Archive for January, 2019

No, they shouldn’t have

30 January 2019

“I think that somebody should have required […] all those members of Congress to go in a room, in a locked room, no press, nobody else, and look at the autopsy photographs of those babies [killed at Sandy Hook]. And then you vote your conscience [on gun control].” —Kamala Harris

Aside from the fact that Harris would be unmoved by looking at similar pictures of unborn babies shredded through abortion before she enthusiastically voted for a woman’s right to choose despite her child’s right to be born, this is not at all what Congress is for.

I’ve written about it in the past: you – senator or congressman, are *not* our leaders. You are *not* our betters. You are not to be locked in a room with any form of propaganda related to whatever issue in order to sway your views. You, senator or congressman, are our REPRESENTATIVES to the federal government. That means you are to REPRESENT our views – *not* your views, *not* the views of your party; but the views of your state or district.

That our government has devolved from this high ideal is troubling. That some can readily – and believably – argue that our senators and congressmen could be swayed so easily is disheartening. And that they all seem to think that THEIR conscience, beliefs, and desires should trump those of their constituents – the voting public – is reprehensible.

Personally, Kamala dear: I think that somebody should require all members of Congress to go in a room, in a locked room, no press, nobody else, and read the Constitution, the Federalists Papers, and the Anti-Federalist Papers while considering the context within which they were written, and reset their understanding of what their role in government is supposed to be.

– Pateratic

The more things change, the more they stay the same…

22 January 2019

“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson

Wow. Does that strike a chord!

We see this in all of the leftist activist groups, definitely – but how many of us are guilty of the same? I know I am…

And that was written over 210 years ago.

Wow. How some things never seem to change. This is one example. But there is another, more glaring one.

Think the press is bad now? Read comments about the press from Washington’s day. Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) was known for his disdain for the press. Watch old movies on the likes of TCM, and you’ll find disparaging comment after disparaging comment regarding the press and those who are part of it. The only thing that seems different about the press today from the press of yesteryear is its reach and immediacy. Other than that, it seems to be operating pretty much the same as it always has been.

Were there, perhaps, more principled beings peopling its offices in those days gone by? Maybe. That property of the press likely waxes and wanes, anyway – but there appear to have always been those in the profession more focused on sensation than sensibility; more keen on the rights of the press than the affect their writing may have on the people – and, worse, ready in the instant to run with innuendo and uncorroborated information rather than ensure what they have is, in fact, factual. We have only to look at the long and storied tenure of the likes of The Enquirer, The Star, and the like to see long standing evidence of that.

It’s the prevalence of the concept of the journalist as a destroyer that troubles me most. I guess, to those on the opposite side of an issue, they’re seen as heroic, but even the Hollywood image of reporters going back generations show people fearing them and what they would write about them or their situation. I think that this has been more than the fear of “exposure”, but a fear of being abused by things manufactured rather than observed.

Not having taken any journalism courses, I wonder what they are taught in terms of making ethical decisions?


Voter ID and The Left: You’re right. Nothing To See Here. Move Along…

18 January 2019

A green-card holder voted illegally 3 times in NC.  The News & Observer (NC)

So, a foreign national was allowed to vote after showing election officials at the polls a green card, social security number, and a driver’s license. After this, she voted in two more elections.

Let that sink in for a bit…

She provided a green card, a social security number, and a driver’s license…


So, yeah: I agree with the left on this one. Voter ID laws will have no impact – not because there is no illegal voting going on, but because it doesn’t matter: those that check ID at the polls are either too stupid to know what ID a legal citizen would have, vs. that of a foreign national – or they…

…Just. Don’t. Care.

Voter ID laws will make little difference when it is the EXPRESS INTENT of those managing the polls to circumvent the law by allowing anyone and everyone to vote. The judge, in this case, should not have “scolded” the election officials involved; he should have jailed them for contempt.


A Strange Parallel Universe, Perhaps?

17 January 2019

“Conservatives are thrilled a woman with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed a 19-year-old would-be mugger. That’s not how justice works. The penalty for theft is not death, nor do we want it to be.” —Think Progress editor Zack Ford

What strange universe does Ford live in where one should subjugate oneself to thugs? What strange dimension does he call home, where a criminal is valued equal to those s/he would victimize?

Look: I don’t like seeing people – any people – killed. However, if a person’s life is taken, I prefer that it be taken while they are demonstrating their explicit unfitness for society by, for instance: committing a crime. I find this highly superior to someone being killed for the act of being victimized by a criminal.

I wonder how Ford protects himself. Is there a guard at his place of work? An armed guard, perhaps? Since he’s so outspoken and in the public eye, does he have a body guard?

And what would Ford prefer if he found himself in a similar situation? Would he choose to simply let the event play out in the hopes that no-one got hurt? Or would he protect himself by any means available to him. (Side note: it is human nature to do the latter.)

Just curious…