A restaurateur on the Hugh Hewitt show said that mandating health insurance for food service employees would drive many restaurants out of business and drive up the cost of eating at those restaurants that were able to survive. Another food service manager said that, in the event Obamacare passes, he was considering laying off his wait staff and having customers order at computer terminals at each table.

08-03-09 Liberal Columnist Paul Krugman appeared in a video clip shown on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox TV Show. Krugman, sitting on a discussion panel, asked “How many Canadians in the audience?” Several hands went up. “How many of you Canadians believe that you have a terrible health care system?” About the same number of hands went up. Krugman responded with a strained grin, “Well, now! I shouldn’t have done that, should I?”

In the United States Political Arena, the Democrats have effectively shut the Republicans out of the health care debate. One result of this one-party approach is that there appears to be no effective tort reform in either bill. Insurance companies, until they are driven out of business by the “public option,” will still not be able to offer coverage across state lines. There appear to be no effective provisions to increase the number of doctors and other medical staff to handle the increased patient load. One survey of doctors reported that as many as 45% of them would consider retiring, if Obamacare were passed.

Stories from the occupied territories:

A young Canadian man was on a two-year waiting list for an operation. Unfortunately, the doctors only gave him 18 months to live. He came to the US for his operation. He survived.

A Young Canadian woman needed a hospital that could handle multiple births. There were no openings in Canada. She had her babies in the US.

A Canadian woman reported that her dog has better health care than she does. Her dog can get same day treatment in an unregulated veterinary clinic, while she must wait for three weeks to get an appointment with a government-regulated physician.

A doctor called Hugh Hewitt from Texas on 08-02-09 and reported that he overheard the payoff on a gruesome bet between residents (apprentice doctors), while he was working in England. One of their patients had been on a waiting list for two years for an operation to correct a life-threatening aneurysm in the wall of his aorta. One of the budding doctors had wagered that the man would die, before he got the operation. The other one bet that the man would get the operation and survive. Unfortunately for the patient, the death-betting resident physician won the wager.

The same caller reported that, following rounds one day, the doctor and the residents were enjoying tea. A nurse came in and told the doctor that a patient was having severe chest pains. The doctor looked up and said, “Tell the patient that we are at tea, and that when we are finished, we will come and have a look at him.”

A survey of British Subjects revealed that many of them were dissatisfied with their health care, but that they didn’t complain, because they felt that no one in government would listen to their pleas.

A story out of Great Britain reported that only 40% of cancer patients in that country are able to see an oncologist (cancer specialist).

The main reasons to oppose Obamacare-probable results:

• The destruction of Medicare Advantage to “save tax dollars” will mean that millions of seniors will be driven to buy more expensive Medicare supplemental coverage from the anti-gun American Association of Retired Persons, otherwise known as AARP. (AARP is now on board as a supporter of Obamacare.)

• Obamacare will be terribly expensive in terms of tax dollars and probably require raising taxes on all Americans.
• It will drive up the costs of all goods and services.

• It will destroy an American Health Insurance Industry unable to compete with a government-subsidized “public option.”

• It will result in health care rationing, especially for the elderly, who will not be ” good investments” as candidates for heart surgery, knee and hip replacements, or expensive medication. Not only will overweight people, elderly people and others who are not considered “worthy” not be able to get government health care, they will not be able to get government approval for certain procedures or drugs anywhere in the country.
• Gun Owners of America has published information indicating that government health care may result in de facto registration of gun owners. The intrusive health care bureaucracy may view gun owners as a “high risk” group, comparable to smokers or obese persons. Will criminal penalties for failure to buy insurance create more “prohibited persons” who are forever banned from legal gun ownership?
• Obamacare will vastly increase the national debt and may very well wreck the economy.

If Obamacare passes, Congress will keep its own “special” heath insurance. Many government bureaucrats will have special plans. “Common” citizens will be locked into a health plan that has had marginal results at best in most of the rest of the world.

The end result of Obamacare will likely be a system where the rich, including wealthy Democrats, go to other countries for treatment for serious conditions, knee and hip replacements, and expensive medication. Substantial numbers of US doctors will leave to practice in these countries, where they will be able to make much more money than they can under a socialized system in the US. Elderly Americans will die on waiting lists, or along with overweight citizens, be unable to get treatment anywhere. Illegal aliens and people on welfare will continue to receive care at low or no cost, unless of course, they are elderly or obese.

If the US socializes health care, where will seriously ill British and Canadians go for treatment? (The rich ones will probably join the rich Americans in clinics in South America and the Caribbean.) The rest will suffer on their own waiting lists like the silly American “common citizens” who voted for “Hope and Change.”

Go to DickMorris.com for more information

Def Mech

“Mistakes were made,” as the North Vietnamese general said after the war, when referring to the communist massacre of almost 3,000 civilians in Hue, South Vietnam during the 1968 Tet Offensive.  The Republicans in the 23^rd District nominated a RINO who was, of all things, in favor of the card check option that would kill the secret ballot in company elections on unionization.  The GOP candidate in question had other left-wing positions that rankled many conservatives.

That said, the split in the Republican vote between the Conservative Party candidate and the turncoat RINO, who dropped out of the race and threw her support behind the Democrat, gave the left-wing party of big government and restricted individual freedom the win in the congressional election.  The lesson could not be clearer. If you want the party that you oppose to gain election victories, you vote for a third party candidate.  It happened with Ross Perot.  Clinton won.  It happened with Ralph Nadar. Bush won.  It happened with Ron Paul.  Obama won.

Vote for ELECTABLE pro-Second Amendment candidates from major parties that most closely adhere to your views.  If possible, vote GOP.  The party in power controls the political process.  Voting third party throws your vote away.  As if we needed another reminder!

Def Mech

Now, in their never-ending campaign to reign in the barbaric pub crawling inclinations of the “Great Unwashed,” otherwise known as British subjects or commoners, the Home Office is proposing to replace glass beer glasses with plastic ones.  There is obviously a crisis here.  According to a BBC report, about 5,500 subjects are the victims of glass attacks every year in England and Wales.  I’m sure the figures from Scotland were too horrible to report.

Professor Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy estimated that this works out to about one attack with a glass or bottle for every 1,000,000 pints served, assuming all attacks are conducted with pint containers.  “If it only saves one pint…,” as the saying goes.

Where will it end?  I’m sure the Home Office has detailed plans to take away sharp-pointed scissors.  How about those deadly umbrella tips?  The Brits carry a lot of umbrellas.  Hard-soled shoes could be used to kick and stomp innocent commoners.  Maybe they should get rid of those hard soles, or is it hard souls? 

Belts!  Belts can be used as weapons.  Read Kipling’s stories and poems.  Belts can be used to strangle innocent commoners.  Forks have those sharp tines on them.  I don’t know if commoners should be allowed to have forks.

I’ve got it.  The British Home Office should force all commoners to wear soft-soled slippers.  No belts or suspenders for them!  It’s hard to assault somebody, if you are holding up your pants with both hands.  We won’t even talk about bra straps.  No scarves, feather boas, or eye glasses.  (You could cut somebody with the lenses.) 

All umbrellas must have rounded tips.  The subjects can use soft plastic spoons and drink from plastic sippy cups.  Wait!  Forget the sippy cups.  That projection on the top could be used to put out someone’s eye.  OK.  Just plastic cups without projections.

No chop sticks!  No ball points or fountain pens!  No shoe laces!  All pub and restaurant furniture should be bolted to the floor.  A thrown chair can be a weapon of mass destruction. 

Darts?  Darts?  Darts in a British pub?  Don’t even think about darts!  Have you seen the points on those things?  Maybe floppy darts with suction cups on the ends…

Who are we kidding here?  The Brits should just handcuff their subjects at all times or restrain them with those shock bracelets that deliver a taser-like jolt in the event of misbehavior.

I would laugh myself silly over the antics of our British cousins, if the Liberal proponents of American gun control didn’t think that the Home Office has the right idea.  Be afraid of the Nanny State.  Be very afraid.  Whether it’s gun control or socialized medicine, the Liberal statists want to control every aspect of your existence.

Don’t believe me?  Find out what happens to you in San Francisco, if you don’t sort your recyclables and garbage into the right bins. (See my post, “San Francisco proposes ‘Garbage Police.’  Am I psychic or what?” dated 08-01-08 tagged “San Francisco,”)

Def Mech

This equivocation by Judge Sotomayor is not surprising, given that she was nominated to the Supreme Court by Barack Obama, who has made numerous appointments of persons hostile to the Second Amendment, e.g., Biden, Emmanuel, Clinton, Sebilius, and Napolitano, to name a few.  (If you are a gun owner who voted for Obama, curse yourself and send a large contribution to a pro-gun organization.  Think of your donation as compensatory damages for a really dumb vote.)

If you have not already done so, please call your US Senators and ask them to oppose Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the highest court in the land.  She will almost undoubtedly be confirmed over our objections, but we can at least let the Senate know that Americans are watching their actions and will hold them accountable during the next election and beyond.  (See my post, “Obama picks anti-gun Supreme Court nominee,” 05-28-09, tagged, “Sotomayor.”) 

Def Mech

I seriously doubt that any number of guns slipped out of their holsters and gun safes, somehow managed to load and cock themselves, and then, for reasons of their own, sought out and killed human beings.  As far as I can tell, guns are inanimate objects.  They do not reproduce on their own.  They do not exhibit goal-directed behavior.  In fact, they do not behave at all.  I personally have been close to numerous loaded guns and have never seen one demonstrate aggression, let alone deadly intent.

On the other hand, research done by Democrat Professor Gary Kleck indicates that guns are used in America up to 2.5 million times every year for self-defense.  I suppose that if we must condemn guns for murder, we must commend them for coming to the defense of their owners and others.

If guns are somehow animate and capable of murder, must we then grant them habeas corpus?  Are police illegally holding sentient beings without bail, without trial, without hope of eventual release?  Most of these guns are probably being crushed and burned without any pretext at due process.  Where is the ACLU?  Where are the trial lawyers?

Where is the common sense on the other side of the gun debate?

Def Mech

The San Francisco Department of the Environment didn’t even wait for the November Election to demonstrate how life imitates art.  Under a proposed law, trash collectors are going to inspect garbage before throwing it in the truck.  If you (gasp!) don’t put your recyclable materials into the right containers, you will be warned.  You could also draw a fine.  “Big Brother is watching.” & “Ve haf vays of dealing mit people like you!”

If you offend three times, you could be fined up to $1,000.  This is yet another example of Left-wing bureaucrats who really don’t think that “common” citizens have the sense of a cucumber.

Imagine what could happen if they found a gun cleaning patch in your plastic bottle bin!  Worse!  It could have powder solvent on it, which would no doubt make you guilty of a Haz Mat offense.  Call the SWAT Team!

“We believe mandantory recycling can get us to the next level,” a city spokesperson is reported to have said.  Would that be the Brave New World Level, The 1984 Level, the Brazil, The Movie level, or the It can’t happen here! level?

OK!  Maybe I’m not psychic.  Mayor Newsom apparently did announce in April that he planned to begin “issuing fines to encourage recycling.”  (Emphasis mine.)  I don’t remember hearing anything about it, but it could have crept into my unconscious.

I can’t help thinking of Voltaire’s quote about the English occasionally shooting an admiral “pour encourager les autres.”  For anyone unfortunate enough not to read French, as Barack Hussein Obama would no doubt say, that means, “to encourage the others.”  By the way, do you feel bitter and clingy?  I’m not bitter today, but I do feel a bit clingy.  Must be the heat.

I couldn’t make this stuff up, if I tried.  Well, maybe I could.  I’m working on a novel that I plan to inflict upon you, if I can get the insurance problems worked out.

If you’re trapped in The City By The Bay, watch your garbage and for gosh sakes, don’t throw away anything incriminating.  Drug paraphernalia and evidence that you are an illegal alien are probably all right.  Do not!  I repeat, do not, throw away anything that might identify you as a gun owner.  “Ve haf vays of dealing mit people like you!”

Vote Republican or lose your rights! 

Def Mech   

If you are talking to a “peaceful” Liberal who is eight feet tall and weighs about 300 lbs., I would not use the tactic mentioned below.  Stay alert.  Use common sense.  Be safe.  This can be a powerful tool.  It is one possible way to have a relatively quick, profound impact on a person’s belief system.  Use it wisely.

It’s usually hard to talk calmly to members of the Left about the individual right to self-defense against crime and tyranny, because they get their information from different sources.  They “know” that guns cause crime, because their personality cult politician heroes want to “get guns off the street.”  They watch doctored videos by anti-gun non-profits and police groups that misrepresent semi-automatic firearms as machine guns.  They buy into stereotypes promoted by the mainstream media, which portray gun owners as single-toothed, beer swilling rednecks who wear fatigues or plaid shirts and crossed bandoleers.  The movie Open Season comes to mind.  “Everyone” knows gun-loving “wing nuts” are just waiting to “snap” and take out a church or a shopping mall or two.

It’s hard to find a Liberal who will rationally discuss guns and society.  As far as I can tell, firearms are generally a right-brained, intuitive, emotional issue for them.  If you locate a Liberal who will listen, you may be able to have an impact on his or her thought processes.

Sometimes, you can educate Liberals out of their hoplophobia, but it’s not likely.  Their fears don’t seem to be based on any kind of objective review of the scientific literature or even a common sense evaluation of how long it would take the police to reach the scene of a crime.

If you can cultivate a lot of patience, asking liberals questions about their beliefs may give you information about fallicies in their arguments.  You might try finding things that you can agree on, then look at different ways to achieve mutual goals without giving up your right of self-defense.  Don’t expect to change opinions in one setting.  Everyone’s self-image, according to the folks who study the mind, is tied to his or her belief system and view of the world.  When you attack that belief system, you are assaulting the person’s perception of him or herself as a rational human being.  If you push, the Liberal pushes back!

One technique that seems to work pretty well for me on the few occasions that I have had a chance to use it, is to tap into a Liberal’s feelings about a person in politics that the Liberal really hates, fears, loathes, despises, distains, and or strongly dislikes.  You don’t need to know the identity of the hated person for this method to have an effect.

If you are acquainted with anyone who sort of resembles the negative gun owner stereotype mentioned above, don’t bother telling (usually) him about this tactic.  He won’t appreciate it and will suspect you of fooling around with psychological “horse manure.”

The method, itself, involves some preparation and a question.  First, you set the stage.  You might say something like the following short preamble. 

 ”I’m guessing there are people on the Right that you really don’t like.  Think about the person in politics that you most hate and fear.  Really focus on that person.  Think about the things that (usually) he has done, his character, his attitude toward women and minorities, immigration, pollution, global warming, and social injustice.”  (You might find out if the hate object is a man or a woman, so you can use the right pronoun.)

Liberals can be pretty emotional about people on the other side of the argument.  Whether it’s Nixon, Reagan, either President Bush, Limbaugh, Coulter, Rove, or Cheney, there is usually someone they don’t like, someone they really don’t like.  Give them a minute.  Watch them for signs of anger.  If they start to speak about their rage, ask them to ”Just think about this person and what he has done to make you dislike him.”

Watch for clenched fists, increased overall muscle tension, breathing differences, and skin tone changes.  If the person really thinks hard, he/she may start to tremble.  Once you are sure he/she is well into an angry feeling, say, “I know you favor regulation, possibly even bans on some or all guns.  But, are you sure you want to give this person, or someone like (him) the exclusive ability to use armed force in the United States?  That’s what you risk, if you take weapons away from the people.”

Watch the Liberal’s reaction.  You may see a confused mixing of emotional states.  The person may or may not want to continue the conversation.  I’m guessing that the Liberal you questioned will have some serious private thinking to do about gun control.  Don’t push.  You have just confronted this individual  with a new way of thinking about weapons and individual liberty.

Again.  Use judgement.  Be safe.  Be respectful.  We don’t change people’s minds by beating them up.  If they can be changed, we change their minds by helping them expand their view of the world.  Most Liberals do not converse knowingly about guns with people who own guns.

This technique may also work with less-committed folks to the left of most gun owners.  It’s most powerful application is probably with someone who embraces Left-wing, humanistic, secular, Socialism with a religious fervor.  Oxymoron Alert!  Non-sequitur Alert!  Danger!  Danger!  Sorry.  I couldn’t help myself.   

If you want to learn more about mental maneuvers and the nature of thinking, I would recommend a basic book on Neuro-Linguistic Programming (TM), by Bandler and Grinder, called Frogs into Princes, Real People Press, Moab, Utah, 1979.  You can find on the Net or in used book stores.

Yes.  It is a psychology book that deals with what I believe to be the essential processes of thought and belief.  NLP is a practical set of tools that can help gun owners understand and influence others.  It is not the only way to talk about the mind and behavior, but it is one important methodology that allows a serious reader to understand much about ourselves and those who would disarm us for their own reasons.

Def Mech

Steve opines that Obama and McCain are part of the Left-wing “boiling the frog” analogy, and that our freedoms are being incrementally taken away in such small segments that we won’t notice until the water reaches a boil and we are literally and Liberally cooked.  He believes that if McCain wins, we will face an even more radical candidate in 2012.  If Obama is elected, Steve is hoping for a backlash against Left-wing socialist excesses a la 1980 and 1994.

Steve is willing to ride out the “hard times” that an Obama Presidency would surely bring.  While I agree that we face a serious incrementalist threat, and that John McCain is a less than perfect candidate, I disagree with Steve’s position on trying Ali’s boxing ring “rope-a-dope,” taking the Obama “punch,” and trying to fight our way back in the next round.  There may not be a next round.  Setting aside what I believe to be Obama’s disastrous plans for the War on Terror and international diplomacy, there are other reasons to vote for McCain.

I believe the Hard-Left Socialists that control the Democrat Party operate like the AIDS Virus.  AIDS attacks the “Killer T Cells” that protect the human body from outside infection.  Once the T Cell defenders have been neutralized, the way is open for all types of invaders to ravage and destroy the body itself.

The U.S. stands in the way of the “Progressive” Globalist Vision of One World without national boundaries or evil “nationalism,” itself.  Liberals are crusaders for a world without weapons (except in the hands of the U.N. “Peace Force.”)  The Hard Left wants a world where the ignorant masses are guided to ultimate enlightenment by the Liberal Intellectual Elite.

When the Democrats take over a city, a state (or potentially a country), they make it difficult, if not impossible for Republicans to ever recapture the area.  The Dems gerrymander congressional districts to favor their candidates, e.g., the Seventh Congressional District in Colorado was gerrymandered by a liberal judge after the State Legislature failed to agree on boundaries.  Republican Bob Beauprez squeaked out a victory in 2002 by 121 votes.  A Republican legislative counter-gerrymander was thrown out in court and a “competitive” district was created.  See the “unbiased” New York Times article extolling the virtues of this drama from the Democrat point of view. 

Democrats promote public and private sector unions that give most of their money to Democrat candidates.  (Liberals are now trying to eliminate secret ballots in employee elections to increase the ability of unions to intimidate would-be voters.)

In Colorado about3/4 of state employees are now unionized, thanks to Democrat Governor Ritter and the fact that only about 1/3 of the employees eligible to vote actually voted in the election.  As public sector unions become more entrenched and powerful, their members will evolve into election block workers for the Democrat Party.  (Look at any number of eastern or mid-western states where it would take a certified miracle for a Republican to win an election in the face of the solid Democrat machine.)

Eventually, the political machines control the civil service systems and the self-serving loop, or rather noose, is complete.  I knew a man who wanted a job in New York State with a city government.  Did he go down to City Hall and apply with Personnel?  No.  He went to his local Democrat Ward Heeler and said that he wanted a job.  His family checked out OK with the party, and he was hired.  The civil authority was reduced to rubber stamping his political patronage appointment.

When the Democrats get into power, they traditionally increase the welfare roles in the name of “compassion.”  This activity builds a constituency of voters dependent on the public dole.  These folks are reliable Democrats; and, since some of them don’t have to work outside the home, they have a lot of time to walk precincts, stuff envelopes, and attend rallies for, you guessed it, Democrat candidates.

A few years ago, I lived in a rural county in eastern Colorado where going on welfare was like joining the Mafia.  About the only way to get out of the system was to die.  The county social services department needed big caseloads to justify their large staff.  Naturally, both staff and clients made for a powerful Democrat voting bloc.

Democrats already control most public education through the teachers’ unions.  They run most university social science and liberal arts departments through restrictive hiring practices and peer pressure to conform to “progressive” ideas.  At Colorado University, recently, there was talk of hiring a conservative professor in the name of “diversity.”  Of over 800 faculty members in arts/sciences, business, education, journalism and law, there are apparently 23 registered Republicans in the C.U. system.

The Dems are poised to reinstate the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to “level the playing field” in talk radio, the only part of the traditional media that they don’t control.  If the Left succeeds in silencing conservative voices here, I would look for them to try to regulate, tax, or otherwise suppress free speech on the Net.   Constitutional guarantees be damned!  (China seems to be able to control things pretty well, using I understand, software from U.S. companies.)

In what I believe to be outright defiance of the Heller Decision striking down their gun ban, the Liberal masters of Washington D.C. continue to ban ”machine guns” (any semi-auto firearm with a magazine well), and continue to require that guns be kept locked or disassembled, except in the event of imminent danger.  See my post in favor of crystal balls as warning devices, “New D.C. gun regulations seem to flout Supreme Court decision,” 07-17-08, under the category of “Courts” on this site. 

I believe an Obama Presidency with a potential 60-vote supermajority in the U.S. Senate would be devastating to our newly reaffirmed right to keep and bear arms.  Short of continued outright bans at the state and local level, I think we would have restrictive licensing; roll-back of concealed carry; ammunition restrictions, including “microstamping” requirements; mandatory “smart gun” legislation with eventual bans on “dumb” guns; arbitrary range closures; environment-related harassment of hunters and shooters regarding lead pollution; and government-sponsored campaigns against gun owners modeled after the work of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.  The Dems would like to implement more restrictions on the transportation of weapons and increased regulation/destruction of gun shows.  There is no end to their creativity on restricting the use and enjoyment of firearms.  (Liberals particularly dislike gun shows, because the shows provide a forum for gun owners to assemble and discuss Second Amendment issues.)

An Obama Administration supported by a Left-wing Congress would encourage and probably fund the Centers for Disease Control and the National Academy of Sciences in their continued quest for a gun law, any gun law, that can be proven to prevent crime or reduce violence.  We don’t need to waste additional taxpayer dollars in what has proven to be a fruitless crusade to destroy our constitutionally recognized right to self-defense.  No doubt these folks will continue their research until they get the results they want.  Those results will then be given as “proof” that we need more gun “control.” 

An Obama Administration would be likely to increase the power of the U.N. over U.S. internal affairs and international diplomacy.  Under Obama, the courts would be more prone to use international law, rather than U.S. precedents to decide cases.  Liberal Justice Ginsberg has already advocated use of  international standards in U.S. courts.

Obama would, in my opinion, push farther and faster than McCain to naturalize tens millions of illegal aliens and turn them into newly minted Democrat voters in time for 2012.  Dems want to increase the voting rights of convicted felons, most of whom seem to vote Democrat.  In 2,000, Democrats moved to reduce the voting rights of active duty military personnel, who tend to vote Republican.

While the GOP seeks to govern, the Democrats want to rule.  I believe almost everything they do politically is designed to increase their hold on the political and social processes of this country.  Democrat control of the Legislative and Executive Branches at all levels of government in 2008 could mean decades of Hard Left autocracy, assuming the country lasts for decades beyond a Democrat victory.

If we allow Obama to be elected in 2008, a political “backlash” may not be possible in 2012, because the Democrat “AIDS Virus” will have destroyed most of the checks and balances put into place to prevent autocratic, one-party rule in America.  With massive tax-based income redistribution to a welfare state constituency, with decisive political advantages bestowed upon unions, the silencing of talk radio, the introduction of tens of millions of illegal aliens into the ranks of Democrat voters, and near total control of the mainstream media and educational systems, it would be very difficult for a revitalized Conservative Movement to gain political traction. 

“If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.”  New social programs, “universal” health care, “soak the rich” tax schemes; what’s not to like about the “Big Rock Candy Mountain” in the new People’s Republic of North America from the standpoint of the welfare-dependent proletariat?

The Democrats are masters at using tax money to forge the change (chains?) leading to Socialist hegemony.  Welfare is a classic example, as is the recent case of tax-free City and County of Denver gasoline used to fuel vehicles associated with the Democrat Convention.  After they were exposed on the gas scam, the Dems agreed to ante up.  They always say they are sorry, after they get caught with their hands in our pockets.

In conclusion, I believe that a Sweeping Democrat victory in 08 and four years of Barak Hussein Obama would be so devastating to the republican institutions of this country and to the GOP that it would be next to impossible to politically recover from the “hard times.”  I don’t think there would be a “next round.”  I also wonder who the Dems could run in 2012 that could be more radical than BHO?  Mao, Che, and Stalin are too dead to be on the short list.  Vote McCain.

Def Mech

Assuming that Barack H. Obama was not talking about a new American Gestapo/KGB, it certainly sounds to me like he plans on effectively forcing American youth to participate in government-sponsored public service organizations aimed at implementing government policies. He mentioned expanding AmeriCorps to 250,000 young people, who will provide “health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world…” (He doesn’t say how exactly these young folks are going to do those things, but when you’re a “rock star,” you don’t have to get bogged down in details. I’m sure the intellectual elite of the Left will be happy to provide marching orders.)

Obama says we are going to have an “Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects…” I don’t know about you, but I’m a little concerned about these “youth programs.” Nazi Germany had the Hitler Youth. The USSR had the Young Pioneers. China had the Red Guards. Those programs didn’t work out well. They all evolved into “turn in your parents and neighbors” exercises, and worse.

I really don’t think most of us would appreciate youthful “block wardens” coming around to make sure our aluminum cans and plastic bottles are in the right recycling bins. As for health care, I’m not sure home visits from government-trained “educators” would be helpful. I can imagine them saying things like, “Oh, surely you’re not listening to conservaitve talk radio, are you? That isn’t your gas-guzzling SUV in the driveway?” Another potential question: “You don’t have a gun in the house, do you? You know those things are soooo dangerous. We’d better have the police come and pick it up.”

Think I’m a little paranoid? Left-wing medical groups and “mothers’ associations” are already encouraging doctors and parents to be concerned about the gun ownership habits of American citizens. Physicians for Social Responsibility proudly helped “preserve the D.C. gun ban” in 2005. Check out the Million Moms’ website for confirmation of programs encouraging neighbors checking on neighbors.

Imagine a public/private non-profit partnership between The Joyce Foundation and an Obama Administration coordinating “education” and outreach on gun control. That could cause you to lose some sleep, Comrade!

Think! If you don’t vote, or cast an irrelevant vote, you could put BHO in the driver’s seat. “No! That’s not my car in the driveway. Honest! I don’t know how the plastic bottle got in with the aluminum cans!”

Def Mech

The article is more remarkable for what it leaves out, than for what it presents.  For example, the Japanese, who have banned guns, have a higher suicide rate in Japan than Americans, including Americans of Japanese descent.  Read David Kopel’s The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy for information on Japanese gun laws and suicide. (Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1992, pages 43,44.)

Two common methods of group suicides in Japan are hoses from auto tail pipes into closed passenger compartments and charcoal braziers in tightly sealed apartments.  Reports have surfaced of young Japanese strangers getting acquainted on the Internet for the purpose of group suicide.  Clearly there are cultural factors at play here independent of the availability of “demonic” guns.

Is suicide even a concern of the Liberal state?  What about the “right” to commit suicide.  Liberal Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg in “sophisticated” Europe have policies allowing assisted suicide.  Oregon, a Liberal state, has experimented with assisted death.  The Hemlock Society publishes detailed instructions on how to kill yourself using pills and plastic bags.  (Thank God, they don’t advocate guns.  Whoops!  Not politically correct to invoke the Deity.  Might offend somebody.)

What about Colorado ex-Governor Dick Lamm’s “duty to die” comment?  Socialized Medicine has resulted in rationed care and long waiting lists in Great Britain and Canada.  Is suicide a viable option when the waiting time for treatment for a serious, painful disease exceeds the prognosis, i.e., the wait time is a year, the patient will almost certainly die in six months?  What are the choices?  Kill yourself?  Die on the waiting list?  Try to get to the U.S., before socialized medicine takes over here? 

According to the article, the “experts” discount substitution of other suicide methods in the absence of guns.  Why?  Hanging is so easy that special curtain cords are now mandated by child safety laws to prevent accidental death.  How many fatal auto “accidents” are actually suicides.  Not too long ago, a man jumped from an airplane without a parachute after asking his friends if they would rather die that way or jump from a  high place, such as a bridge or building.  I believe suicide prevention, to the degree that a Liberal society wants to prevent suicide, is a mental health issue, not a question of what means are available to carry out the intent.

According to a recent post by Eugene Volokh on the Volokh Conspiracy, most studies that purport to show that guns increase the risk of suicide do not control for criminal affiliation.  Spree killers, serial killers, depressed drug dealers, and other felons who kill themselves with guns rather than face capture and imprisonment, are almost certainly included in the suicide statistics.  (See my recent post “Stay safer.  Avoid criminal behavior and criminals,”  06-30-08, which can be found under the category of “Culture War” on this site.)

What about the overall comparative benefits of guns in society?  The article quotes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and attempts to set up Florida Researcher Gary Kleck as the “straw man” whose counter argument is “easily” demolished by the “experts.”  Not quite so fast!

The CDC, itself admits that after looking at 51 studies, it can not say that gun control has prevented a single crime.  (First Reports evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws)  Keep in mind that in most states the law looks askance at suicide and attempts to assist suicide.  Remember Jack Kevorkian (Dr. Death) and the hard time that he did for his efforts in this area.  The National Academy of the Sciences(NAS) reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications in its efforts to “propose new gun control strategies.   The NAS found that it was impossible to say, based on that massive research effort, and some of its own studies that gun control had prevented a single crime.  The conclusions of these august bastions of science?  We need more research.  John Lott.  David Kopel and Glenn Reynolds.

The Small Arms Survey(SAS), a U.N.-affiliated organization out of Geneva recently pointed out that there are nine guns in this country for every ten Americans.  What the SAS also pointed out, but what was not reported by much of the mainstream media, was that there seems to be no significant correlation between gun ownership and violence.  Many countries with numerous guns have low rates of violence, while many countries with draconian gun laws have high rates of meyham.  Mexico is a case in point.

Keep in mind that the above organizations have reputations as being against citizen ownership of firearms.  It is an indication of their honesty in these cases that they admit that the supposed benefits of gun control have little basis in scientific fact. 

A recent Kates and Mauser study, in fact, indicates that there is often an inverse relationship between the number of guns in a society and the rate of violence.  (Kates, Mauser, “Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?” America’s First Freedom, NRA, Palm Coast, FLA, August 07, pages 32-35.)  They do not claim to have found causation based on their research, but they have certainly documented correlation.

John Lott, on the other hand, makes a stronger claim based on his research that areas with less gun control have less crime.  More guns, less crime, is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the debate.  (Lott, John, …, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1998.)  Lott, by the way, looked at every county in the U.S., controlled for numerous variables, and made his data set available to anyone who wants to look at it.

Our article claimed that Gary Kleck, their “straw man,” found up to one million defensive uses of firearms per year.  (Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, N.Y., 1991)  Kleck’s later research indicates that figure may be as high as 2.0 to 2.5 million.  In over 98 percent of these cases, merely brandishing the weapon causes a felonious attack to cease, mooting the headline that you have to put your boot on the neck of your fallen assailant in order to successfully defend yourself against crime.  In many other cases, the defender merely wounds the attacker, which of course, does not count as a “kill” in the records of the folks who look at this issue as black or white.  (Aren’t Liberals supposed to be fans of relativism and nuance?  I guess not, if it doesn’t fit their agenda.)

Kleck is a bad researcher to pick for a “straw man.”  He started out with the hypothesis that gun ownership crontributes to crime.  He looked at the data and changed his mind.  He is a Democrat, a member of the ACLU, and takes no money from either side in this debate.  The “experts” downplay the effectiveness of phone surveys, yet anti-gun organizations use phone survey results to claim that U.S. gun ownership is rapidly declining.  (See my post “When surveyed, do you admit that you own a gun?” under the categories of “Culture War,” or “Politics” on this site.  Kleck makes many of his claims based on FBI statistics.  A bad “straw man,” indeed.

Finally the “experts” point again to a need for further study.  We can take this to mean that they want to keep doing ”research,” until they get the desired result.  The issue of bias in CDC ”research” was apparently one of the reasons that Congress ordered them to stop promoting gun control in 1996.  Our ”objective” news article, of course, bemoans the fact that the CDC is limited in its ability to use public money to help strip the American People of their right to self-defense against crime and tyranny.  If the Democrats sweep the field in November, we can expect CDC funding to increase in this area.  If you own a gun and/or love freedom, think before you vote.  Campaign and vote for the most pro-Second Amendment electable candidate available.  We can not afford to have a Liberal Democrat in the White House.

Def Mech