchased a legal gun, and having the temerity to own it. And keep it. And bear it. Legally.
I presume the jails would be used only for those who managed to somehow survive the nuclear blast...
7. And lastly, for now, I guess, he wants to establish an Australian-style gun control program. That means a no-gun-to-control program, I think. Because once you've forcibly taken the guns from the people, assuming you ever could, then he's got to make sure they don't get any more of them, right?
Of course, Australia is filled back up with guns, its citizens having now recognized that they need to protect themselves and each other from the Bad Guys who just do not care what the law says; they're criminals. They break the law. That's the very definition of criminals. They're buying them illegally now. But the Media isn't telling you about that.
AU's murder, burglary and rape rates are up more than 10% post-confiscation. And their burglary/ assault/breaking and entering rates are up more than 50%! Cause and effect?
(NOTE: A recent FBI survey of more than 8,000 incarcerated felons in the U. S. indicated that less than 8% of the guns they bought were purchased legally. The rest were bought in a back alley or stolen.)
Those on the Left, the rabid gun-haters among us, have told us for decades that they do not want to confiscate our weapons. They've told us that. We didn't believe them then, we don't believe them now, and now you know why; this dweeb has actually come out and verbalized what all the others are thinking. And here it is:
We already know they don't trust us to make decisions regarding our own lives and the lives of our families. They don't think we know what to drive, and what to eat, and how to raise and educate our children. And they certainly don't think we should be trusted to actually own and keep and use and carry an actual GUN! I mean, why would you need a gun? We have police, doncha' know! In short, you'd be a lot easier to manage if you were disarmed.
"Remember, they just want to be left alone to live our lives." - The Chuckmeister
Something tells me Swallwell will be named the new "Gun Salesman of the Year" by the National Rifle Association. There's nothing quite like the threat to confiscate our guns that will cause a run on the gun shops. It happened the day after Obama was elected and continued unabated for his entire 8-year term. In fact, gun ownership in America DOUBLED under Obama, from about 150 million to more than 325 million guns! And it'll happen again now with this bozo!
Can't you hear that sound? It's the sound of the turn style turning at gun shops nationwide. Sales took a downturn once Trump was elected. The threat, we believed, was over. But now you can expect a yuuuuuge increase! Production is gearing up at Remington, and Smith and Wesson, and Colt and Browning and Savage and all the others as this is written. Thanks again, Eric!
I wonder if this wannabe' Boy Scout knows he'll be partially responsible for the run-up in stock valuation for America's gun manufacturers?
I predict the NRA will add another million or so members as a consequence of Eric's little plan. And they'll probably reap a few $Million in extra donations from 2nd Amendment supporters who simply detest what this lame, misguided, ignorant, pandering fool is advocating. Do you think gun owners or their families and friends will vote for this smarmy leech?
NEWS FLASH!: As I was preparing to push "publish" and send this little missive off into the ether, Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, both lawyers, of course, and both candidates for the Democrat POTUS nomination 2020, decided to juice their flagging campaigns by launching their own anti-gun tirades! Booker says he'd require everyone to be licensed by the Federal Government before they could buy a gun. He supports his plan by saying, "You need a license to drive a car. Why not one to own a gun?" And, he says, he'd "throw them in jail" if they don't turn them in.
Obviously, Mr. Booker is unaware that driving a car is a privilege and owning and using a gun is a Constitutional Right.
What are they teaching at Yale and Haaaavid Law Schools these days?
And Harris? She just stated that she would give the Congress only 100 days after her election to come up with "reasonable gun safety laws" or she would undertake Executive Action to do it all by herself. Hmmm.
Errr, Kamala, are you unaware we have more than 25,000 gun control laws already on our books? Did you know they're not being enforced? Why don't you start?
So, these reality-challenged, obviously under-educated laughing stock lawyers are unaware that we have a thing called the 2nd Amendment. And to obviate it requires an Act of Congress! That means two-thirds of the States have to ratify the Constitutional change, and two-thirds of the Congress has to agree. The chance of that happening is slim and none. And Slim is out of town...
To think we have a candidate for President who thinks she could use a little memo to remove our 2nd Amendment Rights is a laugh-out-loud condemnation of both her and her seriousness as a candidate. And what if we complained? Another E.O. to remove our Right to free speech?
Stay tuned, America. Remember, every action has an equal and opposite reaction!
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Whaddaya' do With Three Empty Countries?
We're told that our southern border with Mexico is in a crisis. More than 103,000 illegal aliens streamed across our border last month. That's the very most in more than a decade. In fact, Homeland Security tells us we can expect more than 1.5 million uninvited economic "migrants" to enter the U. S. illegally in 2019. As in, "break in." And upwards of 95% of them are coming from three countries: Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.
BTW, "economic migrants" is a euphemism for "illegal aliens" who don't qualify for our asylum program. But that doesn't stop them from asking, doncha' know...
Three small, Central American countries, each of them producing caravan after caravan after caravan of people heading our way. Like a tsunami, they come. One after another.
There have been more than 15 caravans emanating from this neck of the woods in just the past couple of years. Each one has grown larger. And each has somehow managed to "walk" the 1,200 miles from the Northern Triangle to Tiajowanna in just a week or two. Speed walkers, aren't they? Funny about that. And the latest caravan is estimated at more than 20,000. And it will be here before June.
Think of it this way: Every month we suffer the arrival of more than an NFL stadium at Super Bowl time just chocked full of uninvited "guests;" guests we must feed, clothe, educate and house. At our taxpayers' expense.
Trump just asked for an additional $4.7 Billion in emergency aid to help pay for that same food and shelter and health care and transportation expense. Funny, they don't seem to have the $5.7 Billion Trump wanted to build the Wall, but they'll most assuredly come up with the $4.7 Billion to grease the illegals way into America...
(BTW, "illegal aliens" is the official term for this class of migrants. They are labeled as such in our immigration laws.)
Our POTUS Trump calls this a "crisis." The Democrat Party and all but one or two of their adherents calls it "another day ending in 'Y." Houston, we have a problem. America, we have a problem...
Let's take a little look at the facts, shall we? As of the most recent statistics the U.N. can provide, Guatemala reported a total of 14,918,099 citizens. That was as of 2015. Honduras had 8,746,623. And El Salvador, 6,141,350. All the latest statistics available. Thus, this "triumvirate" totaled a tad less than 30,000,000 souls among them.
As of our 2010 census, the most recent until we redo it next year, there were 1,044,209 Guatemalans here in America. Legal or illegal, their status was not identified. Not that it would matter, doncha' know. 1,207,016 Hondurans lived here, and 987,264 El Salvadorans rounded out the three. Thus, at least 15% of the population of these three countries already lived in America as of nearly ten years ago!
Today? No one knows. Even the total number of illegal aliens here is disputed. The number varies all the way from 11 million to as many as 22,000,000! And who knows, it just might be twice that number! Or thrice! And as for the "Central Three," the last ten years may well have doubled their numbers here.
Put simply, nobody knows. And seemingly, nobody cares. Except, of course, the people who have to pay for it all. That, ummm, would be, ummm, you and me...
Now, for purposes of background, we can tell within a matter of hours where a cow with Kreutzfelt-Jakob disease ("Mad Cow") was born and raised, and then track down the critter and end the crisis. Within hours! But we DO NOT KNOW who is in our country. And if we let the Democrats have their way...we never will.
Have you noticed an increase in the number of measles cases? Like, the most in the past 25 years? Various governors and mayors are threatening to jail their citizens for failing to get vaccinated, yet we willingly welcome a million aliens without medical records into our midst. Cases of measles and smallpox are being found daily in interdicted migrants. Does that make sense to you?
For the longest time our immigration laws were focused on finding, arresting and deporting single Mexican males who had entered without permission. We snagged them, we arrested them, we deported 95% of them. That was because they were the primary offenders.
Now? Our laws were changed to favor those from the "Northern Triangle," believing that the drug cartels and the civil strife there was sufficient to accord them special status. Those fleeing these countries, especially women and children, were permitted to request asylum and then be processed for permanent residency. Of course, those fleeing crime or strife should (must) claim asylum in the nearest contiguous nation they come to. That would be Mexico. But they don't want to live in Mexico! They say they want their slice of the American Dream! Even though they're not Americans!
Should we blame Trump for improving our economy so very much that illegal aliens just can't help but break in? Are we guilty of having made America an "attractive nuisance?"
Why does this make sense to our more "Progressive" citizens and scare the Hell out of the Conservatives? Because "they" view these interlopers as their newest voting bloc, and "we" view them as invaders who have illegally skulked across our Border and are trying to game our system and sink our economic boat.
The cartels and their "coyotes" are making major bank off this crisis. Latest word is that they charge $6 - 8,000 per migrant. Multiply that times 100k/month and you'll understand the terrific financial draw this scenario has for our criminal gangs down south. It may be even more profitable than drugs, especially considering they have our laws on their side!
(NOTE: As I have suggested in an earlier rant, it might bode well for us to cut out the "coyotes" in the middle and just charge illegals $7k apiece to enter!)
So, let's sum up. Somewhere between 20 - 25% of all Northern Triangle citizens have made their way north so they can enter our back door and steal our jobs and our wealth. And the Democrats absolutely refuse to help change our laws which make this outrage possible. But then again, why would they; that would mean shutting off their never-ending supply of future voters!
So, we can reasonably predict that this situation will continue, unabated, well into the future. Which makes me wonder when, exactly when, will they run out of "migrants?" One can make the case that before too long there won't be anyone left in the Northern Triangle. As in, would the last one out please turn off the lights?
And that seems to me to be a great business opportunity. Since by that time those of us who live in the once-Golden State, which, due to the arrival of these "migrants" will soon be made equivalent to the Northern Triangle, may well wish to emigrate to Guatemala! Or Honduras! Or maybe to El Salvador! Yeah, that's it!
Just think of what we can do with 3 empty countries! Three gorgeous countries with scads of ocean shoreline, completely devoid of those who are looking for a whole lot of something while bringing to us a whole lot of nothing...
Maybe then, after they've turned Lost Angeles into Guatemala...and they're well on their way...perhaps we should build the Wall between Guatemala and Mexico to keep them from coming back in...
BTW, "economic migrants" is a euphemism for "illegal aliens" who don't qualify for our asylum program. But that doesn't stop them from asking, doncha' know...
Three small, Central American countries, each of them producing caravan after caravan after caravan of people heading our way. Like a tsunami, they come. One after another.
There have been more than 15 caravans emanating from this neck of the woods in just the past couple of years. Each one has grown larger. And each has somehow managed to "walk" the 1,200 miles from the Northern Triangle to Tiajowanna in just a week or two. Speed walkers, aren't they? Funny about that. And the latest caravan is estimated at more than 20,000. And it will be here before June.
Think of it this way: Every month we suffer the arrival of more than an NFL stadium at Super Bowl time just chocked full of uninvited "guests;" guests we must feed, clothe, educate and house. At our taxpayers' expense.
Trump just asked for an additional $4.7 Billion in emergency aid to help pay for that same food and shelter and health care and transportation expense. Funny, they don't seem to have the $5.7 Billion Trump wanted to build the Wall, but they'll most assuredly come up with the $4.7 Billion to grease the illegals way into America...
(BTW, "illegal aliens" is the official term for this class of migrants. They are labeled as such in our immigration laws.)
Our POTUS Trump calls this a "crisis." The Democrat Party and all but one or two of their adherents calls it "another day ending in 'Y." Houston, we have a problem. America, we have a problem...
Let's take a little look at the facts, shall we? As of the most recent statistics the U.N. can provide, Guatemala reported a total of 14,918,099 citizens. That was as of 2015. Honduras had 8,746,623. And El Salvador, 6,141,350. All the latest statistics available. Thus, this "triumvirate" totaled a tad less than 30,000,000 souls among them.
As of our 2010 census, the most recent until we redo it next year, there were 1,044,209 Guatemalans here in America. Legal or illegal, their status was not identified. Not that it would matter, doncha' know. 1,207,016 Hondurans lived here, and 987,264 El Salvadorans rounded out the three. Thus, at least 15% of the population of these three countries already lived in America as of nearly ten years ago!
Today? No one knows. Even the total number of illegal aliens here is disputed. The number varies all the way from 11 million to as many as 22,000,000! And who knows, it just might be twice that number! Or thrice! And as for the "Central Three," the last ten years may well have doubled their numbers here.
Put simply, nobody knows. And seemingly, nobody cares. Except, of course, the people who have to pay for it all. That, ummm, would be, ummm, you and me...
Now, for purposes of background, we can tell within a matter of hours where a cow with Kreutzfelt-Jakob disease ("Mad Cow") was born and raised, and then track down the critter and end the crisis. Within hours! But we DO NOT KNOW who is in our country. And if we let the Democrats have their way...we never will.
Have you noticed an increase in the number of measles cases? Like, the most in the past 25 years? Various governors and mayors are threatening to jail their citizens for failing to get vaccinated, yet we willingly welcome a million aliens without medical records into our midst. Cases of measles and smallpox are being found daily in interdicted migrants. Does that make sense to you?
For the longest time our immigration laws were focused on finding, arresting and deporting single Mexican males who had entered without permission. We snagged them, we arrested them, we deported 95% of them. That was because they were the primary offenders.
Now? Our laws were changed to favor those from the "Northern Triangle," believing that the drug cartels and the civil strife there was sufficient to accord them special status. Those fleeing these countries, especially women and children, were permitted to request asylum and then be processed for permanent residency. Of course, those fleeing crime or strife should (must) claim asylum in the nearest contiguous nation they come to. That would be Mexico. But they don't want to live in Mexico! They say they want their slice of the American Dream! Even though they're not Americans!
Should we blame Trump for improving our economy so very much that illegal aliens just can't help but break in? Are we guilty of having made America an "attractive nuisance?"
Why does this make sense to our more "Progressive" citizens and scare the Hell out of the Conservatives? Because "they" view these interlopers as their newest voting bloc, and "we" view them as invaders who have illegally skulked across our Border and are trying to game our system and sink our economic boat.
The cartels and their "coyotes" are making major bank off this crisis. Latest word is that they charge $6 - 8,000 per migrant. Multiply that times 100k/month and you'll understand the terrific financial draw this scenario has for our criminal gangs down south. It may be even more profitable than drugs, especially considering they have our laws on their side!
(NOTE: As I have suggested in an earlier rant, it might bode well for us to cut out the "coyotes" in the middle and just charge illegals $7k apiece to enter!)
So, let's sum up. Somewhere between 20 - 25% of all Northern Triangle citizens have made their way north so they can enter our back door and steal our jobs and our wealth. And the Democrats absolutely refuse to help change our laws which make this outrage possible. But then again, why would they; that would mean shutting off their never-ending supply of future voters!
So, we can reasonably predict that this situation will continue, unabated, well into the future. Which makes me wonder when, exactly when, will they run out of "migrants?" One can make the case that before too long there won't be anyone left in the Northern Triangle. As in, would the last one out please turn off the lights?
And that seems to me to be a great business opportunity. Since by that time those of us who live in the once-Golden State, which, due to the arrival of these "migrants" will soon be made equivalent to the Northern Triangle, may well wish to emigrate to Guatemala! Or Honduras! Or maybe to El Salvador! Yeah, that's it!
Just think of what we can do with 3 empty countries! Three gorgeous countries with scads of ocean shoreline, completely devoid of those who are looking for a whole lot of something while bringing to us a whole lot of nothing...
Maybe then, after they've turned Lost Angeles into Guatemala...and they're well on their way...perhaps we should build the Wall between Guatemala and Mexico to keep them from coming back in...
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
The "Brownout by the Bay"
"When you're going to San - Fran - cisco,
Be sure to put some booties on your shoes..."
I've advised you, my loyal readers, before about San Francisco and how its uber-liberal-ness and off-the-charts "Progressivism" is likely to be its undoing.
From the City by the Bay it's rapidly become the "Sh*tty by the Bay." I've told you about the scourge of the homeless infesting the very best areas of town. Thousands and thousands of them. Almost 10,000 of them at last estimate. And they're kind of hard to count, because the Fuzz aren't allowed to open their tent doors to ask. (!)
Angry, often violent and aggressive panhandlers accosting tourists and locals alike. Mental illness is on full display around Union Square, and Ghirardelli Square, and every other Square. And they set up camp right in front of the best shops and restaurants in town. This is Orwellian!
But perhaps most egregious is that these vagrants relieve themselves on the sidewalks and streets of San Francisco. Often. Not just Number One; we're talking loads and loads of Number Two. It's so bad that last year the City set up what they dubbed the "Poop Patrol."
Yes, my friends, instead of solving the problem this "Progressive" city simply decided to ignore it. But it's kind of hard to ignore tons and tons of human excrement.
But because they're "valued residents," as Nancy Pelosi's nephew, the new Guv of CA, calls them, there's nothing its citizens can do. The so-called "Paris of the West" has become the "Brownout by the Bay."
And the City just provided an update on their Human Waste Removal campaign. They're reporting a total of 132,562 cases of Number Two removal since 2008! And the incidence is growing! They've had 118,352 since 2011, and spiking to an all-time high 28,084 in 2018!
The auditors at OpenTheBooks.com took it upon themselves to plot on a map each incidence of human waste reporting on a map (check it out). Thirty zip codes in the City were affected, but four locations had the highest concentrations of human feces - between 10,000 and 23,000 events each.
Those affected neighborhoods included City Center, Hayes Valley, the Tenderloin, lower Haight and Downtown/Union Square. Zip Code 94103 had 19,275 instances of reported human feces! And Zip Code 94109 had 11,287 instances. This Code includes the San Fran Maritime National Park, the Regency Ballroom and the Liholiho Yacht Club. That, my friends, is the High Rent District...in a City full of High Rent Districts (one bedroom apartments now cost upwards of $4,000 a month!).
As an aside, I'm guessing it's sort of uncomfortable shopping for a $600 pair of shoes on Union Square and then having to step over or around dog sh*t as you depart the store...
The Good News is that their Poop Patrol is functioning proudly! Each Patrol member is paid a nice, round $183,720 in annual salary and benefits (who says you need a college degree?). That translates to $37.21 for each gob of crap thus scooped (SFO spent a whopping $72 Million Dollars last year scooping poop!).
Has anyone in this Progressive scat-filled Utopia asked themselves if it might be a better idea to simply buy a few Porta-Potties? It really must be nice to have so very much tech money and so very many uber-Liberal residents that it can afford to spend more on poop-scooping than on simply resolving the issue.
And God help anyone who tries to remove poop before they get to it! Nooooo! They're union workers, doncha' know. That poop belongs to them! And for proof of that, 200 volunteers were going to get together this last weekend and patrol the park around the old Letterman Hospital and Maritime Museum. But noooooooooooo! The City refused them a permit! I guess they might have removed some of the poop legally owned by the Patrol...
Be sure to put some booties on your shoes..."
I've advised you, my loyal readers, before about San Francisco and how its uber-liberal-ness and off-the-charts "Progressivism" is likely to be its undoing.
From the City by the Bay it's rapidly become the "Sh*tty by the Bay." I've told you about the scourge of the homeless infesting the very best areas of town. Thousands and thousands of them. Almost 10,000 of them at last estimate. And they're kind of hard to count, because the Fuzz aren't allowed to open their tent doors to ask. (!)
Angry, often violent and aggressive panhandlers accosting tourists and locals alike. Mental illness is on full display around Union Square, and Ghirardelli Square, and every other Square. And they set up camp right in front of the best shops and restaurants in town. This is Orwellian!
But perhaps most egregious is that these vagrants relieve themselves on the sidewalks and streets of San Francisco. Often. Not just Number One; we're talking loads and loads of Number Two. It's so bad that last year the City set up what they dubbed the "Poop Patrol."
Yes, my friends, instead of solving the problem this "Progressive" city simply decided to ignore it. But it's kind of hard to ignore tons and tons of human excrement.
But because they're "valued residents," as Nancy Pelosi's nephew, the new Guv of CA, calls them, there's nothing its citizens can do. The so-called "Paris of the West" has become the "Brownout by the Bay."
And the City just provided an update on their Human Waste Removal campaign. They're reporting a total of 132,562 cases of Number Two removal since 2008! And the incidence is growing! They've had 118,352 since 2011, and spiking to an all-time high 28,084 in 2018!
The auditors at OpenTheBooks.com took it upon themselves to plot on a map each incidence of human waste reporting on a map (check it out). Thirty zip codes in the City were affected, but four locations had the highest concentrations of human feces - between 10,000 and 23,000 events each.
Those affected neighborhoods included City Center, Hayes Valley, the Tenderloin, lower Haight and Downtown/Union Square. Zip Code 94103 had 19,275 instances of reported human feces! And Zip Code 94109 had 11,287 instances. This Code includes the San Fran Maritime National Park, the Regency Ballroom and the Liholiho Yacht Club. That, my friends, is the High Rent District...in a City full of High Rent Districts (one bedroom apartments now cost upwards of $4,000 a month!).
As an aside, I'm guessing it's sort of uncomfortable shopping for a $600 pair of shoes on Union Square and then having to step over or around dog sh*t as you depart the store...
The Good News is that their Poop Patrol is functioning proudly! Each Patrol member is paid a nice, round $183,720 in annual salary and benefits (who says you need a college degree?). That translates to $37.21 for each gob of crap thus scooped (SFO spent a whopping $72 Million Dollars last year scooping poop!).
Has anyone in this Progressive scat-filled Utopia asked themselves if it might be a better idea to simply buy a few Porta-Potties? It really must be nice to have so very much tech money and so very many uber-Liberal residents that it can afford to spend more on poop-scooping than on simply resolving the issue.
And God help anyone who tries to remove poop before they get to it! Nooooo! They're union workers, doncha' know. That poop belongs to them! And for proof of that, 200 volunteers were going to get together this last weekend and patrol the park around the old Letterman Hospital and Maritime Museum. But noooooooooooo! The City refused them a permit! I guess they might have removed some of the poop legally owned by the Patrol...
Saturday, May 4, 2019
"The First Thing we do, is Kill all the lawyers!"
Or so said one William ("Wild Bill") Shakespeare in "Henry VI, Part Numero 2."
His opinion, not mine. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm guessing he was taking a bit of artistic license, but then again, maybe not.
But something a little less than "kill," perhaps? Ummm, sure. Count me in...
I dunno' about you, but I've grown weary of lawyers. Like, "up to here" weary. It used to be that there was a lawyer every thither and yon. Not many of them at all. Just a manageable few. Enough so that you'd have one to call when you got snagged for a DUI, or needed a good divorce (if there is such a thing!), or wanted to sue your mizzzabel next door neighbor into the Stone Age.
Now? Dammmmm! It seems like you trip over lawyers no matter which way you turn. Their offices are everywhere! Their advertising is everywhere! And THEY are everywhere! Turn on the Telly late at night and you'll see what I mean.
In fact, there are roughly 1,340,000 lawyers in the U. S. of A., or 0.6% of the population as a whole. That's a bunch! There are 168,746 in California alone, as compared to only 19,307 in Loueeeeezeana. Just 83,675 lawyers have hung out their shingles in the whole of Canada, a far less litigious society, one should note.
Every ambulance now has a chaser to call its own...
And you want to talk about excess? There are 788 lawyers for each 10,000 residents in the District of Columbia! There's more lawyers than cab drivers in Foggy Bottom! And the worst part? They're probably all employed...by us!
What brought this particular rant to the forefront was my recent viewing of a couple of ubiquitous talking-head lawyers arguing the fine points of the legal system on a cable news program. They were in a heated discussion about whether a Prez, any Prez, can be guilty of attempting to obstruct his way out of a crime, for which he'd been charged, but has not committed. In other words, can and should you be allowed to defend yourself if you're wrongly accused? Hmmm. Think on that for a minute.
They argued heatedly for ten minutes, back and forth, spewing law book citations and case histories at each other at full staccato. And accomplishing nothing.
Dancing on the head of a pin, they were. And this yawner of a debate reminded me of that old lawyer saying: "When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. When the law is on your side, you argue the law. When you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, you pound on the table."
Proving conclusively that lawyers are trained to "go both ways," if you know what I mean (heh, heh). And proving conclusively one more thing: an alarming proportion of the membership of the Congress of the U. S. of A. are lawyers, which could well be the reason we're in such a gargantuan pile of bovine excrement most of the time.
No, my friends, I just learned that 38% of the membership of the House of Representatives are lawyers! And 57% of the Senate! And that gives us a blended average of 42% of both! That's a lotta' lawyers!
But that doesn't mean an infestation of lawyers improves the performance of the Congress. Less than 18% of the public approves of how the Congress operates, placing them just above the MainStreamMedia, which has lost its last vestige of credibility.
And if you watched the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, you'd understand why.
But that's okay; according to a recent Pew Research poll, less than 17% of the public believe that lawyers "contribute materially to society." In fact, I've told my best friend of more than 40 years that if he hadn't attained that lofty status before attending law school, I wouldn't have anything to do with him now.
So, I suggest we pass a law to prevent lawyers from becoming Congressweenies. At least for a few years. I mean, it fairly well sucks the way it is! Let's elect some normal folks. Some electricians, and shopkeepers, and farriers, and pharmacists, and farmers. Some salesmen, and nurses, and teaches, and welders. Just plain, normal American citizens, like our Founding Fathers intended. Those who know what it's like to get up early and stay up late trying to keep the wolf from the door. Maybe then some degree of normalcy and sanity and productivity will return to our hallowed Halls of Congress...
$600 an hour? Tell that to a welder...
His opinion, not mine. Don't shoot the messenger. I'm guessing he was taking a bit of artistic license, but then again, maybe not.
But something a little less than "kill," perhaps? Ummm, sure. Count me in...
I dunno' about you, but I've grown weary of lawyers. Like, "up to here" weary. It used to be that there was a lawyer every thither and yon. Not many of them at all. Just a manageable few. Enough so that you'd have one to call when you got snagged for a DUI, or needed a good divorce (if there is such a thing!), or wanted to sue your mizzzabel next door neighbor into the Stone Age.
Now? Dammmmm! It seems like you trip over lawyers no matter which way you turn. Their offices are everywhere! Their advertising is everywhere! And THEY are everywhere! Turn on the Telly late at night and you'll see what I mean.
In fact, there are roughly 1,340,000 lawyers in the U. S. of A., or 0.6% of the population as a whole. That's a bunch! There are 168,746 in California alone, as compared to only 19,307 in Loueeeeezeana. Just 83,675 lawyers have hung out their shingles in the whole of Canada, a far less litigious society, one should note.
Every ambulance now has a chaser to call its own...
And you want to talk about excess? There are 788 lawyers for each 10,000 residents in the District of Columbia! There's more lawyers than cab drivers in Foggy Bottom! And the worst part? They're probably all employed...by us!
What brought this particular rant to the forefront was my recent viewing of a couple of ubiquitous talking-head lawyers arguing the fine points of the legal system on a cable news program. They were in a heated discussion about whether a Prez, any Prez, can be guilty of attempting to obstruct his way out of a crime, for which he'd been charged, but has not committed. In other words, can and should you be allowed to defend yourself if you're wrongly accused? Hmmm. Think on that for a minute.
They argued heatedly for ten minutes, back and forth, spewing law book citations and case histories at each other at full staccato. And accomplishing nothing.
Dancing on the head of a pin, they were. And this yawner of a debate reminded me of that old lawyer saying: "When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. When the law is on your side, you argue the law. When you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, you pound on the table."
Proving conclusively that lawyers are trained to "go both ways," if you know what I mean (heh, heh). And proving conclusively one more thing: an alarming proportion of the membership of the Congress of the U. S. of A. are lawyers, which could well be the reason we're in such a gargantuan pile of bovine excrement most of the time.
No, my friends, I just learned that 38% of the membership of the House of Representatives are lawyers! And 57% of the Senate! And that gives us a blended average of 42% of both! That's a lotta' lawyers!
But that doesn't mean an infestation of lawyers improves the performance of the Congress. Less than 18% of the public approves of how the Congress operates, placing them just above the MainStreamMedia, which has lost its last vestige of credibility.
And if you watched the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, you'd understand why.
But that's okay; according to a recent Pew Research poll, less than 17% of the public believe that lawyers "contribute materially to society." In fact, I've told my best friend of more than 40 years that if he hadn't attained that lofty status before attending law school, I wouldn't have anything to do with him now.
So, I suggest we pass a law to prevent lawyers from becoming Congressweenies. At least for a few years. I mean, it fairly well sucks the way it is! Let's elect some normal folks. Some electricians, and shopkeepers, and farriers, and pharmacists, and farmers. Some salesmen, and nurses, and teaches, and welders. Just plain, normal American citizens, like our Founding Fathers intended. Those who know what it's like to get up early and stay up late trying to keep the wolf from the door. Maybe then some degree of normalcy and sanity and productivity will return to our hallowed Halls of Congress...
$600 an hour? Tell that to a welder...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)