A Shooting Gallery Of Blame

invasion-of-the-body-snatchers

It would appear that Richard Escow writing for Slate has set a new land speed record for trotting out a gratuitous appeal to emotion in misplacing blame for another school shooting on his ideological foes. This comes as no surprise; this is a favorite tactic of the Progressive Left. The speed in which the ham fisted swings at the Tea Party and Second Amendment advocates are being delivered by the vociferate minions of the control class are speeding up at an exponential rate. Data be damned, all statistics aside, and throw the facts to the wind, there is an agenda afoot and it shant be stifled by antiquated notions like decorum or accuracy! A.k.a “Never let a crisis go to waste.” To assert that there is an agenda afoot is not hyperbole or conspiratorial conjecture. The gun control crowd has had their marching orders clearly laid out before them.

MoralAuthority

The Left has been salivating over the possibility of pinning acts of violence on the Tea Party since it’s inception and more so after their stunning electoral sweep in 2010. To put it bluntly, that ass handing stung hard and continues to sting to this day. Progressives have fallen back to their go-to tools of accusation, an imagined moral high ground, projection, and attempts to control the language of debate on the issue of gun control. These efforts are not without advocates with deep pockets to champion the cause.

Despite the talking points, deep pockets, and wishful thinking the anti-gun agenda is not making the desired impact or “progress” that it hopes to achieve. Is it possible that baseless and shrill accusations made by those with a transparent agenda to paint those with whom they disagree with a broad brush of tired tropes may not be a winning strategy after all? Or maybe, just maybe there’s a desire by the majority of Americans to let the bodies reach room temperature before slinging agenda driven mud.

The Police are NOT Required to Protect You

The constabulary does not have a legal requirement to protect the citizenry. Their mandate is simply to prosecute crime in progress or in post. There’s quite a bit of propaganda behind the phrase “To Protect and Serve”, but neither is actually part of the actual mission of local and state law enforcement, if the Left’s drivel is to be believed. This is why the gun control debate is so important. The Left wants to remove the very weapons law abiding citizens would use to protect themselves absent a constabulary that would provide that service for us. It is because this service cannot be provided for us in any meaningful way by any government agency that the citizen’s right to protect themselves was affirmed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The other, less clear reason for the very clear affirmation of the unalienable right to bear arms by the citizenry in the Constitution, was as a last defense against tyranny at any level in the Government. This is directly implied in the Amendment, and was clearly expounded upon by the Founders at the time of the Constitutional Convention. The very idea that the constabulary should protect the citizenry at all times should frighten every citizen to their very core. What cost does that protect extract from the citizen? What measures would be deemed acceptable by the Government in pursuit of this protective service’s execution? Over time, what liberties would the citizenry be compelled to surrender in return for the protection the Government would be mandated to provide, should this have been the case throughout history? Further still, how long until the cost once thought to be sufficient is then found lacking, as was found after the passage of the Patriot Act and NDAA and other forms of liberty constricting legislation foisted upon the citizenry by lawmakers under the guise of protection of National Security interests?

The citizens of the United States were positively affirmed in the Constitution to have the unalienable right to bear arms because they were also positively identified as their own last defense against tyrannical threats against their own lives, in singular or multiple forms, be it from assailants or governmental infringements upon one’s person and/or property. There is no reasonable way, under the restrictions the Constitution places on the government in its interaction with the individual, for the government at any level to provide the protection a citizen would need in the event their life was threatened. The Left would have you believe that any means is justifiable in pursuit of the seemingly noble ends of protecting you from harm, both from assailants and from yourself. It is because of their belief that any means are justified that the ends are not to be considered noble, and because of this, any time the Left suggests surrendering the smallest measure of your liberty in return for the smallest measure of protection that they should be seen as tyrants.

A Positive Few Weeks For The GOP

pfen33l

It has been an inglorious few months for the Republican brand.  Everything that could go wrong has, and the momentum politically has been all in the direction of the President and his allies.

The past couple weeks however marked the first time since the election that is not the case.

It began, predictably, with gun control.  I predicted long ago that the gun control fight would be a political road bump that the Democrats would not pleased by.  Last week saw the first inkling of that reality.  Mr. Obama released his presidential orders (of which, all that can be said is they were of no real consequence, either to defenders of the 2nd amendment or prohibitionists).  He then followed with his legislative plan for Congress.  This week Senator Feinstein released her plan to the public as well.

And that was largely responded to with a big ‘thud’.

What is glorious about the gun control debate for Republicans is that this is a fight that will be fought completely on the Democrat side.  For the most part, Republicans will vote against any assault weapons ban.  They may be willing to look at background checks, the so-called ‘gun show loophole’, and other fringe items.  But the prohibitionist wing of the Democrat Party demand a Brady-like assault ban.

To have any chance of getting this through, they need to be able to get it through the Senate.  Even if somehow they can get around filibuster rules, it is uncertain whether they can get 51 votes needed to pass the measure.  At least 10 Democrats (including 7 from red states running for re-election in 2014) have signaled distaste for the ban.  And of course, they don’t want to be holding the bag if the House GOP vote against it.

Boehner, in a moment of great wisdom, refused to take a stand on the issue…thus leaving the onus on Senate Democrats.  That is precarious position for them.  First, they refused to overturn the filibuster rules, which means on top of having to take unpopular votes, they need several Republicans to side with them.  And with momentum in the media and in polls significantly slowing for gun control, time is running out.

The GOP had little to do with the gun control debate, but had to a lot to do with the shift in the debate on the debt ceiling and the sequester.  This week, they made public a plan to give a short term extension to the debt ceiling, but promised progress only if the Senate held up their legally bound duties and passed a budget.

Again, this is a situation where the GOP has now shifted the responsibility, to some extent, to Democrats. The fight over the artificial debt ceiling was a defensive posture for the GOP, and not they were ever going to win.  However, we see the first rays of light that this posture may pay dividends.  From the Washington Post‘s editorial board, lauding the move:

Mr. Obama must distinguish between the Republicans’ unreasonable positions and their reasonable ones. Refusing to consider tax increases and holding the debt ceiling hostage were examples of the former; both have now been significantly modified, if not abandoned.

Insisting on serious reforms to entitlement programs, however, was the GOP’s reasonable demand, one the Republicans have not abandoned. This presents Mr. Obama with a choice: He can continue driving a hard bargain, in both political and policy terms. That would presumably entail refusing to deal on entitlements until the Republicans capitulate with regard to the sequester and a partial government shutdown on March 27.

Or the president could act on his past promises to tackle entitlements and engage in good faith with Republicans now, so that they have no further reason to exploit the sequester or threaten a shutdown. In that regard, a reference Friday by the White House to purported GOP plans for “drastic cuts in Medicare” was not an encouraging development. There is still plenty of time for Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid to show that they are willing to treat the GOP’s change in position as an opportunity to address the country’s long-term fiscal needs, rather than their party’s short-term political ones.

This is the first times in months that I can remember a major liberal publication taking any GOP argument’s side in the debate.  Surely, others like the New York Times will pull a ‘Pelosi’, and argue that any discussion of a normally passed budget and proper appropriations process is, in her words, ‘ludicrous’. But most common sense people have been arguing for this for at least four years.  The budgetary system is broken.  Yes, Republicans played a part in it.  But now, the Republicans are willing to fix their mistakes; are the Democrats?  I think it is doubtful, but this places the responsibility for failure back on the shoulders of Harry Reid and Barack Obama, squarely where they belong.
The last shift may be the most important, in the long term.  Sen. Marco Rubio finally released major portions of his long awaited immigration plan.  Rubio’s plan would allow illegal aliens to get a pathway to a green card and citizenship, but unlike Obama, would not allow them to ‘jump the line’, as it were, and demand they enter the normal naturalization process with all those that have followed the law and applied for entry in the United States in the proper way.
Rubio’s position was quickly supported by Paul Ryan and others, and likely allows the GOP a workable way forward in the immigration debate.  Rubio’s position is actually much more logical and a stronger position than that of Obama, which would give preference to illegals over those that followed the law; a policy which I believe the public would find abhorrent.
Whether the far right would accept this, or would still call it ‘amnesty’ is up for debate, and also there still needs to be a discussion about how to shore up border security.  However, for the first time since President Bush suggested immigration reform in 2005, we are in a position of discussing policies, instead of simply playing a defensive posture going forward.
The path for the Republican Party is quite clear in these three examples.  We must first accept the reality that we do not, in any real way, control Washington. Second, although the above is the case, we must still provide policy solutions to the problems at hand, and more specifically, show why Democrats positions are either untenable or simply ludicrous.
There are of course many potholes on the way for the GOP.  And a comeback, politically speaking, is a long way off.  But the seeds of how to get the Republican party moving in the right direction is here…if we look hard enough and accept it.
This was cross posted at Neoavatara

Police In Every School? Not As Insane As You Might Think…

clinton-police-e1356367961759

A politician, with the support of the National Rifle Association, fairly recently suggested that we spend hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants to place more police officers in schools and help even the youngest kids cope with their problems.

And liberals did not have a conniption fit.

What?

Its true.  That was in 2000, by then President Bill Clinton, who on the one year anniversary of Columbine suggested that the country consider a national program to place more armed guards in schools to protect our children.  Clinton unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers. The money was to be used provide 452 officers in schools in more than 220 communities.  During its duration, the program placed almost 3,000 armed officers in a thousand schools nationwide.

The nerve of that gun-loving extremist.

The public, as usual, is far ahead of the media and liberal politicians on this issue.  Several polls show the public is solidly behind this idea as well.   In a Pew poll, 64% of Americans support having armed guards in schools.  However, 57% do oppose arming teachers and other staff.  A recent Rasmussen poll showed the following results:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of American adults would feel safer if their child’s school had an armed security guard. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 26% would feel safer if their child attended a school where no adults were allowed to have guns. Another 20% are undecided.

Among parents of school-aged children, support for armed guards is even higher. Sixty-two percent (62%) of such parents would feel safer with an armed security guard at the school, while 22% would feel safer if their child attended a gun-free school.

This issue is an issue where Democrats previously have had a lot of support for this idea.  Forget Bill Clinton, who now appears far to the right of the core of the Democrat Party.  Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were actually proponents of federal funding for more armed guards, especially after the Columbine incident.  Obama often talks about old ideas supported by both parties…well, this is a classic example. That is why after there was an immediate knee jerk reaction to NRA President Wayne LaPierre’s suggestion of more armed guards in schools, the Obama Administration is reconsidering the proposal.  The rumors are that Vice President Biden now supports a small scale program along the lines of Clinton’s earlier endeavor.

I personally oppose a federal program for this, however.  There is absolutely no reason for Federal funding to be involved, except to allow politicians to appear like they are doing something.  This should be a local issue, district by district, and frankly, school by school.  Even in a single district, I would prefer parents have a choice to send their kids to schools without armed guards, if they prefer, if it is possible within reason.  Furthermore, a third of all states (18, to be precise) allow teachers and others to carry guns with the appropriate permits, and all 50 states and the District of Columbia have measures supporting armed guards in schools if necessary.

One complaint I have heard is that it is not fiscally feasible.  I am not so sure.  Approximately 1/3 of all schools have armed guards already.  The nation has slightly less than 100,000 schools.  If you estimate the cost of placing guards in each school at $100,000 per school, the cost per year would be $10 billion.  That is probably a high end estimate as well, considering that many districts already place police at schools, and could shift already paid for policemen to school duty.  Furthermore, think of paying this on a local level.  If the average school has 500 students, the cost to pay for security for each student is $200.  In the scheme of all of our safety initiatives, this would be by far one of the most cost effective measures we could think of.

This is one of many, many issues where it is clear how far left the Democrat Party has moved.  When their idol, Bill Clinton, fought for this cause during his presidency, and where a majority of Americans still support such common sense solutions, and yet liberals decry it as outlandish, and the media remains as clueless as ever.  But their views does not change the fact that of all the real world solutions provided for the safety of our children in school, this is the only one that may have prevented the recent tragedy in Connecticut.

Dr. Robert Bernat, in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, stated the problem most eloquently, despite being a supporter of more liberal gun control:

What happened at Sandy Hook was not the failure to plan; it was the failure of the plan. The teachers and administrative staff executed their school district’s plan heroically in trying to save lives, some at the loss of their own. Police departments changed their policies after Columbine and now rush to the source of an incident inside a school building at great risk to themselves. But a major flaw in such plans persists to this day—namely that it takes just a few unguarded minutes for a catastrophe to unfold.

Some criticize putting our children in an ‘environment of violence’.  I say to them they are living in an alternate reality.  In a world where 1st graders are being killed and our children see the evidence on the news; in an era when they play video games and watch movies with far more violence than anything they will witness in their school; what lies are we telling ourselves as parents to make us sleep easier at night?

No solution is perfect.  But from all the imperfect solutions so far suggested, by far the one that has the best chance of actually saving lives is this one.  Why there is such opposition from some quarters based on this reliable fact is beyond me.

 

This was cross posted at Neoavatara