Poll: What happens to Katie Couric now?

If you’ve read any gun news this week, you know that “journalist” Katie Couric was caught faking part of a documentary to make gun-rights activists look stupid and ashamed of themselves. Fortunately, one of the participants had made an audiotape — a very damning tape for Couric and her methods.

Even anti-gun NPR thought what Couric and her team did was a huge, manipulative no-no.

So in this week’s poll we ask, What happens to Couric now?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

So who’s side?

It’s interesting to me, the more I study and the more I ask the more questions I end up having.

For instance, Judea and Samaria or “occupied territories”? Since I truly believe words matter I decided to do a little investigating.

So what all is in Judea and Samaria that might sound familiar if only vaguely? Well, first you might want to know that while the place remain the same, the names get changed.

A quick but by no means comprehensive list:

Palestine as a term for Israel. This was given by the Emperor Hadrian in around 135 A.D. after he put down the second Jewish rebellion under Bar Kochba. He most likely chose it because it was close to the ancient enemies of Israel, the Philistines who no longer existed at this time. As a by the by, the original Philistines were not Arabic, they were Europeans, from the Adriatic sea next to Greece. There is no “p” in the Arabic language. Why would you call yourself something for which there is no letter?

Shechem, now called Nablus by Arabs, is where Avraham and Sarah first entered the land of Canaan. When Jacob returned to Isaac and Rebecca from his uncle’s house, he settled his family there. Joseph is buried in Shechem. His tomb has been burned and ransacked by the pieceful palestinians. Historically, Avraham traveled through Shechem on his way to Canaan and here offered his first sacrifice to G-d. After the conquest of Canaan, Joshua assembled the Israelites here and encouraged them to follow the Mosaic laws. During the period of the Judges, Abimelech was crowned king here.

Biblical Shechem was destroyed by the Assyrians in the 8th century BCE.

Lots of Jewish history there for a town called Nabulus by the Arabs.

Nazareth? Arab town now, and thanks to Arab MK s Jews don’t feel so welcome there, but the Mayor of Nazareth doesn’t appreciate their influence.

So now let’s take a look at Judea and Samaria, or as called by the left and the “falestinians” (no “P” remember) the “West Bank” or “occupied territories”. You can find a more complete list of towns with familiar names here if you’re interested.

What’s there? Ariel University, for one thing. A lovely university! It has beautiful grounds and very clever students. To get there you will need to go through a checkpoint, and coming out? Oh yes, the same.

In and out you will be checked. With good reason.
In and out you will be checked. With good reason.

Because some of the Arab inhabitants have a nasty hobby of trying to kill Jews. I guess stamp collecting isn’t big in Arab villages there. The grounds are lovely, the Professors I met were very nice. Our hostess, a Professor is a wonderful person. I very much enjoyed visiting with her. The grounds were spectacular and she gives credit to the amazing gardener and his staff. The university is attended by Arabs and Jews. If you speak fluent Hebrew and want to teach engineering, you should take a look as well. But the leftist press would have you believe that Israel is oppressing the pieceful falestinians. No, they own land as well.

From the Ariel University Campus
From the Ariel University Campus

The difference is, you don’t see Jews normally carrying out stabbing attacks, on the falestinians. And the cases where Jewish youth were blamed for fires? The fires turned out to have been set by Arabs, knowing the world’s media would be more than happy to play the home version of the game “blame Israel.” If you want an idea of the attacks that take place weekly in Judea and Samaria you can find it (for this week) at http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/21009 That so many of these attacks were planned and carried out by very young teenagers is terrifying. The women and children barry says we have no need to be afraid of a perfectly capable and willing to kill.

So the world and the UN tell us that the violence is the result of the pieceful falestinians frustration with the lack of “piece talks” and a “two state” solution. They don’t want a “two state” solution. They want a “one state” solution and that “one state” doesn’t involve a little thing called “Israel”. The Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, BDS, or as I call it BS? Interesting origins.

As to being “occupied”, according to this article, when there are more Israeli troops present, not only does it decrease attacks, it protects civilian women from being stabbed in the doorway of their homes in front of their children. The reasons for this success might surprise you, it may not work for the reasons you think. Israel does take their “purity of arms” code very seriously. It’s an interview with six current IDF Colonels. The sad irony of this is that the world then condemns Israel for having more troops there and urges them to remove them. Even though it will cost more lives, falestinians as well as Jewish. So it’s not really about being safe or saving lives, is it?

Here’s the thing people don’t understand, when they use terms like “occupied territories” or “West Bank” it lends credence to the anti-Antisemitism. How so? Because the pieceful falestinians claim Jews don’t belong there. But it’s not really about “where” the Jews are, it’s the fact there are Jews. An example of this was the recent rape of a 20 year old mentally disabled Jewish girl by 3 Arabs, 2 of them from Shomron. They also spit and urinated on her while shouting anti-Antisemitism threats to her and her family if she told. How so sure it was these pieceful falestinians? One of them filmed it. But this occurred in Tel Aviv. One of the rapists said she didn’t belong in his land. While Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel, the direction challenged US government claims Tel Aviv is. So even in the poorest scenario, Jews don’t belong in the Jewish capitol on the one Jewish state?

Words matter, they can give credence to Anti-Semitic hatred. The Arabs that hate Israel, and by all means, not all of them do, are certainly aware of this. We need to be as well and not play unwittingly into their very bloody hands.

The fact that there are major CHURCH denominations that have jumped on the BDS/BS bandwagon is unbelievable to me. Perhaps they need to go back and see where some of the major events took place in the book they share with the Jews. And then they should remember after Saturday? Comes Sunday. Useful idiots.

As to why live there, just enjoy the views.

Shomron
Shomron

 

Beautiful Ariel
Beautiful Ariel
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Poll: Will you vote for Donald Trump this year?

Donald_Trump_GunIt certainly appears that my last post generated a lot of controversy.

A number of commenters think I was mistaken, and that Trump will do a lot less damage to our Second Amendment rights than Hillary. Several pointed out that we are allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

I have explained my rationale behind my opposition to Trump previously.  Aside from his historic anti-RKBA views, which he has now conveniently changed now that he’s pretending to be a Republican, he’s an authoritarian weasel, who has no respect for basic human rights.

So I’m wondering what our members and readers really think about Trump.

Will you vote for him now that he’s the presumptive GOP nominee? Will you enthusiastically support him? Will you vote for Hillary Clinton, or the Libertarian nominee instead of Trump? Will you stay home on Election Day?

Let us know! Poll below.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

here’s what the nra just endorsed for president

The NRA just endorsed Donald Trump for president at its national convention.

This is what they endorsed.

 

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Q: Do you support the California law allowing judges to confiscate someone’s gun if they are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others?

A: This is something to look into–people with mental health problems are on the streets who shouldn’t be. — Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 20, 2015

Q: You’ve talked about wanting to keep the terror watch list but, under current law, individuals on the terror watch list and the no-fly list have been allowed to buy guns and explosives. Are you OK with that?

TRUMP: We have to have a watch list, but we have the laws already on the books as far as Second Amendment for guns, if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have,

Q: But under current law people on the watch list are allowed to buy guns.

TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely. –ABC This Week 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 22, 2015

Donald_Trump_GunSo the NRA – an organization that is supposedly dedicated to preserving our Second Amendment rights – America’s First Freedom – endorsed a candidate who implied that the NRA is uncompromising and that Republicans are wrong not to bend on at least some restrictions.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who thinks it may be acceptable for a judge to confiscate the property of an individual with some nebulous concept of “mental health problems.”

The NRA endorsed a candidate who believes people placed on a secret no-fly list without due process should be relieved of their right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who has publicly voiced his support for an “assault weapons” ban and who wants a waiting period before anyone is allowed to make a constitutionally protected purchase. Of course, now he claims he no longer supports the ban on those scary black rifles. Just in time to run for President as a Republican.

Congrats, NRA. You’ve endorsed a flip-flopping, tyrannical weasel, who has hoodwinked a plurality of Republicans into supporting him, and you fell right in line with the rest of those who care more about “winning” than they do about the direction this country is taking.

You care more about defeating the evil Hillary than you do about endorsing someone who has zero respect for basic human rights and believes they should be subject to the whims of politicians.

America’s first freedom, indeed.

Nauseating.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Statistics”

You’ve heard that “polls show that 90% of Americans want…” garbage; usually universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, but often any other infringement of your human/civil rights the gun grabbers can dream up. And you’ve wondered where the heck they found that many idiots.

In New Hampshire, the claim by UNH was 93% in favor of UPPYI checks. But I could never find a single person who would admit to participating in the survey. At all. Responding pro or con. The university refused to release their raw polling data. Actual voting (as in electing pro-gun politicians) doesn’t reflect that claim.

In Washington, the Bloomberg Ban Bunnies trotted out the same 90% claim. Granted, when it went to referendum, the infringement passed.

By slightly under 60 percent, as I recall. So where did the the other 30% disappear to?

Yes, the 90% claim has consistently been shown to be low-grade, poorly composted bovine ejecta. Real “polls” — votes — don’t support the numbers, so…

Katie Couric: ‘Silent Majority’ of Gun Owners Want More Gun Control
“The NRA only represents five percent of gun owners, so there’s this huge silent majority, and they represent common ground.”

[Digression: By that logic, the Bloomberg BBs represent — maybe — a few hundred people, so 99.999999999% percent of Americans must want everyone to be heavily armed at all times. -psst- Couric; I’m not NRA, but I’m pro-RKBA.]

See that? Now that the polls are clearly biased, manipulated, and maybe in the NH case, where no data exist, even made up, they have to fall back on the “silent majority” who huddle fearfully under their beds, refusing to voice what they truly want. A silent majority that can’t be verified because they run and hide form pollsters. But who transmit psychic emanations to Couric so she can discern their hidden desires.

Well, that got weird and creepy pretty quick. But that “silent majority” obviously has a thing for submission.

There’s the BBB playbook: Fake the polls; when that doesn’t work, lie. When that still doesn’t work, claim you’re speaking up for those who won’t speak up, or vote, for themselves.

How convenient.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Using the Myth of the Constitution, Part 4: What to do to make the Myth REAL

by Historian

In Part One of this series, I have discussed in broad terms the flaws of the present Constitution, link HERE.

Part Two discussed the specific shortcomings of the US Constitution, and there were a number of thoughtful comments that added significant value. Link HERE.

Part Three covered suggested steps to be taken and touched on the importance of ENFORCEMENT of the Constitution as the highest law of the land. Link HERE.

This installment is about making the myth of the Constitution real, about how we can go about actually enforcing the Constitution.

The idea of Constitutional enforcement has been an undercurrent in American politics for a long time, almost as long as the Constitution has been in force. Lysander Spooner in his essays entitled “No Treason” was not the first person to point out this issue, nor was he the last. Yet after over 200 years of increasingly obvious issues with the Constitution, we still have no enforcement clause.

Moreover, very few people are discussing what I consider to be the single most egregious flaw in the Constitution. Neither Michael Farris in his push towards an Article 5 Constitutional Convention nor Mark Levin in his book “The Liberty Amendments” promote Constitutional ENFORCEMENT, preferring rather to propose adding still more unenforceable amendments to an unenforced, and unenforceable Document. The only person I know that pushes the idea of enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the highest law of the land is Neil Smith. Despite endless lip service about Constitutional Government, few people out of government, and nobody at ALL in government seems to actually want to enforce The Document. Why is that? Cui Bono?

Well, not having an enforcement clause sure makes looting the taxpayer a lot easier, and it also makes it a lot easier to “enact a multitude of laws and eat out our substance.” A country like ours, where over half of the people working actually work for one governmental agency or another, either directly or indirectly, does provide considerable incentive for those folks to vote in favor of keeping their jobs funded. Enacting an enforcement clause is going to be damned difficult to do; enforcement of the Constitution will break lots of rice bowls. Both the Demopublicans and Republocrats see significant benefit in maintaining the illusion of legitimacy provided by the present myth.

Oddly enough, however, given the things the ruling oligarchy in this country have recently done, like having our military parade in red high heels and importing large numbers of 7th century barbarians in the hope that Western civilization will benefit therefrom, I’m hopeful that the right combination of stimuli can make the average American politician vote for damned near anything, as long as the carrot of re-election is dangled temptingly enough in front of them. But in any case, before we get hung up on the “how,” let’s think first about what an enforcement clause ought to look like. So what should an Enforcement Clause do? I have been thinking about this over the last two years, and here are my thoughts:

One of the problems we have with the current legal system is that it is a form of guild socialism. That is, if you do not belong to the appropriate guild, and pay the guild tax, you do not get to work in that profession. Guild socialism was common in medieval times, and was an early version of merchantilism, acting to restrain market entry and limit competition. American exceptionalism was due in part to getting away from those medieval ideas, and allowing anyone who wanted to enter the market to do so. Unfortunately, the lawyers managed to maintain their guild after the Revolution, and it still rides us today. As an aside, the last time I checked, I believe that there are only a few states that still allow people to read the law and take the Bar exam without having graduated from an accredited law school, one of which is the Commonwealth of Virginia. (see links here and here.)

With regard to the broader issue of Constitutional enforcement, the problem is that it is totally impractical, (in reality not possible,) for a non-attorney at present to act to strike down an unConstitutional law, and the only way to gain ‘standing’ is to break the law and place yourself at risk of conviction. Given that the overall conviction rate for Federal indictments runs in the high 90% range, why would any sane person do such a thing when the deck is so obviously stacked against the common citizen? The 1934 GCA which led to the case of US v. Miller, where the Federal Government won on appeal because the plaintiff failed to show up at the Supreme Court, is just one example of such issues; there are probably tens of thousands. If we are to have true enforcement of the Constitution, we have to be sure that access to whatever mechanism is developed is not restricted to the privileged class of lawyers, and that people who perceive an infringement on the Constitutional limits on Federal authority do not have to place themselves at jeopardy to seek correction. Any American must have the right to challenge the acts of every level of government which purports to have jurisdiction over them.

The second issue I see is that Constitutional issues get bumped up the ladder, taking years of time and gobs of money before the Supreme Court rules on the matter at hand……or doesn’t, in which case confusion reigns for another stretch of time, and the poor suffering taxpayer who got screwed by the government in the first place gets ignored. There needs to be a process that provides PROMPT relief. “Justice delayed is Justice denied,” right? If the determination is made at the local level that there has been Constitutional infringment, or if there is any significant delay, there needs to be immediate action to provide relief from the unConstitutional law or regulation, which according to precedent is now void, but which in practise never goes away. That stay or injunction ought to restrict the government, at whatever level the action is brought, from acting until the issue is finally resolved at whatever level it ends up being resolved. Moreover, if the case is appealed, and the higher court finds in favor of the plaintiff, the stay should be required to be extended to the entire jurisdiction of the court holding in favor of the plaintiff. This puts some teeth into enforcement, and ought to help correct the present tendency of Federal attorneys to do the legal equivalent of the “Rope-a-dope” and to draw out the proceedings and attempt to bankrupt the plaintiff by appealing any time they get an adverse ruling.

The third issue is that nobody is held responsible. There is no personal accountability on the part of any of the myriads of Federal, State, or local governmental elected or appointed officials, agents, or employees for their misfeasance or malfeasance. Those who violate the Constitution do so with impunity. That DEFINITELY needs to change, and those convicted of unConstitutional activity under color of law should suffer for it, both civilly and criminally. On the civil side, the costs of the legal action should be assessed against the person or persons involved in the infringement, personally, and they ought to be discharged from their position and stripped of their wealth, as well as salary, benefits and pension, and any other assets they possess.

On the criminal side, deliberate infringement of the Constitution ought to be a felony, and any such infringement resulting in loss of life, directly or indirectly, ought to be punished severely. One could argue that such subversion of the Constitution and violation of rights under color of Law ought to be treated as treason, with the death penalty available, but in any case, any governmental employee, representative, or agent should be liable for their actions.

So there is my conceptual list of what an Enforcement Clause for the Constitution ought to do. Constitutional Enforcement ought to:

  • Be available to any citizen of these united States;
  • be resolved promptly, with the presumption in case of delay in favor of the plaintiff, and with stays or injunctions against the unConstitutional law or regulation required;
  • Those who promote or enact such rules or legislation should be held accountable for the damage they cause and the costs required to address the issue.

Next time, I will discuss how this might be accomplished. In the mean time, thoughts or constructive criticism of the above are welcomed.

With Regard to all who serve the Light,

Historian


(Originally published at Views from Liberty Hollow.)


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Are they really that stupid?

Over the years, we’ve heard a lot of ridiculousness coming from gun grabbers. Anything from calling regular ole black rifles “assault” weapons to screeching about hip-fired weapons that can “spray” bullets to cause death and mayhem.

A couple of years ago, the husband and I went to see the last GI Joe movie (don’t judge!). It was as awful and badly written and acted as one would expect. At one point a female Soldier referred to a “Kalishnikov,” which caused me to jump up in the middle of the crowded theater and yell, “It’s KALASHNIKOV, you dumb b@!ch!” No, I didn’t get tossed out of the theater, but I did get a few amused (and bemused) looks.

To this day, if my employees want to make my head explode, they simply refer to the rifle as a “Kalishnikov” and watch my eyes pop out of my head.

DERP!
DERP!

Remember the now-infamous Everytown graphic depicting an entire cartridge flying out of the muzzle of a gun?

Remember how any number of firearms or boxes of ammo found in the home of a criminal is automatically referred to as an “arsenal,” by the compliant press corps?

Yes, I’ve actually had a retired  ATF agent at a “Gun Violence Forum” in Arlington refer to a magazine as a “clip,” and when I called him on it on the sidelines, he waved me off and said, “you know what I mean.”

So using last week’s poll as a jumping point, I started to wonder what is the best/worst/most egregious gun flub you’ve heard over the years?

Tell us in comments if your choice isn’t included.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Yom Ha’Zikaron and Yom Ha’Atzmaut

These two days are so very different, and they are always two days apart. It has been said, not originally by me however, that without the sorrow of the first, we would not have the joy of the second.

I like writing, I like it a lot. I love writing for Zelman’s Partisans, something I hope to do for a very long time. And I love being a partisan. I like words. I like them in English and in Hebrew and love learning new Hebrew words, something I work at every day.

That being said, there are no words I can ever give you, that I can write, that I think you will find as moving as the clip below. It is taken from a radio broadcast I listen to called Walter’s World. It is a clip from Richard Dimbleby on the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. The song at the end is HaTikvah, The Hope, The Israeli national anthem.

Listen, and you will understand why there is Yom Ha’Zikaron. Why there is the day that honors those that have fallen fighting for Israel, and honoring victims of terror that have fallen. They have been killed because they were Jewish, because they live in their land of Israel.

And again, I believe I can never give you any words to explain Yom Ha’Atzmaut, Israel Independence Day as well as Kippalive can. Besides, they sing much better than I do, and I’ve got a ton of felafel to fry for a BIG birthday party tonight. Our celebrant turns 68 years old.

ʿam yisraʾel ḥay!

עַם יִשְרָאֵל חַי

The people of Israel live!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Presidential Impact on RKBA

TZP readers range widely in thinking on the political process. Some don’t do electoral politics out of principle, some do. Some simply don’t see a point in voting anymore. Your personal mileage may vary. I’ve seen a great many intelligent, informed, and principled people come to diametrically opposed positions based on facts and reason.

Regardless where you stand, in America, in practice, elected officials can have a negative or positive effect on RKBA. Most often when they absolutely shouldn’t, based on the Constitution.

Currently, there are at least twelve parties worth of candidates and twenty independent individuals who are registered candidates. (I say “at least” because there are multiple “socialist” parties in America not listed on that page, who may be fielding candidates.)

The two automatic ballot access parties have fielded interesting examples. Clinton is running on a campaign plank of illegally restricting rights by executive order. Presumptive Republican candidate Trump (who changes parties more often than I change automobiles), says now that he’s in favor of the Second Amendment and RKBA, but in practice acted and claimed otherwise in the past. And present: Trump buildings are usually gun-free zones.

Socialists being socialists, it’s probably safe to assume they’re all anti-gun. The animals right “Humane Party” likely is, too; Bog knows,they’d need a disarmed populace to impose their visions on America.

The Libertarian Party was once an RKBA bastion, but they lost the confidence of myself and many others with the War-On-(Some)-Drugs Barr/Rotarian-Socialism Root ticket in 2008.

In an age when the President will nominate and appoint federal judges — especially Supreme Court Justices who’ve seized final say on what is constitutional — with lifetime tenure, and who can, by executive order, erect or eliminate bureaucratic barriers to basic human/civil rights, it matters who the next President is. I wish it didn’t. If the federal government had magically been limited to actual constitutional powers, it wouldn’t. But it does.

L. Neil Smith described the issue of guns as a litmus test. Why should you trust a politician who doesn’t trust you with defensive arms? Just what is that SOB planning to do to you that he can’t do if you can defend yourself?

As a practical matter, the most likely Prez-to-be is either most hated, anti-gun harridan in the nation; or the anti-gun, anti-property rights Democrat running as a pro-gun Republican (who actually once said he’d consider Oprah Winfrey as a running mate). If Clinton is somehow indicted for the disqualifying felonies she already publicly admitted, the socialist who is promising free stuff for everybody at your expense is waiting impatiently in the wings; I rather think he’ll need you disarmed for all that, too.


It’s safe to assume that whichever rights-violator wins, the Inauguration Day security zone is going to be horrifyingly entertaining… for those of us outside its range. Less entertaining, even more horrifying for those trapped in the District of Corruption area.


Ghu save the nation economy if the Greens win. The other third parties strike me as too small, too disorganized, too irrational, or otherwise unacceptable (or accepting of freedom) to be of any use. Some of them All of the Above.

This would be an excellent time for the LP to locate and dust off their principles, pick a relatively sane candidate, and declare a platform of “We aren’t Trump or Clinton.” Short of the Hope scenario, it’s the LP’s best chance to win a Presidential election. But then there’s the problem of the electoral college that does the real electing…

George Santayana warned, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Whether you vote or not, remember. Consider not just the candidates’ words, but their intentions, and what those intentions require.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Ask the wrong questions, get the wrong answers

And so it begins.

Both parties have now produced “inevitable” presidential candidates who are corrupt, opportunistic, sexist, self-serving, anti-gun, pro-big government, as personable as rabid skunks, and (worse from the mainstream point of view) electorally weak.

The Punditocracy, both professional and amateur, feels it has no choice other than to persuade its readership to hold their collective noses and v*te for … somebody. But since there’s not a single good thing to say about the candidate of their reluctant choice, the argument usually goes: “Yes, we know you’ve said you’d rather v*te for nobody than for ______. But think again! On issue A, B, or C Candidate So-and-So is so much worse than Candidate Such-and-Such that you simply must v*te against ________. Or the sky will fall.”

In the face of national loathing for both mainstream candidates, it’s amazing that political insiders have not yet shoved forward an independent Ross Perot or John Anderson type. But here the situation stands. For now.

I am not a pundit. I don’t care if you v*te for Unindicted Co-Conspirator D or Mercurial Megalomaniac R. I don’t care if you v*te at all. As an old political junkie myself, I wake up about two mornings out of three thinking Trump would be less ghastly than Clinton II and wake up on the third morning thinking Hillary has advantages over The Donald, though by the time I’ve dosed myself with caffeine I can’t recall what those advantages might be. Oh yeah, that with those mysterious health problems she’s hiding, she’s more likely than Trump to drop dead suddenly and be replaced with someone marginally less horrible. Or with her email and corrupt fundraising history she’s more likely to be disgraced, indicted, or otherwise forced out of office early. That’s her advantage.

Not a good enough reason to v*te for her, though. Unless someone puts a gun to my head, I won’t be v*ting for anybody.

But I don’t care if you v*te or not. That’s your business. I do care if Americans ask the right questions about these party animals, about the thick mess the country is in, and about how we personally should respond to it.

‘Cause it seems vast swaths of Pundithood want you to ask the wrong questions. And when you ask the wrong questions, you never arrive at the right answers.

—–

One of those “You must v*te against ______!” pieces showed up in the TZP mailbox the other day. (A widely circulated but wildly misattributed piece of commentary.) It made a valid and important point against Hillary: the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant. Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Thomas is 67. …

These are 5 vacancies that will likely come up over the next 4-8 years. …

Hillary Clinton has made it clear she will use the Supreme Court to go after the 2nd Amendment. She has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision, stating that the Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. Period.

Never mind that no court, no president, can ever “remove the individual right to keep and bear arms.” They can mightily interfere with the exercise of said right. So yes, the prospect of Hillary controling multiple appointments to the court is ominous.

But then the pundit goes absurdly over the top:

If Hillary Clinton wins, and gets to make these appointments, you likely will never see another Conservative victory at the Supreme Court level, for the rest of your life – – – Including your children and your grandchildren.

The rest of your life? The rest of your grandchildren’s lives? Oh, really? Let’s say you have a child this year and that child grows up and, at age 25, has a child. Then that child, your grandchild, lives 75 years. (Note: “the rest of your life, ridiculous enough, appears in the original. Someone added all those grandchildren as the piece circulated. So it’s the pundit’s editor going even farther over the top.)

We’re supposed to believe that, if Hillary is elected, the Supreme Court will remain rabidly Hillarian for the next 100 years???

“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

But worse than the Alice in Wonderland math and the Chicken Little claims are the things unsaid, the facts unstated, the untruths cleverly implied — the questions unasked. Such as:

What makes anyone think Donald Trump is a “conservative,” or that he would appoint “conservative” justices? Trump has supported single-payer health insurance (to the left of Hillary). Trump has been anti-gun, just like Hillary. Trump has used big government to his own ends and wants to use them now in populist (traditionally “left-wing”) causes. Trump has contributed to past Hillary Clinton campaigns. Conservative? What?

What makes anyone think that justices appointed by Trump, even if he happened to choose a few “conservative” ones, would be pro-gun or pro-liberty? This generation may have forgotten that the court headed by “conservative” Chief Justice Earl Warren produced some of the most unconstitutional, left-wing decisions in U.S. history (with Warren’s full and enthusiastic collaboration). But surely we can’t already have forgotten that current “conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts single-handedly saved Obamacare. “Liberal” justices tend to remain liberal, but “conservative” ones often do what other gov-o-crats do: v*te for big government once they’re part of it.

Ask the wrong questions — or fail to ask the right ones — and you’ll inevitably get the wrong answers.

While (correctly) damning Hillary, the viral article says not one, single, positive thing about Trump. It offers not one smidgeon of evidence that Trump would do anything better. Because there is no evidence to offer. It implies in a slippery and sideways manner that he’s a conservative (whatever that means), but actual evidence of his principles or his intentions is completely absent.

But Hillary is anti-gun! Hillary will appoint nasty Supreme Court justices!

So please don’t notice that Trump is just Hillary with even worse hair, a louder mouth, and a different variety of sexism.

The sky will fall if you v*te for Hillary! Your grandchildren will still be stuck with her 100 years from now!

Never mind the consequences of Trump. Don’t mention them. Imply that he’s a “conservative” antidote to creepy authoritarian anti-gun eternal statism and maybe in November it’ll miraculously turn out to be true.

It could happen. And pigs could fly. And Dorothy could click her heels and come safely home to Kansas. And Jesus really could appear on a tortilla. And orchids could bloom outdoors at the North Pole. And presidential candidates could tell the absolute truth, hold noble principles of freedom, and always do exactly what we hope they’ll do, just because we hope it so very, very ardently.

It could happen.

But wouldn’t we be better off if we closely examine reality and act in accordance with that?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.

XSLT Plugin by BMI Calculator