Socialism is a Euphemism for...

Lately, this blog has strayed from economics. The reason for the straying is difficult to explain because the reasoning behind it is uncommon knowledge. Economics is not simply about money, it is about people.

Economics is the study of free markets (or Marx's derogatory term "Capitalism"). Economics does not explain communism or socialism or centralized control because such would be the study of power hungry princes, in other words, politics. The study of free markets boils down to the description of rational behavior in free individuals.

Adam Smith, widely considered the father of economics, wrote two seminal works: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). You can read both from the links given.

Smith addresses virtue in The Theory of Moral Sentiments

VI.I.1
When we consider the character of any individual, we naturally view it under two different aspects; first, as it may affect his own happiness; and secondly, as it may affect that of other people.

This seems reasonable to those with Judeo-Christian values. This section outlines the virtue of "do unto others..."

The cornerstone of Smith's work is individuality, a uniqueness which you might describe as "personality" or  "soul." His concern is with virtue and morality, as he was a moral philosopher at the University of Glasgow. Today, we consider Adam Smith a founding economist but he did not considered himself an "economist." His work defined the field.*

Smith explained why moral behavior is superior to immoral behavior. His frame of reference was Christianity. So, he explained as scientifically as he could, Judeo-Christian virtue. Smith described the "soul" in action through humanity.

Paraphrased, free markets are based upon the belief that individuals have a unique perspective in life and can use that to provide value to others. Your unique person-hood, your soul, is the basis of your value to yourself and to others.

Gross Domestic Product

Many human cultures do not believe in the concept of a unique soul. For humanity in general, gross domestic product is a function of population. The more people, the more a society can produce. Like an ant colony, more ants under the control of a single queen is superior to fewer ants.  This is the logical basis of human collectivism, detachment from individuality.

Free societies value the individual. Production is a function of freedom. Freedom is sustained by virtue.
Virtue is acquired through faith and wisdom. Faith and wisdom require freedom. This is known as the golden triangle of freedom.

It is all very puritanical, but was revolutionary is the late 1700's. This explains why America's founding fathers embraced the concept.

Through the last three hundred years, production from the world's free people has far exceeded the production of the collectivists. Innovation is a product of freedom, the wisdom of virtues, and the faith to persevere. Without freedom, no amount of determination, ability or faith can be focused upon that which the individual is exactly suited to pursue.

In a collectivist society the human being is guided by a collective will, of which no individual has complete perspective, knowledge, ability or accountability. The collective is critically detached from individual humanity. The focus of effort degenerates into what empowers those "in power" instead of what is productive.

For example, a state run health system might invent "pill based abortions" to protect politicians' sexual improprieties. Systems with all power collected by elites might allocate immense resources to building monumental ant hills to honor themselves.

Instances where innovation for the collective also benefits the whole of humanity exist. Such instances are rare. Innovation without individual freedom is slowed, distorted and misallocated.

A powerful colony of human "ants" may steal innovation and riches by conquest. Collectivist empires may spread stolen innovation through their kingdom, but they also destroy innovation which they do not value. It would be astonishing to find an aggregate human benefit from all the inventions by all the worlds' collectivist governments. Yet, a single free nation led humanity from horses and plows to landing upon the moon.

The collective misallocation of resources is a key reason that periods of human enlightenment coincide with flashes of increased freedom and then end when virtue fails. The struggle to maintain a free society is actually an interpersonal struggle within the members of the society. It is a struggle between the virtues of freedom and comfort of entitlement.

Today we see America, the most productive nation on earth, slip as Americans turn toward the security of the collective. Fellow SLOBs site The Liberator Today:

The new normal is revealed in two graphs.   The first graph is the employment ratio comparing number employed to the total population. 

Next is the labor force participation rate, the number of persons who are employed in some way or seeking employment.

Socialism, a How To

From a colder, more scientific point of view, one might argue that the struggle is between the cumulative knowledge and the collective memory of humanity. Fundamentally, knowledge inspires imagination and creation. Memory is suited to incremental improvement and can resent opposing points of view.

Both knowledge and memory are imperfect so individuals rely upon a balance. Collectivist leaders must be portrayed as perfect to maintain power. The surer path is the critical detachment of collected memory. Inspirational leadership is rare and valuable, but unpredictable.

All leaders are tempted by the easier, "more pragmatic" collectivist path. They are tempted by the proven path of tyranny over the individual.

Dividing individuals from freedom is simple. Use either force or deception.

Where free people are more powerful than the government, interrupt the golden triangle with wild promises and temptations.

Free health care, security, guaranteed food, shelter and income are proven temptations to humanity. Replace virtue with meaningless "feel-good" goals to misdirect productive efforts and then claim freedom has failed. Where virtue does not exist, free people ruin themselves, so emphasize the short-comings of those with faith. Discourage faith while diminishing the accomplishments of the risk-takers.

As more people ruin themselves, present yourself as a savior. Offer entitlement in place of self-reliance. Substitute freedom with dependence. Finally, teach fear and isolation with pseudo-wisdom like, "a man must accept his fate or be destroyed by it." Put the people in their place, below, ignorant of their own value.

A broken people is an unproductive people. So promise a reward for their allegiance. Faith promises a heaven for good works. So, promise a heaven on earth, utopia. Promise a reward in the end. Promise retirement.

You may be surprised to hear, there is no Hebrew word for retirement, at least not in the familiar sense. The closest biblical usage is re-vocationed.

Instead of doing the work in the Temple, they were to assist and provide their wisdom for the next generation of Levites.

Older, wiser people might impart virtues to young hearts yearning for freedom. Use the powerful promise of Utopian retirement. Sequester the retired away from the young. Promote division between young and old. Promote the ideal retirement as freedom from obligation. Finally, redistribute the collected wealth of the retired to further dependence upon the state.

Collectivism is simple. Entitlement requires the comfort of dependence.  Dependence requires ignorance of opportunity. Ignorance requires the security of entitlement. Collectivism is subjugation.

(An example of people control in America: http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded )

Conclusion

Humanity's greatest attribute is adaptability  We thrive in tribal societies, agrarian societies, empires, dark ages, ice ages, and more. We adapt to the environment and society. This is our greatest strength, but also our greatest weakness.  

Slaves learn to survive enslaved. Masters learn to oppress. Free people must learn virtues and the faith to forge their own risky path.  These are conflicting human fates separated by courage.

Leaders require character and courage to resist the temptation of tyranny, "character matters."  Over time, our leaders have grown less courageous and less comfortable with citizens who are more wise and knowledgeable than the government. They have turned toward tyranny because they fear their rivals will exploit doubt in the minds of the people. 

A proven way to erase questioning and doubt is by promoting dependence, entitlement and ignorance.  Instead of building us up, they tear us down to enable their lust for power. This is the triangle of tyranny. This is the path of the socialist. This is why socialism is a euphemism for evil.

...and this is why economics is not about money.

notes:

* Due to input from avid readers on economics, we changed some of the wording of this section in respect for the great works of philosophers before and along side Adam Smith. Richard Cantillon's Essay on the Nature of Trade in General (1730?), predates Smith's work but was lost for hundreds of years.

Introducing Airburst Crowd Control Weapon: XM25 CTDE

3/16/2013: While the public has been debating the "military style assault weapon ban" of guns which are neither "assault weapons" nor "military style" automatic weapons, our military has been moving to deploy a new force multiplication weapon. This weapon replaces cumbersome mortars and adds crowd control capabilities.

Introducing the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement (CDTE) System.

The weapon was renamed in 2011 to  XM25 Individual Semiautomatic Air Burst System

The Army has also announced that congress has granted an additional 24.7 million in funding for 36 new prototype XM25s to supplement the five already in the field.

The term defilade refers to the use of terrain or obstacles to shield or conceal 

That's right, you can not hide from this gun. (Troops refer to it as "The Punisher.")

Ammunition types:

Army.mil reports the following:

Photo Credit: Photo courtesy U.S. Army
The XM25 CDTE fires 25 mm grenades that are set to explode in mid-air at or near the target. A laser rangefinder in the weapon is used to determine the distance to the target. The user can manually adjust the detonating distance by up to 10 feet (3.0 m) shorter or longer; the XM25 automatically transmits the detonating distance to the grenade in the firing chamber. The grenade tracks the distance it has traveled by the number of spiral rotations after it is fired, then detonates at the proper distance to produce an air burst effect.

Commentary:

AR15? You call that a gun? That's not a gun...THIS is a gun!

Here we have an indirect fire weapon with a mission scope including crowd control. An individual with this weapon replaces a mortar or small cannon. The XM25 is much more lethal than a machine gun. Woe are they who stand on the wrong end of this weapon, a weapon from which you cannot hide or shield yourself.

Per our Second Amendment rights, we want these for personal defense during the zombie apocalypse. We would even accept it with a small ten round magazine. It is time for the "Firepower Equality" movement!

For more on recent gun control issues Left Coast Rebel reviews Obama Statement vs the Constitution.

Update 3/19/2013: 

This post was held back because it has been unclear how the XM25 was going to be introduced to the public. When police are issued these for crowd control, it will be a major shock to the public. A narrative has been needed to present this weapon. The narrative now seems obvious... mortars are just too dangerous for our troops.

The Pentagon is now banning 60mm mortar rounds as the XM25 becomes available.

Brig. Gen. Jim Lukeman said investigators were trying to determine the cause of the malfunction. 

The Pentagon expanded a temporary ban to prohibit the military from firing any 60 mm mortar rounds until the results of the investigation. The Marine Corps said Tuesday a "blanket suspension" of 60 mm mortars and associated firing tubes is in effect. 

The Pentagon earlier had suspended use of all high-explosive and illumination mortar rounds that were in the same manufacturing lots as ones fired in Nevada.

Update 3/20/2013: The Plot thickens...

On Feb 2, there was a second XM25 malfunction in Afghanistan. The information was released 3/5/2013 as Army Removes XM25 from Service after Incident

A soldier was injured during a Feb. 2 live-fire training event during which the primer of a 25mm high-explosive air burst round ignited as a result of a double feed, according to Army spokesman Matthew Bourke.

Although the primer and propellant were initiated, safety mechanisms prevented the round’s warhead from detonating. The gun was inoperable after the explosion.

...

Alliant Techsystems, Inc (ATK) was awarded a $65.8 million contract in 2011 and another $18.8 million contract in 2012 by the Army’s PEO Soldier for engineering and manufacturing development of the XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System.

ATK’s spokesperson referred all questions to Army Public Affairs.

Prior to the accident, the XM25 was very popular among soldiers who dubbed it “the Punisher.” The head of PEO Soldier at the time, Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, called it “a revolutionary weapon … a game changer.”

...Via commenter on Military.com:

The enemy in Afghanistan is shooting at us from beyond the 40mm effective range. The 40mm doesn't have the same accuracy as the XM25 at 400m. 40mm can be defeated by overhead cover where as the 25mm coming through the bunker aperture or window provides significant overmatch. Sometimes the environment is different between LE[Law Enforcement] and military.

Update 8/17/2013:

The XM25 should be ready for full scale deployment in August 2014, per Defensetech.org At that time, the weapon system will be renamed:

 “We’d take the X off,” Lt. Col. Shawn Lucas, the Product Manager Individual Weapons, said in an Army press release. “It’s no longer experimental; it’d be the M25.”

Weapons officials maintain that developing the airburst weapon separately will ultimately field a game-changing weapon to infantry units.

“It’s a leap ahead, something that has never before been resident in the squad, or really our small tactical formations, squads, platoons or companies,” Lucas said. “That’s the ability to engage, and have effects on targets that are in defilade.(cover)”

Revealed: Who Started #ObamaIsNotSatan

A Libertarian by the twitter handle Liars_Never_Win is claiming that he started #ObamaIsNotSatan.

You guys got it all wrong about #Obama and #TheBible series. #fixeditforyou twitter.com/liars_never_wi…
— Liars Never Win (@liars_never_win) March 18, 2013

The Twitter user claimed credit on WhatTheTrend.com:

Started this to make fun of the news that the History Channels Bible Show had a Satan that looked like Obama

After reviewing Liars_Never_Win's tweets, his first #ObamaIsNotSatan tweet does coincide with the beginning of the trend.

#ObamaIsnotSatan because O' Diablo could not be that vain
— Liars Never Win (@liars_never_win) March 18, 2013

Government Policy Caused the 2008 Financial Crisis

A new book by Peter J. Wallison, "Bad History, Worse Policy," reviews the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. We have reviewed the facts of over-regulation and bad economic policy along side our allies at the San Diego Local Order of Bloggers, but this informational and enlightening book brings indisputable facts to fortify our arguments.

We have compiled a key section of Mr. Wallison's discussion into a C-SPAN clip (7m 42s) named "GOVERNMENT POLICY CAUSED THE 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS."

In the book, I argued that there was never any significant debate about the causes of the 2008 financial crisis.

Although there were two narratives about why it happened, only one of them was accepted and propagated by the media.

In effect the necessary competition and ideas never occurred.

As a result in the policy that was adopted, the Dodd-Frank act, is not soundly based on any political consensus. This will leave the legitimacy of the act in question for the foreseeable future.

The dodd-frank act is based on a narrative developed entirely by the left. It places responsibility for the financial crisis wholly on the private sector and particularly on the large Wall Street commercial and investment banks. To the extent the government had a role in the financial crisis, it was in failing to regulate adequately either those institutions or the mortgage originators who profited by selling mortgages to people who could not afford them.

The book traces the influence of this narrative into the specific revisions of the Dodd-Frank act.

I argue in the book that this narrative is false.

It was bad history and it produced worse policy.

...

Statements made by HUD throughout this period make clear that the agency's intention was to reduce the underwriting standards that were prevailing in the market in order to make mortgage credit available to a larger number of borrowers.

There is no ambiguity about this issue.

When Democrats took control of congress in January 2007, they began implementing policies that made a fragile economy collapse. While Bad History, Worse Policy is not a partisan review of the financial crisis it does explore the fact that government regulatory and housing policy created the housing bubble. When Democrats pursued global warming policy; gasoline, energy, food and other costs across the economy increased. The fragile housing market collapsed as marginal home buyers failed to pay their mortgage.

John Allison of the Cato Institute via C-SPAN Clip "DESTRUCTIVE REGULATION AND THE 2008 FINANCIAL CRISIS" (2m 15s):

We don't have a private monetary system in the United States, a government own monetary system. By definition, they are caused by government policy and the Federal Reserve has been very creative and in this case Allen Greenspan made bad mistakes because he wanted to go out a hero.

We were having a minor economic correction, he created negative economic rates. Then Ben Bernanke created a new yield curve, because we suddenly had a negative spread, which is a whopping reason this has lasted several years.

The context in which the mistakes were made were really Federal Reserve policies and they got deflected primarily in the housing market, specifically Fannie Mae and Freddie - Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Over investment in housing is particularly destructive for housing and that is why this was an unusually big bubble.

It was pushed further, but it was also very destructive because housing is consumption. People don't think of housing as consumption, but you consume a house.  So we incentivized  a massive over-consumption, which is analogous in agriculture to "eating our seed corn," which is one reason we have had such a hard time getting the production process going

W.C. Varones comments upon other impacts from the take over of the financial system in a post titled, "Think Cyprus can't happen here? It already did."

What occurred this weekend in Cyprus was a theft from responsible savers to benefit irresponsible banks.  Small depositors get screwed while bank bondholders (largely other banks and large institutions) get made whole.  Which, it turns out, is exactly what has happened in the U.S. the past five years.

*Note

C-Span has an automated transcription feed at the bottom of the video clips, it does not accurately reflect the statements in the video clips due to errors. If this feed was more accurate, search engines would have an easier time finding the information.

CDC & FBI Data: Gun Bans = Violent Crime

Introduction

Earlier this month, we debunked the Associated Press portrayal of a recent "gun deaths" study in our post Another Fake Gun Control Study.

The study had some good information and some misleading information. One useful piece of information is data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Yes, we know they are far-left "gun grabbers", but this data can be used to shed light on whether gun laws help or hurt society.

The aforementioned study also used CDC data from 2007-2010. We decided to compare this data with FBI data from the same period (*1). We then used FBI data as a basis to correct some short comings of the debunked study.

Once a base comparison was established, we expanded the study to include all violent crime statistics per the FBI.

Modifications from the study published in JAMA are as follows:

1. FBI data was substituted for missing data in Vermont, North Dakota, and New Hampshire.
2. The District of Columbia was added to the data set.
3. The Brady Legislative Strength Score (median) for the District of Columbia was estimated in comparison to other gun banning states. Due to the District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008 (*2), the score was reduced by one from our estimate. Our final estimate is 22. 
4. Suicides are not included as "Homicides."
5. We entered this project with only one concern, the truth. While all human beings are biased and prone to fallacy, we have no illusions to our short comings in the field of statistics. We also have no concern for professional pride, funding, or political agenda. While I am personally pro-choice in the realm of self defense, what follows is pure unadulterated data.

Comparing CDC and FBI data.

We can only speculate why these numbers are different. The FBI Murders data is higher than the CDC "gun homicide" rate per 100,000 people. Sixty-seven percent of murders in the USA involve guns per the UN:

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm

So, we expect the FBI gun and non-gun related murder numbers to be higher than gun "homicides" per the CDC. However, the simple averages for the 51 data points are 3.83/4.9  (CDC/FBI). This leads one to believe 78% of murders in the US involve firearms.

It appears that the CDC numbers, used to promote gun control by the AP, are significantly overstated, the FBI murder statistics are understated or a combination of both. We could do a more elaborate comparison, but with such a large discrepancy between the UN and US data the truth would still elude us.

For our purposes, it does not matter. Both numbers will be included on all graphs to give you a visual representation of the available data. (click to enlarge)

By including Washington, D.C. we bring additional clarity to the gun control debate. It appears that in both CDC and FBI data, a few sensible gun laws reduce murder/homicide but additional laws are counter-productive. Fellow San Diego Local Order of Bloggers author Beers with Demo explored a broader representation of this legal reality in a recent post entitled "It's as if we've run out of good ideas..."

Exit question: We may try to expand on this later, but can a Republic reach a point where they've got pretty much all their basis covered but since they maintain a full time legislative body that is sent to the nation's capitol to do something, they wind up being far more counter-productive than not? 

The data further suggests that there are two optimum points for gun legislation. First, when both police and private citizens are armed, murders are minimized. When both an empowered public right to self-defense and fear of law enforcement cooperate to reduce crime, criminals face a difficult task. The next minimum is upon entering a seeming police state with assured criminal justice, but where citizens offer much less resistance to criminals.

Finally, once gun laws become extreme, such as total bans of lawful gun ownership, criminals are assured  defenseless victims. Avoiding law enforcement ensures a successful criminal career. Due to harsh criminal penalties, witnesses may then be shot in the attempt to avoid criminal punishment.

More Gun Laws Leads to More Violent Crime

In the age of the internet, we don't like to read long posts, so let's keep this direct. Below we explore robbery, rape, and total FBI reported violent crime. The results are mixed, but may be the best data you have seen in your life regarding gun control. We are damn proud of the following, even where it does not fit my political philosophy.

Gun Laws vs Robbery and Rape

Increased gun laws clearly increase violent robbery but there is an apparent minimization for forcible rape. (click to enlarge)

We are using polynomial order 4 smoothing in these graphics to show more detail than a sloped line. If you look closely at the graphic, robbery is almost a straight line in the wrong direction as more gun laws are passed.

Forcible rape falls with a few "common sense" gun laws, then increases slightly as women lose the ability to defend themselves. Once legislative strength becomes very high, forcible rape appears to fall. Complete gun ownership bans then coincide with increased forcible rapes.

There may be additional rape related laws or other factors that coincide with gun laws in a near police state.  The data does suggest that a near police state reduces forcible rape to about 18 per 100,000 per year.

New York (*1) and Connecticut are the data points creating the apparently low number of forcible rapes. A quick review to see if warmer weather skewed the results with regard to forcible rape did not find an obvious indication.  We leave this question for you to ponder.

Gun Laws vs Total Violent Crime

Overall violent crime information from the FBI is heavily influenced by aggravated assaults. This seems to be a type of crime badly influenced by excessive gun laws. It makes sense, people are less likely to get into fights with armed citizens.

The following graph is damning of strong gun control legislation and serves as my conclusion to this study. (click to enlarge)

Conclusion

A few gun control laws are reasonable for public safety. As additional laws are put in place they become counter-productive. As a near police state is enacted, violent crime falls to an average level. When gun bans are enacted, violent crime increases rapidly.

If you are a professional statistician or wish to check my work contact me via twitter.

Sources

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

Notes

*1) In 2012, the FBI changed the definition of "Forcible Rape." Because of this definition expansion, which now includes rapes of males and other non-consensual sexual acts, it came to light New York, Chicago and other progressive strongholds under reported or could not be included in FBI statistics for prior years.

U.S. to Expand Its Definition of Rape in Statistics:

For example, the New York Police Department reported 1,369 rapes in 2010, but only 1,036 were entered in the federal figures. However, the police department in Chicago, which had nearly 1,400 reported sexual assaults in 2010, refused to discard cases that did not fit the narrower federal definition when reporting its crime statistics; as a result, the F.B.I.’s uniform crime report — which reported 84,767 forcible rapes that year — did not include any rapes from that city.

The new "Forcible Rape" definition is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

This change will likely show massive increases in rape reporting in FBI statistics starting with 2012.

*2) District of Columbia v. Heller. After the gun ban in Washington D.C. was repealed, murder rates fell 43.2% by 2011. During the same period, murder rates in Chicago oscillated then ended up 1.9%.

City	2007 Murder Rate	2010 Murder Rate	2011 Murder Rate
Chicago	15.6	15.2	15.9
Washington D.C.	30.8	21.9	17.5

Update 3/27/2013:

Added link to data.

WTF: Terrorism Definition Changed

Ladies and Gentleman, you are deputized as a modern day Paul Revere by continuing to read this information.

Today, we received a notice from the insurance company about terrorism coverage for my business. It begins with a double negative, "terrorism is not excluded from your current policy." The notice also includes some important information.

The definition of terrorism has officially changed:

You are hereby notified that under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, as amended in 2007, the definition of act of terrorism has changed. As defined in Section 102(1) of the Act: The term "act of terrorism" means any act that is certified by the Secretary of the Treasury- in concurrence with the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General of the United States- to be an act of terrorism;

What a terrifying bureaucratically malleable definition. The Act was introduced by the newly elected Democrat controlled Congress in June 2007 and signed by President George W. Bush in December. The letter continues...

to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to human life, property or infrastructure; to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside the United States in the case of certain air carriers or vessels or the premises of a United States mission;

(except Benghazi, Libya?)

and to have been committed by an individual or individuals as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States

(into buying health insurance and give up civil rights protected by the Second Amendment?)

or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States Government by coercion.

It seems this definition specifically denies the possibility that someone in government might use terrorist tactics against the citizens of the United States. There are no separation of powers here. The Executive Branch is completely immune from the label terrorist because it decides who is a terrorist.

Creating an economic climate of desolation, inciting racial hatred, promoting class warfare and pushing sexual wedge issues is not coercion when government elites are responsible. The resulting mass shootings are exclusively due to the insanity of the perpetrators. The "gun-violence" is reportedly caused by guns, not desperate, spiritually depraved people pushed beyond their mental stability via hopelessness. Alan Greenspan is no serial killer! (sarcasm)


America has been great because it has been united. The rhetoric of division has all but ended our days of being a United States. The power hungry group who benefits from our division is our politicians.  Most are seduced by the imperial power collected by our executive branch and are consumed by plots to seize the throne.

Remember our history,

The painter Benjamin West wrote that when he talked to King George III during the Revolutionary War, the monarch asked him what he thought George Washington would do if he prevailed.

Return to his farm, West predicted -- accurately, as it turned out.

"If he does that," King George remarked, "he will be the greatest man in the world."

America and individual human freedom need us to remember the example of George Washington. We require leaders who will end the imperial power of government. Leaders purging government workers who resist the imperial agenda as "insider threats" are inadequate.  The most powerful nation on earth calls for the leadership of the greatest person on earth. Character matters.

Rand Paul's filibuster is an example of what must be done. It can be a tide turner.  We must use such examples to remind our countrymen to compare our leaders to George Washington.

More Information:

Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance notes:

The revised Section 102(1)(A) states, "The term "act of terrorism" means any act that is certified by the Secretary, in concurrence with the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General of the United States—(i) to be an act of terrorism; (ii) to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to—(I) human life: (II) property; or (III) infrastructure; (iii) to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside the United States in the case of—(I) an air carrier or vessel described in paragraph (5)(B); or (II) the premises of a United States mission; and (iv) to have been committed by an individual or individuals, as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States Government by coercion." Section 102(1)(B) states, "No act shall be certified by the Secretary as an act of terrorism if—(i) the act is committed as part of the course of a war declared by the Congress, except that this clause shall not apply with respect to any coverage for workers' compensation; or (ii) property and casualty insurance losses resulting from the act, in the aggregate, do not exceed $5,000,000." Section 102(1)(C) and (D) specify that the determinations are final and not subject to judicial review and that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot delegate the determination to anyone.

Voting Info:

Rep.  Duncan  L.  Hunter: Yea
Rep.  Darrell  Issa: Nay
Rep.  Mike  Pence : Nay

Gun Control: California DOJ Confiscating Guns (updated)

1/25/2013 5:31 PM

The California Department of Justice is running a program to confiscate registered guns from homes that local law enforcement refused to implement. Mark LeForestier, California Supervising Deputy Attorney General & Legislative Affairs Director, testified to a Congressional Task force determined to implement gun controls about the Armed Prohibited Persons program.

It is intended to disarm people who are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms under both federal and California law. It is really a preventative law enforcement program that we believe is critical to enhance and move forward and should be used as a model nationally.

This program works into the framework we have been discussing in which "public health" is being used to subvert the civil rights of Americans as protected by the second amendment. Our report "ObamaCare Insurance Will Not Cover Gun Owners" outlines a theoretical strategy in which the second amendment may be subverted at the federal level. The California state constitution does not include the right to keep and bear arms which has led to draconian state gun laws.

Mr. LeForestier goes on to report:

California retains the records relating to purchases to handguns. That provides us with the data to create a firearms registry. I understand that is very controversial in some quarters, but it is essential in our efforts to disarm prohibited persons.

Coming online in January 2014, will be sales of long guns and we will be retaining those records as well.

He doesn't stop there and goes on to describe the APPs program as carried by Jim Brulte, "someone who is in line now to be the chairman of the California Republican party." The APPs program empowers the CA DOJ to create the firearms registry mentioned above by cross referencing criminal history records, domestic violence databases, as well as mental health records. A list of those who are both armed and prohibited is the result.

It allows us to capture people who have purchased weapons and then subsequently become prohibited as a result of a felony arrest or mental health issue. 

In 2005, the program began and local law enforcement failed to enforce the program. So, in 2007 the CA DOJ started their own force to confiscate weapons and by 2010 had 18 full time agents.

Today we have 33 agents dedicated to this program, but it is still not enough. We have close to 20,000 people on the APPs list. That is a backlog of people that we know to be prohibited. The thirty-three agents that we have dedicated can clear about 2500 cases a year. Yet, each year we have 3000 more cases.

The CA DOJ wants to again double the number of agents dedicated to confiscating weapons in 2013. The list of "Armed Prohibited People" is uploaded to the federal NICS system. In July 2011, mental health records were added to the NICS upload.

Don't believe bloggers... here is the video testimony  You may click the image below to watch on C-SPAN. This video is 7 minutes and 18 seconds.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4335886

Additional Information:
NCIC
San Diego Police Chief: "We can disarm Americans within a Generation"
Sheriffs v. Political Police Chiefs and President Obama

Update 2/19/2013:

Senate Bill 5737 out of Olympia, Washington  (h/t Glenn Beck), Shocking proposed law would give sheriff access to the homes of gun owners:

In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall safely and securely store the assault weapon and the sheriff of the county may, may, but no more than once per year, conduct an inspection of the house

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”

Update 3/9/2013:

AP via Yahoo News
State Senate OKs money for gun-seizure program
State Senate approves money for program that seizes guns from people banned from having them

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- Legislation approved Thursday by the state Senate would send more money to a program unique to California that seizes guns from people who are prohibited from having them, a number that has risen to nearly 20,000.

The bill authorizes $24 million for the state Department of Justice's Armed and Prohibited Persons program, which is the only one of its kind in the nation. It prohibits gun ownership for people convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, who are subject to a domestic violence restraining order or who are determined to be mentally unstable.

The department has confiscated more than 10,000 weapons under the program since 2006 but has a backlog of nearly 20,000 people because it has too few agents to go after the weapons. Those individuals own about 39,000 handguns and 1,600 assault weapons, said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the author of SB140.

The additional money would come from a surplus in fees paid for firearms purchases. It would let the department hire six supervisors, 30 special agents and support staff to create six new teams to seize the weapons.

Update 3/11/2013:
Tense moments as California agents confiscate illegal guns
CBS rode along on a gun confiscation. Two legally registered guns owned by a felon, but 5 guns confiscated. Who owned the other 3 guns was not reported. See report for video.

In six years, agents have been seizing guns. They've prevented shootouts by showing up unexpectedly in force, as many as 10 agents.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris said that the people on the list are the ones who should not be in possession of a gun.

Last year, Harris' agents seized 2,033 guns.

The reporter does not report how many shootouts have occurred, how many people have been killed or injured, who prioritized which people were targeted for confiscation or how the targeting was done. The report fails to mention that "violent" misdemeanors are also justification for gun confiscation or whether a judge determines "mental instability."

As you can see by the screen capture above, the neighborhood raided was a gated community.

Update 3/12/2013:
Bloomberg.com Picks up the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
California Seizes Guns as Owners Lose Right to Keep Arms

Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a “disqualifying event,” such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn’t sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.


At a house in Fontana, agents were looking for a gun owner with a criminal history of a sex offense, pimping, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh said that while the woman appeared to be home, they got no answer at the door. Without a warrant, the agents couldn’t enter and had to leave empty- handed.

They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who’d been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him.

“The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office.

Update 3/13/2013:
The Blaze Picks up the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guns of Law-Abiding Husband Confiscated After Wife’s Single Voluntary Mental Health Visit 

Phillips told TheBlaze she had an adjustment to her medication in December and could not stop crying. Her personal psychiatrist suggested she go to Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, Calif., where she said she was admitted voluntarily, not a threat to herself or others. Then, when she reviewed her file, Phillips said the nurse had recorded that she was involuntarily admitted and indicated she might be a suicide risk. Phillips claims the nurse had put words into her mouth. 

“I kept telling her I had a grand-baby at home and had to be better for Christmas,” she said. “Does that sound like the words of someone who is a risk to themselves and others?”

Update 3/15/2013:
Legal Insurrection gives us a mention!!
California’s mental gun law

San Diego conservative activist Charles Fettinger offers more concerning details about the new state program that was used to confiscate Phillips’ guns.

ObamaDrone: Politics From The Disposition Matrix

For those of you old enough to remember The Matrix...

America had two choices in November 2012:

"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

While the Tea Party and others took the red pill and have been fighting to save the country. A larger percentage of people choose the blue pill and continue to believe whatever they want to believe.

Now, America is facing a new threat. This threat is actually called a "Disposition Matrix." The Matrix uses robotic drones to kill terrorists like American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. It also targets and kills non-terrorist civilians and targeted Anwar al-Awlaki's son in a separate drone strike. To be fair, we can't be sure that the son was the target of the drone strike and others give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt.

"Three others, including Awlaki's teenage son and propagandist Samir Khan, have been killed in drone strikes, but none of them appears to have been the target of the strike; all were considered collateral damage." 

In our judgement the "Disposition Matrix" is killing American citizens for reasons including "because he is his father's son." Such reasoning does not reflect the Constitutional rights to a fair trial, so the precise targeting is not revealed.

This program is unamerican enough to warrant its own name... like ObamaCare.  We propose that the killing of Americans without due process be named...ObamaDrone.

This graphic is available on FLICKR and you are welcome to use it. A link back or attribution would be appreciated.

Another Fake Gun Control Study

AP is reporting "More Gun Laws = Fewer Deaths, 50-State Study Says." Unfortunately, the study is transparently biased and misleading. The Associated Press reported the following information about the study:

The results are based on an analysis of 2007-2010 gun-related homicides and suicides from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers also used data on gun control measures in all 50 states compiled by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a well-known gun control advocacy group. They compared states by dividing them into four equal-sized groups according to the number of gun laws.

The results were published online Wednesday in the medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

Editorial author Dr. Garen Wintemute, director the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, said the study doesn't answer which laws, if any, work.
Wintemute said it's likely that gun control measures are more readily enacted in states with few gun owners  a factor that might have more influence on gun deaths than the number of laws.

The actual study can be found here, but we pillaged the most informative graphic for you below. Study it closely.

The study breaks states into groups, but city laws are not taken into account. So the two progressive gun violence capitals, Washington D.C. and Chicago are excluded and misclassified respectively. Chicago is classified by Illinois' gun laws and Washington D.C. is excluded.

Considering that Chicago has more annual gun deaths than America loses in the Afghanistan War, it is hard to take this study serious. California's gun restriction number in the study is 22, while Illinois gets an 11.5.  Further, Chicago related murders in East Chicago, Indiana and Gary, Indiana are deflected from Illinois' gun deaths count.

The numbers:

• Chicago, Illinois murders in 2008 were 18 per 100,000 residents (510 total). The highest comparable number in the study was Louisiana at 10.1.
• East Chicago, Indiana murders in 2008 were 56.9 per 100,000 residents (17 total).
• Gary, Indiana murders in 2008 were 51.2 per 100,000 residents (49 total).

There are a few other statistical issues in the study.

Suicides are counted. When you remove suicides and look at only Homicides you come to a very different conclusion. Lets be serious. If people are allowed to have guns, they may use them to commit suicide, but that is not the implication of "More Gun Laws = Fewer Deaths."  If someone commits suicide by drugs or jumping from a highway overpass instead of by a gun, society does not benefit from the gun law that influenced the method of suicide.

Either the study authors believe that suicides are caused by guns or they are using suicide victim statistics to dishonestly support their political agenda. If there is another explanation, please comment and let me know.

Next, Vermont, North Dakota and New Hampshire "homicide" numbers are reported as "NA" instead of using zero or a very small number. Mysteriously, "overall" fatalities for these states do not match the remaining "suicide" fatalities numbers. As seen in "Climate Change Math", the "overall" fatalities for these states are greater than the "suicide" fatalities despite the NA for "homicide" fatalities. Consider that these numbers are statistical means or mathematical average. Can you say fudge factor?

Here are the numbers from the study. Take note of the "Firearm Fatalities, Mean (SD)" calculation. Can you smell the Doo Doo?:

Here is my chart of data from the study excluding suicides. Washington, D.C. was not added. States without reported homicide numbers were included as zero. Illinois was not corrected to maximum gun laws in this graph. If we had added Washington, D.C. and adjusted Illinois the results would more conclusively display the short comings of the report, but the changes would be inaccurate estimates. Unlike the CDC, who provided the data, we do not allow political goals to push us into deception.

Here is the graph from the study.

This study is actually reporting the obvious. If someone doesn't have a gun, they cannot commit suicide with a gun. It is the Associated Press who has dishonestly spun the study into a political weapon. Consider this study debunked.

Note:
After consideration, this information may become central to comparing gun deaths and crime. The study uses the term "homicide" for non-suicide gun deaths, but this requires closer scrutiny. They may mean simple non-suicide gun deaths, including police shootings, self defense shootings or other "justifiable homicides."  That would be blatantly deceptive on their part if they are twisting the language in such a fashion.

The Right to Choose To Defend Yourself

There are times when honest debate can solve large problems through reason. These times require both sides to negotiate in good faith. America is not in these times today. We have a president and a progressive movement that is dishonest and favor demagoguery for political advantage.

With this said, we hope there are still honest people on both sides of issues and this is an appeal to the remaining true and honest members on the American left. Please consider the following argument.

When a woman is raped and impregnated through violence, many Americans feel that the victim has the right to choose the fate of her body and her pregnancy. This is a difficult life and death decision with innocent lives at stake.

It is preferable to prevent the rape, the pregnancy and the resulting difficult decision. It is preferable to save the victim from the crime itself.  The sole choice that prevents rape and victimization is the personal choice of how to defend yourself.

You may be capable and confident to defend yourself without exercising your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. However, the choice is your constitutionally protected civil right as a citizen of the United States. Bearing arms may lead a woman into another difficult life and death decision when facing a rapist. Gun rights give victims the choice between the life of a rapist, her own life and the possibility of a rape induced pregnancy.

It is logically and emotionally inconsistent to support a victims right to choose for her body, but not her right to defend that body.

Supporting Information

Facts are stubborn. Most gun violence in the last few years has occurred in gun free zones. We won't diminish our discussion by going very far off track, but there are important and current facts that support the wisdom of the Second Amendment. Some of these facts are reflected in San Diego, California.

In the first half of 2012, San Diego forcible rapes skyrocketed 27% after the repeal of open carry, increased restrictions to gun registration and ammo availability. The California Department of Justice has also begun confiscating guns from subjects deemed "Prohibited." I call them subjects, because the defenseless are not equals in rights or civil liberties as they offer no deterrence to those who would subjugate them. An opinion reinforced by the historic origins of gun restrictions imposed in the south against minorities.

There is a Russian saying, "it comes down to who has the strength to pull the trigger." America's founding fathers had a different view and wished only for the people's power to balance the separated powers of the government. This is why our 1st Amendment is the right to free speech and why it is backed by our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.  With this in mind, not everyone has the strength to pull a trigger, but everyone's civil rights ultimately depend on someone who is holding a gun.

The most empowering choice a person can make is to hold those rights in their own hands.

P.S. 

For more information on Civil Rights, fellow SLOBs author Blogger in Chief has details about The South Central Los Angeles Tea Party 

Update 3/12/2013:
Per The Blaze
‘GUN GIRL’ CONFRONTS DEM. REP. AT TOWN HALL WITH TOUGH QUESTION — AND HE LITERALLY REFUSES TO ANSWER

“Why aren’t you pro-choice when it comes to self-defense for women?” she asks.

His response: “On to the next question. I’m choosing to move to the next question.”

Doo Doo Economics Keeps Rolling On

Image from SodaHead. They have a poll on Obama's Doo Doo Economics. Go Vote.