A Modest Proposal: Gun-free America

In our post below we suggested that leftists want to totally ban guns, but don’t have the guts to come right out and say it. Well, like Diogenes meeting an honest man, we were quite surprised to find one leftoid, Washington Post editor Fred Hiatt, willing to say what he really believes.


Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed…

Sure, Fred. What could possibly go wrong?


And yes, I understand how difficult it would be.

No, Fred, we don’t believe you do.

The Left’s Dishonesty on Guns

Every time a mass shooting occurs, leftists start spouting that we need to ‘do something’ about guns. But they don’t like to say specifically what that ‘something’ is. President Obama, for instance, likes to talk, but where is his legislative proposal?

The reason for the left’s lack of specificity is something we can only speculate about. One possibility is that they cannot openly state their preferred policy because it happens to be massive confiscation and a total ban on gun ownership. They can’t come out and say that because it is politically unpopular as well as unconstitutional.

Another possibility is that they don’t really care about passing new laws, but like to use mass shootings as opportunities to engage in moral preening and putting their political opponents on the defensive.

Either way, the left’s behavior is dishonest, unserious, and despicable.

In the clip below, watch Charles Cooke try in vain to get smug liberal Mark Halperin to make a specific policy proposal. Our favorite part occurs around the 2:00 mark when Cooke asks Halperin for a second time to state some specifics. Halperin says, “We can talk about specific policy in a second but let me just finish…”, and then he never does talk about a specific policy.

On guns, leftists are not serious interlocutors, so whatever they say about the subject should just be ignored.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Our Ruling Class: Narrative over Facts

The other day, a gunman killed nine people at an Oregon community college. America’s president quickly rushed to a microphone to politicize the issue by blaming his political opponents, otherwise known as those who support constitutional and human rights, for the violence. In particular, America’s Fearless Leader asserted that this sort of mass violence was unique to the United States.

fearless leaderAs David Harsanyi points out at The Federalist, Dear Reader’s claim has no basis in reality.

[S]urely the president recalls that in January of this year two gunmen entered the office of a satirical magazine in France with an assortment of guns and murdered 11 people (and injured 11 more). After leaving, they killed a police officer. And in a marketplace catering to Jews another five were murdered and 11 wounded. France is, allegedly, an advanced country, is it not? Perhaps if Obama had attended the anti-terror rally in Paris like every other leader of advanced countries did, his recollection would be sharper.


In 2011, a deranged Anders Behring Breivik killed eight people by setting off a van bomb in Oslo, before going on to murder 69 more people, mostly children, at a summer camp. This is the single worst shooting spree incident in history. Obama surely remembers that he left the White House and visited the Norwegian ambassador’s residence to offer his condolences.

It takes only a rudimentary search to find out that mentally unstable killers can be found anywhere. In February of this year, nine people were killed in Czech Republic spree killing. In Erfurt, Germany, a couple of years ago, an expelled student murdered 13 teachers, 2 students and a policeman. That same year, in the Serbian village of Velika Ivanča, a gunman shot and killed 14 people—many of them his own relatives— and a Russia gunman opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle killing six people. A couple of years before that, in England, a lone gunman killed 12 people and injured 11.

A clear indicator of the sorry state of our republic is that our Ruling Class routinely traffics in lies.


Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

How the Drug War Kills

An article in the Washington Post calls Dayton “an epicenter of the heroin problem.” In the lengthy article, two paragraphs caught our attention.


For years, treatment centers saw few heroin addicts. But that started changing in the mid-2000s and took off a few years later after a government crackdown on opioid painkiller abuse. Unable to get pills, many addicts turned to heroin, the painkillers’ chemical cousin.


In Montgomery County, home to Dayton, heroin-related deaths have skyrocketed 225 percent since 2011. Last year, this county of 540,000 residents reported 127 fatal heroin overdoses — among the highest rates in the nation, according to statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Well, maybe if the police state hadn’t launched its crackdown on painkillers, those users would not have “turned to heroin, the painkillers’ chemical cousin,” and many if not most of those 127 fatal overdoses wouldn’t have occurred.

This is exactly how prohibition kills–by driving users to less standardized and more toxic substances. Instead of popping pills manufactured by reputable pharmaceutical companies, people end up shooting junk produced in some Mexican hideout.

A similar phenomenon occurred during alcohol prohibition, when thousands died or went blind from drinking methanol.

But when most people hear that 127 people died from heroin overdose in just a single Midwestern county, they take that as evidence that drugs are far too dangerous to decriminalize, and they become even more resolved to prosecute the War on Drugs. What they don’t understand is that the drug war itself is what makes the drugs that people take so dangerous.

But hey, at least the drug war creates good jobs and benefits for law enforcement.

Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

The Twilight of Manliness

So the New York Times (sigh) published a list of “27 Ways to Be a Modern Man” (eye-roll). Numbers 16 and 25 seem somewhat contradictory.

16. The modern man lies on the side of the bed closer to the door. If an intruder gets in, he will try to fight him off, so that his wife has a chance to get away.

25. The modern man has no use for a gun. He doesn’t own one, and he never will.

If Modern Man is supposed to be defending his wife from intruders, how is it that he “has no use for a gun”? If the intruder happens to have a gun, what’s Modern Man supposed to do? Try to knock the gun away with a Bruce Lee flying kick?

Then there’s this.

26. The modern man cries. He cries often.

If true, then the civilization is in twilight, and the thought of that is almost enough to make us cry.

In any event, this talk of manliness gives us an excuse for another edition of Then and Now.




Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

How the Ruling Class Views Free Speech

What’s the Ruling Class’ position on free speech? Privately, if not publicly, they’re against it. Some evidence in support of that conclusion leaked out this week when a live microphone caught two leading members of the Ruling Class in an unguarded moment.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over incendiary posts on the social network, Bloomberg reported on Sunday, amid complaints from her government about anti-immigrant posts in the midst of Europe’s refugee crisis.

On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.

The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that “we need to do some work” on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. “Are you working on this?” Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.

Maybe instead of trying to suppress the free speech of free-born citizens, Merkel should redirect her energies to determining which of the hundreds of thousands of “refugees” she’s letting into Europe are moochers, rapists, or terrorists.

Francis the Clueless

Kyle Smith, writing in the New York Post:

[T]he pope hinted that capitalism is a force that shackles and immiserates, when the exact opposite is true: Even partial market reforms have, in China and India, lifted hundreds of millions out of abject poverty and into relative comfort. This is not a miracle, but it is a blessing, and one that the pope seemingly opposes when he talks about “the millions of people living under a system which has overlooked them.”

In an earlier speech, in Bolivia last July, the pope said, “an unfettered pursuit of money rules” and called it “the dung of the devil,” adding that “once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society.”

No one is arguing that capital should become an idol, but free markets produce wealth that puts food in people’s mouths and clothes on their backs. The Church has a historic commitment to battling poverty, and yet its earthly leader is profoundly ignorant of how history tells us to accomplish this. He shouldn’t flaunt his lack of understanding.

We almost wonder if the Church doesn’t want people to remain poor and oppressed so they will turn to religion for relief, like Poland under communism. After all, the Church is growing rapidly in the poorest parts of the world like Africa, while in the richest parts like Western Europe, the churches are empty. Does the Catholic Church view prosperity as bad for its business model? We recognize the question is a profoundly cynical one. As the old saying goes, we try to become more cynical every day, but lately we just can’t keep up.


Krugman Wrong, an Endless Series

Paul Krugman, the house economist to the Liberal Establishment, argues that we need government regulation to protect us from evil, greedy businesses. Maybe the Establishment should rethink how much they’re paying him, because his arguments aren’t very good.

He starts, inauspiciously, with a straw-man fallacy.

There are, it turns out, people in the corporate world who will do whatever it takes, including fraud that kills people, in order to make a buck. And we need effective regulation to police that kind of bad behavior, not least so that ethical businesspeople aren’t at a disadvantage when competing with less scrupulous types. But we knew that, right?

Well, we used to know it, thanks to the muckrakers and reformers of the Progressive Era. But Ronald Reagan insisted that government is always the problem, never the solution, and this has become dogma on the right.

As a result, an important part of America’s political class has declared war on even the most obviously necessary regulations. Too many important players now argue, in effect, that business can do no wrong and that government has no role to play in limiting misbehavior.

We notice that Krugman didn’t name any prominent libertarians or conservatives who advocate letting business get away with “fraud that kills people.” Nor did Krugman name anybody who believes that “business can do no wrong” or that “government has no role to play in limiting misbehavior.” That’s because they don’t exist.

We live in a strange world, surprising in many ways. For instance, one would never suspect that a Nobel Laureate in Economics could be stupid enough or unscrupulous enough to traffick in pathetic straw-man arguments. But there it is.

The fact is that one can support legislation, duly passed and enforced by elected officials, covering fraud and product liability, without supporting the abomination of our overweening regulatory state consisting of tens of thousands of pages of regulations. Laws against fraud are one thing. But thousands of new regulations written every year by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats as part of a semi-opaque, special-interest conspiracy against the public are quite another thing.

Krugman later reveals what he means by “obviously necessary regulations” that “the right” wants to get rid of.

Carbon regulation must go, of course, because doing nothing about climate change has become an essential part of the Republican identity. So must Obamacare.

Ah, carbon regulation and Obamacare, two solutions in search of a problem. But these policies are attractive to statists like Krugman because they promise to expand the power and scope of government. Carbon regulation and Obamacare aren’t “obviously necessary” to any objective except giving the political class more power over the people.

Next, Krugman wants the government to take some sort of action against the for-profit education industry.

Then there’s for-profit education, an industry wracked by fraud — because it’s very hard for students to assess what they’re getting — that leaves all too many young Americans with heavy debt burdens and no real prospect of better jobs.

But surely Krugman knows that the for-profit education industry that he deplores exists almost entirely due to the availability of subsidized student loans made available by government. It’s almost as if Ronald Reagan was right when he said that government is the problem.

Furthermore, why single out for-profit education? The non-profit education industry where Krugman is employed also “leaves all too many young Americans with heavy debt burdens and no real prospect of better jobs,” and does so on a far grander scale.

Krugman also likes the thousands of pages known as Dodd-Frank banking laws.

Last but not least, Mr. Bush calls for a rollback of financial regulation, repeating the thoroughly debunked claim that the Dodd-Frank law actually encourages banks to become too big to fail. (Markets disagree: Judging by their borrowing costs, big banks have lost, not gained, since Dodd-Frank went into effect.) Because why should we think that letting banks run wild poses any risks?

So if you oppose Dodd-Frank, it means you’re in favor of “letting banks run wild.” Straw-man much?

Maybe Krugman’s pabulum-puking readership at the New York Times is sufficiently ingenuous to believe that Dodd-Frank was intended to rein in the big banks. But those of us with a modicum of worldly knowledge remember that it was the big banks themselves who wrote the bill. When U.S. Treasury bureaucrats sent an early draft of the bill over to Congress, they forgot to delete from the document the watermark of the law firm used by the big banks.

Is this the best that Krugman can come up with? Maybe he needs a break, because at this point he’s just mailing it in.


Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone

Great Socialists in History: No Such Thing

Dorothy who??

[Socialist] Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders lauded Pope Francis for highlighting Dorothy Day — a Catholic socialist — and for calling for action on climate change and poverty in his speech to Congress on Thursday.
In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, said Day “spent her life fighting for the poor and fighting for justice”…

“She was a very, very progressive … socialist who organized working people and the poor to stand up to the wealthy and the powerful and to fight for social justice,” Sanders said.

But who did more for working people, socialist Dorothy Day, or capitalist Thomas Edison? Socialist Dorothy Day, or capitalist Henry Ford?

Hint: Before Henry Ford revolutionized the auto industry, a car cost more than a house.

Sometimes people who do great things, like Norman Borlaug, get unfairly overlooked by history. But in the case of Dorothy Day, there are good reasons why almost nobody has heard of her.

An old saying is that the shortest book ever written is Great Moderates in History. Actually, an even shorter book would be Great Socialists in History. The fact is that there exists no person known to history for his or her socialism who could be considered a great person worthy of adulation. At worst, history’s socialists are mass murderers like Stalin, Mao, and Che Guevara. In The Lost Literature of Socialism, historian George G. Watson asserted that every writer during the century 1840-1940 who advocated genocide or ethnic cleansing was a socialist.

At best, history’s socialists are losers and nobodies like Dorothy Day.

And the very obvious reason that history records no successful socialists is that socialism has failed everywhere it’s been tried.

The fact that socialists like Sanders and Pope Francis laud a socialist nobody like Dorothy Day, rather than successful capitalists like the Wright Brothers or Walt Disney or Steve Jobs, tells you everything you need to know about them.



Spread the word.Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone