Obama's Little Red Phrase

John Ransom
|
Posted: Jul 29, 2012 12:01 AM

Steve of CA wrote: Personally I do not own a gun and would not feel safer if I had one, but I do not have a problem with law abiding people buying guns. That being the case, I have to ask of Mr. Ransom and others here, what controls, if any, do you favor over the purchase and use of weapons, including semi-automatic weapons such as the one used by the killer in Aurora? Or do you think we have too much gun control with the laws we have now? - The American Solution: Reach for the Guns

Dear Steve,

The 2nd Amendment allows no restrictions on a citizen’s right to arm themselves, although various Supreme Court decisions- which I disagree with- have allowed the government to restrict the right to bear arms through permitting and sale restrictions.



Proponents of gun-control argue that the phrase “well regulated militia” means that the founders only intended that the right to bear arms would apply to a militia. But the history of the term and the history of the right to bear arms would argue against that conclusion. Instead, it is clear that a plain reading of the 2nd Amendment considers a well regulated militia as an outgrowth of the individual’s right to arm themselves:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In other words, in order to have a well regulated militia, sufficient to ensure the security of a free state, you must first allow no infringement on the right of people to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment is not the right to a militia, nor the right a free state; it is instead a blanket denial of the government’s ability to infringe on the right of the individual to arm themselves to protect their freedoms.      

Ericynot wrote: Here's an idea I recently learned. Keep your car keys near your bed and press the Panic Button if someone tries to break in. My old Chrsyler can make enough noise to wake the whole neighborhood. Any intruder not run off by that racket is so crazy you're probably not going to beat them with or without a gun. - The American Solution: Reach for the Guns

Dear Comrade Eric,

Yes, and maybe if you throw your keys at the intruder hard enough you will blind him accidentally. Then he can sue you under laws passed by permissive liberals and get a fat settlement that includes an RV and a boat. All he’ll need then is the Democrat nomination to Congress from, say, California, to be the perfect liberal success story.   

I take it then you will allow just anyone to go ahead and buy a car?  Yet automobiles account for 3 times as many deaths every year as guns do?

Why in the world would yet let people have access to such a dangerous device as an automobile when they cause more deaths than guns do? And to think it takes less time to purchase a car than it does to buy a gun.

Actually, you’ll probably want to initiate background checks on car buyers now.

Liberals always come up with the wrong solution, because it always includes the government.

Common sense and biology will tell you that a few shots, center mass, will do a better job stopping an intruder than the panic button on a Chrysler.

I’ll make you a deal. You keep your button and I’ll keep my gun.

But don’t blame me when your alarm goes off and I don’t respond.      

Hjismsm wrote: Your major misconception concerning articles like this, John, is that a large portion of people don't care about the consumer confidence numbers. They just know that they are getting their goodies from the government, they know they will keep getting them so they will still vote for ol numnuts. - And the Survey Says: Obama’s a Loser

Dear HJ,

You’re right: People don’t care about consumer confidence numbers.

But that fact doesn’t save you from being stupid, unfortunately.  

Consumer confidence numbers reflect, um, the…confidence of consumers. As such, they don’t cause discontent, like unemployment numbers do, but rather they reflect discontent.

And despite what you and others think, the confidence number is a good indicator of who will win the White House.

I wrote about this phenomenon in June of 2011:

The Wall Street Journal reports that one economist says that the confidence numbers are a good predictor of the election results for incumbent presidents. By that measure Obama’s re-election is far from assured.

"There is plenty of time for the national mood to change, but the decline in income expectations is particularly telling," Steve Blitz, senior economist at ITG Investment Research told his clients according to the WSJ. "When the income up percentage is on the downswing, incumbents do not get re-elected."

The Journal cites loss of consumer confidence and high unemployment for the defeats of incumbent presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.

“A soft economy kept the U.S. consumer sentiment index low prior to former president Jimmy Carter's failed re-election bid in the early 1980s and George H.W. Bush's failed bid in the early 1990s [Eighteen months before each election it stood below 100: at 76.4 in May 1991 and at 96.0 in May 1979.],” says the Journal.

“Just like Carter and Bush senior, Obama is likely to face an unemployment rate that is higher than 7.5% in the months before the next elections. The jobless rate now stands at 9%, and the Federal Reserve predicts it will be between 7.6% and 7.9% at the end of 2012.”   

Tim87 wrote: The fact of the matter is that most Americans (even those who vote) are of such inferior intellect or are so uninformed that they should not even be allowed to vote. Personally, I think only citizens who have actually paid income taxes at least once in the past five years should be permitted to even register. - And the Survey Says: Obama’s a Loser

Dear 87,

Really?

I think the American people are a lot smarter and have more character than you give them credit for.

I think people named Tim87 shouldn’t be allowed to vote.   

Harry Saxon wrote: "MITT THE TWIT" So declared British newspapers after Mitt Romney’s first foreign policy misadventure with our best friend, Great Britain! Romney riled London by questioning Olympic readiness! Then he forgot the name of the Labor Party leader. And of course Romney’s Anglo-Saxon gaffe! What’s next from socially and culturally inept Mitt Romney? Won’t Mitt be great on foreign policy with the Russians and Chinese! - And the Survey Says: Obama’s a Loser

Dear Comrade Harry,

All of that would be important if: 1) Mitt Romney was running for president of the United Kingdom rather than president of the United States- remember the Revolutionary War? Or 2) The American people cared about a snit by British tabloids.  

Britannia, especially the London portion of the Britannia, rules neither the waves nor the broadcast airwaves. Don’t you guys have only like two TV channels anyway?    

I will credit, however, that your case was almost persuasive based on your frequent use of the exclamation point.

We here in America adopted the rule some time ago that the exclamation point should be treated like royalty: used very seldom, if used at all.   

Amoncrief wrote: Ransom, you should learn that capitalism rests on the foundation of contract law, and that our US and state constitutions include contract clauses. Public pensions may be reformed, however, these reforms will honor the sanctity of contracts, or be struck down. States cannot declare bankruptcy under federal law. Why do you cite historical bond returns and stock returns separately as if there is a choice between the two? Public pension plans have diversified portfolios.­ - Public Pensions Fail Simple Math

Dear Comrade A,

Contracts are routinely nullified through bankruptcy and other proceedings. While it’s true that states can not declare bankruptcy now, the laws may change in the future.

But even so, must taxpayers bear the burden of promises that are unrealistic? What happens when rates of return promised by politicians bought off with union money fail to be realistic and achievable? Must taxpayers bear the burden by increasing taxes on the general population for the benefit of public employee unions?

I don’t think taxpayers should be on the hook for promises that fail to account for reality.

I cited the various rates of returns in stocks and bonds because private pensions must, under the law, use realistic rates of return based on these numbers to calculate their expected rates of return. Public pensions can just make a number up, which they do, because they expect taxpayers to make up the difference.

This is why the country is turning against public employee unions and unions in general.

It’s not the rich who are soaking the country.

It’s the unions, especially public unions. 

PhillupSpace2 wrote: John, does the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. who's charter says it is responsible for insuring "certain benefits under private defined benefit pension plans" enter into the public pension arena at all? I ask this because Congress seems inclined to make the taxpayer the ultimate piggy bank for everything from student loan reductions/ and forgiveness! - Public Pensions Fail Simple Math

Dear Phillup,

No. PBGC does not guarantee public pensions.

And this example beautifully illustrates everything wrong with our corrupt government today. 

Leave it to the government to require private pensions to have insurance against not being able to pay benefits, while requiring the taxpayers to make up for the government’s willful over-promises to voters and to public employees on retirement benefits.

Truthfully, if the pension problem is as bad as I think, the PBGC will end up being just another taxpayer liability, like Fannie Mae, as the private pension claims end swamping the actuarial tables the pension “insurance” scheme was based on.  

Robert260 wrote:  The future is not predictable with any accuracy John Ransom. Your RIGHT wing crystal ball is WRONG far more times than RIGHT. Or am I WRONG? One thing for sure, only one thing that is 100% accurate is the past. But sadly, right wing talkers even get the past WRONG. You know, like Reagan created 40 million freekin' jobs and that Reagan didn't double dip us into a severe recession after a mild recession under Carter was long over prior to Reagan taking office.- The Reddest of Presidents

Dear Comrade Robert,

I would be nice if you based any of your statements on actual facts.

The economy did pretty well under Reagan. I think the number cited most often is that 22 million jobs were created while he was president.

While it’s true that GDP at the end of 1982 was a little lower than when Reagan took office in 1981, by 1984 the economy was very healthy. GDP growth in 1983 was almost 8 percent, matching the GDP growth of the entire Carter presidency.

What killed Carter was inflation.

Inflation was over 10 percent per annum during the entire Carter presidency essentially wiping out GDP growth during the same period. Added together, the dollar had 48 percent less purchasing power by the time Carter ended his term.

While GDP numbers are adjusted for inflation, 48 percent inflation rate is pretty bad.

Oh, and Carter lost his re-election bid, while Reagan won in a landslide.

I’m RIGHT about that.              

Vince194 wrote: How do we get this ridiculous campaign-financing under control? Thanks McCaIn for not handling that one when you had the chance! No one person or company should be able to contribute more than $2500 to any candidate. - Obama Donor: Stimulus Was Like a Hooker in Prison

Dear Comrade Vince,

The problem with money in politics is that government is involved in running big business, small business and your business.

When Obama says “You didn’t build that,” it’s not so much a declaration as it is a manifesto. It's Obama's Little Red Phrase. Mao wrote a whole book to sum up his philosophy. Obama just needed a sound bite.

If you want to solve the money-in-politics issue, then get the government out of the board rooms. As soon as that happens, the board rooms will go back to minding their own business, instead of minding the government’s business. 

Native Son wrote: I think we should tax political donations at the 35% rate. Obama Donor: Stimulus Was Like a Hooker in Prison

Dear Comrade Native,

Yes; good for you. And I think we should tax liberals at a flat rate of 100 percent per tax scheme they propose.   

That’s all for this week.

V/r,

JR


"Like" me on Facebook and you'll get sneak peeks of columns and, as an added bonus, I will never raise your taxes. Send me email and I just might mention you on Sunday.