Susan Estrich Wants to Take Your Guns

July 1, 2008 – 8:19 am

I think. I couldn’t make much sense of her latest column.

Let’s see now. If those gun-control nuts out there manage to overcome their latest setback and get guns outlawed in the USA, how would they enforce it? Well, they could take their lead from the anti-drug crowd and launch a Gun War. But they probably won’t call it that because it sounds too much like what they want to prevent (and some blogger might compare it to the Drug War).

No matter what it’s called though the government will be faced with the same kind of problems it faces in the Drug War, the principal one being that they can’t win. People like Estrich can debate gun-control all they want but there is one fact they can’t argue away: This country will never be free of guns, like it is not free of drugs despite the decades-long war on drugs. Guns, like drugs, are too easy to make or acquire. Estrich probably doesn’t realize that anyone with a few tools and an instruction manual can make a gun and its ammunition. It’s not that difficult. Outlaw guns and these little shops will pop up all over the country — just like methamphetamine labs.

Think about all the controls that will have to be implemented to prevent illegal gun making. All this added to all the controls implemented to combat illegal drug making. More and more government intrusion into our lives.

You want to talk about gun accidents today, Susan? Okay, but let’s also talk about the potential accidents from the use of guns and ammunition built by amateurs. Life is risky. If we use safety as a principal criterion almost everything we have or do will need to be outlawed.

You want a war on guns? You’ll get a war with guns. Criminal elements, domestic and foreign, will run rampant in a national gun-free zone. You think the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois massacres were bad? You ain’t seen nothing yet!

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Gun Control | Comments (0) |

Obama Economics

June 26, 2008 – 9:11 am

Barack Hussein Obama’s solution to the high fuel cost problem is to raise the cost of fuel. He wants to impose a “windfall profits tax” on the oil companies, which will of course be passed on to fuel users. After noticing that the oil companies are still making a nice profit, Barack will probably push to raise his windfall profits tax and so on. Apparently the man hates profits. Never mind that his largest constituent base’s retirement funds depend heavily on corporate profits.

And there’s this other little fact that Barack ignores. The government profits a lot more than the oil companies from each gallon of fuel sold. Some estimates show the government profiting three times as much. Do you think Barack will levy a windfall profits tax on the government?

Since I was a teenager the percent increase in the cost of a Coca-Cola is as much or more than a gallon of fuel. And it has been reported that Coca-Cola’s profit rate last year was greater than the oil companies’ profit rates (where profit rate is roughly defined as the amount of profit divided by the amount of money invested in making that profit.) But we don’t hear any calls from Barack for a windfall profits tax on Coca-Cola.

Some people point out that the concern is about the “obscene” amount of the oil company profits, not the profit rate. Well, that’s like complaining to a bank that your neighbor is making more off his savings than you although both of you are getting the same interest rate, while ignoring the fact that your neighbor has ten times as much money in his account as you have in yours.

It is also argued that the focus is on the oil companies because their products are essential to our everyday lives and products like Coca-Cola are not. Well genius, that is why the oil companies’ gross revenues and profits are huge compared to companies like Coca-Cola. In times of shortages it is easier to do without Coke than fuel.

It is also worth noting that liberal Democrats will argue at the same time that oil is essential to our everyday lives and that we should implement extreme measures to limit its supply.

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Economics, Energy, Race for President | Comments (1) |

Congress Wants to Help You Buy a $730,000 Home

June 25, 2008 – 7:21 am

It costs a lot to get reelected to Congress. So the incumbents are willing to take your money and my money to help ease their pain. Not directly, mind you. Devious politicians never do anything directly. After all, it wouldn’t be devious if it was direct. The AP reports:

A mortgage aid plan is on track for passage in the Senate as soon as today. The massive foreclosure rescue bill cleared a key Senate test yesterday by an overwhelming margin, with Democrats and Republicans both eager to claim election-year credit for helping hard-pressed homeowners.

The mortgage aid plan would let the Federal Housing Administration back $300 billion in new, cheaper home loans for an estimated 400,000 distressed borrowers who otherwise would be considered too financially risky to qualify for government-insured, fixed-rate loans.

So all those people who have already demonstrated that they are poor risks for loans are going to get another loan backed by you and me. The Senate wants the loans to go as high as $625,000 and the House wants to up that to $730,000. Think about that. If someone with a bad credit rating wants to spend nearly three-quarters of a million dollars to buy a house, you and I are going to be forced to guarantee them a loan — if the House has its way. President Bush has said that he will veto the bill if it is passed, but that is because he doesn’t like some of its provisions.

Some of the lawmakers are pushing to make the bill revenue neutral. But who believes that will happen? If a lot of the “400,000 distressed borrowers” weren’t expected to default on their loans they wouldn’t need to have the tax-payers backing them.

What this bill is really about is a way for a bunch of well-connected builders to get rid of their over-built inventory of over-priced houses. What a stroke of political genius! Use tax-payer money to reward big reelection campaign donors and buy the votes of over-indulgent borrowers at the same time. I’m still looking for the day when such strategies backfire, but I’m afraid I’m looking in vain.

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Congress, Nanny State, Politics | Comments (0) |

John McCain Has Called My Hand

June 20, 2008 – 5:36 pm

About a month ago I e-mailed this message to info@gop.com:

I received an e-mail from you asking me to donate to John McCain’s campaign. My position is very simple. Get McCain to change his mind and commit to extracting oil from ANWR and the lower Gulf of Mexico and I will make a very generous donation to his campaign.

This week he stated that he favors letting the states decide if they want to allow oil exploration and extraction off their shores and that he would reconsider his opposition to drilling in ANWR. That’s not quite what I asked for but it’s close enough. I’m not under any pretense that my message alone caused McCain to change his mind but I feel that I should hold up my end of the bargain.

Here’s my next challenge for McCain. Make this announcement in a major speech and I will make a second contribution of double the amount of the first one: 

As President you will oppose the revival of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill and that you will veto it if it is passed by Congress. You have reconsidered the pros and cons of the bill and you now feel that the cons outweigh the pros. Chief among the cons is the devastating economic effect on the poor working class.

I have e-mailed the text of this post to the GOP.

On a related note, I heard Barack Obama criticizing McCain’s revised stance on oil drilling. He said that drilling offshore and in ANWR won’t lower fuel prices today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. Well Barack, what about in six years or ten years? Even at my age I think I might need some fuel ten years from now and would like to think I’ll be able to afford it on my fixed retirement income. I thought leadership was about where we’re going, not where we are.

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Race for President | Comments (6) |

Liberals Confused About Marriage

June 15, 2008 – 3:02 pm

Liberals can’t make up their minds whether marriage is a good thing or a bad thing. For decades now people have been downplaying the importance of marriage. It is said that the personal commitment that couples make to one another is what is important, not the legal document that the government issues when they marry. It has become fashionable for couples to live together and produce offspring without the legal ceremony of marriage.

But somehow all that has apparently changed. Homosexual couples insist that the right to legally marry is extremely important to them. If what I read is correct gays and lesbians tend to be socially, if not politically, liberal. Do they not have liberal heterosexual friends or acquaintances who can inform them of the advantages of just living together and the disadvantages of legal marriage? Or do they just want the right to marry so they can then thumb their noses at the same-sex couples who actually enter into a “conventional” marriage?

So, why would a liberal insist that it is not important for a man and woman to marry but that it is important for two men or two women to marry? Simply because they know that social conservatives want the exact opposite. Social conservatives want to maintain conventions and institutions that have worked reasonably well for thousands of years but social liberals want to tear them down. Liberals think they can design better ones; unfortunately their products always require the force of government to work.

It is ironic that getting government involved in the institution of marriage was a liberal act. It was felt that the act should be standardized, legalized and controlled. If it had been left as a cultural or religious act the homosexuals could long ago have set up their own process for marriage. It wouldn’t have been recognized by Baptists, but neither would the homosexuals have had to recognize Baptist marriage.

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Gay Marriage, Homosexuality | Comments (1) |

Primitive Amazon Tribe Suspected of Child Abuse

June 1, 2008 – 8:30 am

Not really. I made that up. But it is ironic that, in regard to two different strange tribes, “authorities” are saying in one case “leave these people alone” and in the other case “you will adhere to our standards.” In the case of primitive tribes like the one recently discovered in the Amazon they prescribe exceptional measures to ensure that the tribes can continue to live their lives as they see fit without outside interference. In the case of the relatively modern and civilized FLDS sect in Texas they prescribe exceptional measures to force the members to live like the authorities want them to live.

In which tribe do you think the children are most abused? How many of the Amazon tribe’s girls do you think make it to 18 before giving birth? How many do you think live to be 18?

Granted, I’m talking about two different sets of authorities, but this demonstrates how little confidence we should have in authorities. Authorities are consistent in only one way; they have laws, rules or procedures that allow them to do most anything they want to do. And they will want to do more and more unless we resist. Although they have eroded over the years we have checks and balances built into our method of government. But the greatest check against the oppressive power of government is the people.

Referring to the aerial photographing of the Amazon tribe, Fiona Watson of Survival International, said:

It is understood that when the plane first flew over the village, the people scattered into the forest. When it returned a few hours later they had painted themselves red and fired arrows into the sky.

They must have suffered some sort of trauma in the past and must know that contact is not a good thing.

Perhaps they’ve been talking to the FLDS sect in Texas.

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Bureaucracy, Child Abuse | Comments (0) |

Bungling Texas Judge Still on the Job

May 30, 2008 – 9:32 am

The Texas Supreme Court has affirmed the appellate court’s ruling that District Judge Barbara Walther was wrong to allow the FLDS children to be taken into state custody and placed in foster-care. It said, child welfare officials overstepped their authority, failed to show an immediate danger to the children, and removal of the children was not warranted. In other words Walther screwed up royally. Yet she is still in charge of resolving the case.

Why is a judge who made such an egregious mistake, one that has traumatized over a thousand people, still on the job? Because they are insulated from their mistakes. They aren’t penalized for incompetence. In some states it is theoretically possible for the citizens to vote a judge off the bench, but it rarely happens.

The child welfare officials in Texas are now talking about imposing restrictions on the sect when their children are returned. One possibility is requiring all the male adults to leave the ranch. Another is implementing safeguards to prevent the families from fleeing the state. All this even though there is still no clear evidence of illegal behavior. But they probably feel that Walther will back them up.

Why should I expect reason from crusaders? That is exactly what this is, a crusade. One set of bible-thumpers trying to impose its will on a different set of bible-thumpers. The set with the most power will eventually prevail. Reason is not likely to be a strong factor in determining the outcome.

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Nanny State, Religion | Comments (3) |

Barack Obama, Diplomat and Uniter

May 29, 2008 – 5:15 pm

In discussing Barack Obama’s stated intent to meet face-to-face with Iran’s President Ahmightneedajob without pre-conditions, Ann Coulter sarcastically asks:

Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?

If you don’t know, Brit Hume is a commentator on the Fox News Channel. Obama has refused to participate in any debate sponsored by Fox News.

Another of Obama’s campaign promises is that he will unite the country. Looks like he plans to start by refusing to sit down with conservatives for a little debate. But he will talk to a tyrant who openly admits that he wants to destroy Israel. Good start on that uniting thing Barack.

Iran is a third-world country. How do you think Ahmadinejad is going to view the head of the most powerful country in the world agreeing to meet with him one-on-one? He is clearly going to think that he has the upper hand. And he will be right. Ahmadinejad doesn’t want anything from the USA, unless it’s for us to buy more oil. Obama wants a lot from Ahmadinejad. Obama is not going to get anything because he has no bargaining chips, except the threat of bombing them into the dark ages. If he uses that, how different is his approach from John McCain’s?

It absolutely frightens me to think of Obama looking after the security of our nation.

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Race for President | Comments (0) |

House of Cards Comes Crashing Down

May 23, 2008 – 8:52 am

Well, it appears there are some level heads in Texas. But what took them so long? The AP reports:

An appellate court decision upended the custody case that sent more than 440 children from a polygamist sect’s ranch into foster care, but it’s not clear whether the children might soon return home.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds under Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther now has 10 days to release the youngsters from custody, but the state could appeal to the Texas Supreme Court and keep the children from immediately going back to their parents.

The decision Thursday in one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history was a humiliating defeat for the state Child Protective Services agency. It was hailed as vindication by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who claim they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

…

“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse … there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent,’” the court said.

“Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal,” the court said.

The court said the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children. Half the youngsters taken from the ranch were 5 or younger. Only a few dozen are teenage girls.

The court also said the state was wrong to consider the entire ranch as a single household and to seize all the children because some parents in the home might be abusers.

Were these justices reading from my blog? No, it’s just that, like me, they weren’t among those hyperventilating over the strange behavior of the sect’s members.

Now the Texas authorities should decide not to appeal the decision, get those children back to their parents and get on with investigations of individual instances of abuse — if they can find any. Here’s a guideline: motherhood at the age of 27 is not evidence of abuse.

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Child Abuse, Nanny State, Religion | Comments (0) |

Follow-up on "Guilt by Association"

May 22, 2008 – 9:55 am

Based on a comment on a previous post by a regular and respected reader I decided that I need to clarify my position on the whole Texas FLDS thing.

I believe that Mormonism as practiced by the FLDS is all about male domination, power and sex, just like I believe that Islam as practiced by its radical elements is all about male domination, power and sex. I believe that clear instances of abuse should be punished, but when we ditch the constitution in order to right what some in government feel is wrong we are stepping out on a very dangerous slippery slope. I fear the unbound power of government more than I fear fringe religious elements.

If there is one family caught in the wide net cast by the Texas officials that can show they were in no way involved in illegal practices and that there was no probable cause for search and seizure, I hope they sue to the full extent of the law. If there are a hundred such families I hope they all sue.

What Texas should have done when they received the telephone complaint from the young woman was to get a warrant from a judge and go out to the compound and conduct an investigation. If the sect leaders refused to cooperate the authorities should have taken the steps provided by law to force them to cooperate or go to jail. If this process produced clear evidence of abuse, those instances of abuse should have been prosecuted. All other parents and children should have been left to continue their lives as they see fit, as long as it is within the law.

Some have said that if one child was saved from abuse the actions of the Texas officials are justified. This is an absurd argument. Absolutes in a complex social system are unattainable. The FLDS children are being placed in foster-care. Texas cannot guarantee that none of them will be abused. We sacrifice children in accidents because we won’t give up our freedom to travel. We may have to sacrifice children to retain our constitutional rights.

The reader says to ask those who have escaped or been cast out of the FLDS. That is a very good suggestion. Why has their testimony not been used to investigate and prosecute the offenders in the sect? Perhaps it has in some cases. I seem to remember that this might have been a factor in the Warren Jeffs case. But why have we not heard of a lot more of these cases. Could it be that no clear evidence of abuse is found in many of the cases?  Or that the escapees or cast-offs won’t cooperate?

This affair smells to me like a bunch of self-righteous do-gooders getting a bit overwrought over some beliefs and practices that are not like theirs. Neither do I have any clear evidence of that, but I’m not going to go out with armored vehicles and force them into my custody.

I believe that any religion that seeks to force its will on people is despicable. I also believe that a government that unlawfully seeks to force its will on people is despicable and more dangerous (at this time).

Having said all this, I’m willing to admit that I’m wrong about this particular case if Texas proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that all the affected parents are guilty of placing their children in imminent danger of physical abuse.

By Carson Sasser | Posted in Child Abuse, Freedom, Nanny State, Religion | Comments (2) |