Category Archives: US Government

by

There’s a Scandal Alright–Just Not Where You Think

committee I’ve long wondered at the seeming inability of the GOP to remember that we actually keep records of  “that stuff”. They continue to forget that. I give a pass to the typical TeaPotter who is so ill-informed that they are left with nothing but misspelled phrases that they either paint on cardboard signs or attempt to regurgitate from memory. They can’t be expected to actually, you know, KNOW history.

As you know doubt know, the GOP has been looking for a way for five long years now to bury this president. All of their schemes have come to naught for quite obvious reasons, but even when we thought things might, just might, return to some semblance of normalcy after their debacle of 2012, well, sadly they learned nothing.

Some of their own kind (Pat Toomey)  even admit, that their membership so hates this man that they will vote NO on legislation as publicly supported as universal background checks. So of course we expected that rottweiler of a thug, Darrell Issa to continue his determination to find SOMETHING that can bring down this administration.

Benghazi was their choice, aided and abetted by one John S. McCain, who had a personal vendetta and was more than willing to rattle the sabre of “coverup” at least as it pertained to Susan Rice, a woman we can now categorically say was unfairly maligned and mistreated by Johnny and his misogynist guy pal, Ms. Lindsey.

Let me just say this simply. The Benghazi “scandal” is nothing more than a witch hunt. And history explains it all to us.

Darrell “my brother did it” Issa is chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. That is, innocent as it sounds, a very powerful committee, and one Issa has used since 2010 when he assumed chairmanship, to conduct endless hearings into the Obama administration, hoping to find ANYTHING that can be used to harass and drive from office the Negro in the White House.

It is also the only committee that is allowed to issue subpoenas under the chairman’s signature only. However, this has seldom been the practice. Normally, given that grave power, the Chairman has sought the agreement of a full committee vote before so proceeding. This has been  the case except for only two occasions in modern times. Hint: this is where the history gets important.

The most notable occasion when the Chairman took sole control over subpoenas was under the chairmanship of Dan Burton, (R-IN). Mr. Burton had a serious case of the ass against one William J. Clinton. Like Darrell, Dan fairly lit up the committee with his constant and outlandish claims of wrongdoing.

This resulted in a scandal of course–Mr. Burton spend years, over 1,000 subpoenas, and 7 million bucks of taxpayer money, trying to prove that there was scandal to be found in the fund-raising practices of the Democratic Campaign organization. Copies of audio tapes from a “witness” were released. Later it was determined that the tapes had been severely “edited” to appear quite different from their original content. Burton fired committee staff man David Bossie, the supposed “editor”.

However, the scandal went further, and finally, there were calls for Burton to step down himself. He never did of course.

Well, here we go again.

Mr. Issa decided that Burton’s sole possessor of the subpoena was a good thing,  and re-instituted the practice again. This brought a rather lengthy and well-reasoned letter from Elijah Cummings, ranking minority leader on the committee, and a man with a memory. He pointed out that unilateral usage of the power of subpoena had gotten the GOP into serious trouble once before, and it was better to return to the normal and regular practice of bipartisan issuance of these orders.

Of course, Mr. Issa declined rational behavior and has as we all know run a one-man-show of Obama attack. And the expected result has occurred.

For weeks the GOP has harped that the Obama White House was engaged in a cover-up regarding Benghazi. That cover-up has never been spelled out well, but it seems to have revolved around the White House changing the talking points (which implicated Rice somehow), to protect the State Department (and Hillary Clinton) from being accused of malfeasance.

This claim was bolstered by information from e-mails circulated between the  parties involved. We were told this by the GOP. Jonathan Karl broke the story for ABC, claiming as the GOP had alleged, that State Department officials had participated in changing the talking points, along with the White House. Karl implied that he had seen the emails himself and “quoted” from them.

When the true emails were brought forth, they told a different story–one that indicated that neither the White House nor the State Department had played a part in the versions discussed and finally issued by the CIA for distribution (i.e. to Susan Rice).  Now of course Karl claims he never actually saw any e-mails but his “source” shared “notes” with him of what he/she read.

The fair meaning  of what Karl claimed and the actual truth leave little doubt that there was a deliberate attempt to portray the White House and State Department in a bad light and to provide proof that they had acted politically with the intent to deceive. Since the e-mails were the subject of subpoenas, the likely “source” is undoubtedly someone on Issa’s committee.

It is ironic in the end that all this Benghazi “scandal” has been in part to dirty the White House, but also to begin the long process of discrediting Mrs. Clinton. While nobody is all that surprised by the GOP’s doing that, it must be remembered that when all efforts were directed toward destroying the President, the GOP actually held Mrs. Clinton up as the “ray of sunshine” in the otherwise dismal Obama landscape.

Now that the President seems invincible to their machinations, Clinton, the new threat, became the new target.

It’s all so predictable.

And that is what needs be investigated it seems–why are my tax monies being used to manufacture scandals for Republican political gain?

Riddle me that Batman.

Related articles
by

The Running of the Bulls. . .hit

irs3Okay, get your outrage ready followed by your thinking caps. It, to pare a Bette Davis phrase, “is going to be a bumpy ride.”

Let’s get rid of the outrage first.

  1. It’s bad to target identifiable public groups of people for special scrutiny unless they are promoting pedophilia or making Adolph Hitler’s birthday a national holiday.
  2. A man as smart as President Obama is, is surely very good at getting elected and surely very bad at managing his Administration–at least he has a lot of really incompetent people working for him that aren’t doing him any favors.
  3. Anything that gives Tea Potters the ability to dance in the street in glee is just wrong on so many levels–mostly because they dress like idiots who missed the bus to the Super Bowl tailgate party.
  4. Fourth, Jon Stewart already said it better than you could anyway with this:

“Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama, Conspiracy theorists who generally can survive in anaerobic environments have just had an algae bloom dropped on their fucking heads, thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver: skepticism about your opponents.”

TeaPotters should of course get somebody to explain to them what he said meant.

Okay, outrage over.

baby-shocked-face-03-copy

Now, let’s examine the facts, which are still fairly small in number, which allows me the joyous whimsy of speculating all over the place about both what might have happened and why. Given that I’m reputed worldwide to be a fairly decent prognosticator (if you don’t count the times I was wrong), I’m sure you will find my analysis spot on as they say or don’t say. You choose. (We are not getting into the DOJ “new” scandal today, so relax, you won’t go into brain overheating).

Okay, let’s begin.

This goes back, in my humble opinion, and with a tiny bit of help from the ever bubbly Contrarian, to *drum roll* Citizens United. That amazingly short-sighted, ill-thought-out, and all around stupid decision opened the floodgates as you no doubt recall to all kinds of bad things. Corporations could give unlimited amounts of money to elect those persons who would support their cause that the only good dollar is one in the pocket of a rich person, for only they know what to do with it.

Okay, okay, so it also allowed all sorts of other “groups” to also gather and spend tons of dough to influence the minds of mostly mind-numbingly stupid voters.

With me so far?

So a lot, and I do mean a lot, of folks figured out that they wanted to get in on the action.

In the world of the IRS is a thing called a 501 (c) 4. This is a tax-exempt status, not quite as pure as a 501 (c)3 status. It allows you to collect money and not pay taxes on it, but the donor can’t claim it as a tax-exempt donation. The status is reserved for groups who operate “for the promotion of the public welfare.”

mack

See the truck? See the truck drive through the gigantic hole in the wall?

What the hell is public welfare?

Well, I knew you would ask that.

The ACLU is considered to do so. But so is the NRA.

See the more rigorous status, the 501 (c) 3 status requires that you stay the hell out of politics in any way shape or form. The 501 (c) 4 status is a bit more lenient. It allows one to lobby for legislation and also to engage in political activities as “long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.” The mack truck as you can see is still driving right on through.

So a whole bunch of organizations pop up, all claiming they are for the public welfare, when in reality they are really about promoting candidates and issues. Enter the TeaPotters and various other right-wing groups.  To be fair, and we aim for fair,  there are (although to lesser number) plenty of left-wing organizations who also are trying to do the same thing.

Now Cincinnati is the office that apparently is the hub of the IRS operation to approve or deny applications for this status. One can assume that following Citizens United in 2010, there was a general flood of applications as everybody including grandma wanted to get in on the action. (I’m told something like 60,000 would not be far off the mark) The status is valuable since, some of the money is tax exempt which allows more of it be used as the organization desires, whether it be to “public welfare” or quite frankly in some case to allow for bigger salaries to those who run the things. Hint: you can make a good living by setting up and running one.  Also donor lists are not required to be publicized.

What to do with this flood of applications which may well have driven the wait time up many additional months?

I figure that some mid-level bureaucrats, who were told in no uncertain terms to clear the backlog, and “no you were not getting any more workers” because the GOP just says NO!, dreamed up this computer program to sort through applications and flag those that would in all cases require further scrutiny–i.e., were they actually doing “public welfare” or only a front for a political agenda. (It’s fairly hard to argue that any Tea party group or any Occupy Wall street group could be anything but political.) The program used words like tea party, phrases like government not working, taxes, and so forth.

As I understand it, of the numbers of kicked out applications (requiring further scrutiny and action) 25% involved right-wing organizations. The rest involved either left-wing or other groups who did not meet the criteria, being not fraternal organizations of chickadee lovers, chocolate addicts anonymous, or things of similar ilk.

At some point, higher-ups learned of the practice. Discussions were had, and all seemed convinced that it was not aimed at “enemies” so much, as to simply weed out by computer rather than by hand, those applications that would require more time. The normal applications could thus be passed through within a reasonable time.

Of course, it became known up the chain of command what was going on. But apparently this raised no red flag (as it should have) as it was discussed and explained to them.

This is born out by the fact that during this entire episode, one Doug Shulman was head of the IRS. Now Mr. Shulman was appointed and began his leadership of the IRS in March of 2008, having been appointed by George W. Bush. He completed his term in November of 2012. He testified that there was no such thing going on in the IRS, as late as March of 2012. While it is still unknown whether he was aware of the practice, it is now thought that he probably did.

This suggests to me, that he did not consider it aimed at suppressing right-wing groups so much as helping to alleviate the backlog and limited to pulling out those applications that would otherwise require additional scrutiny anyway. It appears that the agency’s interests had turned to increasing revenue since the early 2000′s, and it was felt that as much as 1.2 billions were being lost to tax exempt groups in the 2012 election alone. Clearly some of this, if not most of it, should not be tax exempt under the current laws.

Shulman is and has never been a politico. His entire career has been spent in the business arena. That suggests that while his political affiliation is unknown,  he probably supports business interests and it seems unlikely to me that he would deliberately turn a blind eye to some deliberate effort to damage conservative groups, which typically favor business interests. Thus we can take him at this word I think that there was not attempt to “target” conservative groups per se.

This suggests that the real problem here is not one of an “enemies list” so much as what you get when you try so hard to depoliticize an organization that none within it have the political nose to see a HUGE problem for what was probably created as a benign process to speed up the process for legitimate applications while leaving more problematical ones for later.

In other words, any political junkie would have seen this immediately as “DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON!”,  but they were not so seen by your average apolitical bureaucrat.

So that’s my initial take on it.

3stooges_face_palm

Of course weigh in.

Related articles
by

What Would Jesus Do?–Apply Only When Convenient

woman_9I try not to go all Jesus on you, at least on this blog. And truthfully, I’m not really. I’m just trying to illustrate a point. Today’s discussion revolves around the death penalty.

The reason it came to mind today for me, is that Maryland’s governor, Martin O’Malley, recently signed a repeal of the death penalty bill, ending that state’s long association with murder by government, and becoming the 18th state to move to the side of life.

What is perhaps most interesting, or draconian, as you see it, is that at the same time, Florida moves to make the killing of its citizens more easy for the state to accomplish. Florida wishes all those on death row executed within 180 days of “a warrant being signed”–presumably from a valid conviction and sentence. This awaits the governor’s signature at a time that Florida ranks first in overturned death penalty cases, a stunning 24 people having been exonerated, since 1970.

When you look at a map of the country, it is easy to see that the 18 states who have abolished the death penalty, almost all reside in the north and east,  my own state of New Mexico being a happy exception. More and more, the killing is confined to the deep South, Ohio being the only exception to that rule. You can check out all the statistics in your state here.

In 2012, 140 countries had abolished the death penalty, 39 more have de facto eliminated it by not using it for a number of years. Fifty-eight still impose it, the US of course among them. Of the fifty-eight, there is not one single what we would call “modern” country, save Japan that does so. We are in the company of Syria, North Korea, the Congo, Cuba, Pakistan and Afghanistan with our penchant for murdering our own citizens. Only Iran and Saudi Arabia beat us in the numbers killed each year (China refuses to divulge such information and the numbers for them is thought to be in the thousands)

It confounds rational beings in this country that we continue this barbarism. In many countries, vigils are held at US embassies when an execution is imminent. Many countries will not extradite prisoners to this country because of its death penalty. Our claims about human rights violations are laughed at across the globe when we so viciously execute our own in the face of growing numbers of those later found innocent.

Yet we continue to do so, and it begs the question why? Why is the deep South, home of the Bible Belt, people by so many who advocate the death of their fellow citizens? Why do so-called Evangelical Christians, or Born Agains stand so steadfast for this legalized murder? How do they square all this with their manual of life, the Bible?

We can’t answer that question, because it is in fact unanswerable. These same people will argue that it is both right and proper for state legislatures to impose all kinds of controls on women to make sure that any fertilized egg is produced as a live birth. In fact, taking their arguments and legislation to its logical extension, absolutely nothing is “too far” when it comes to a fetus. They would allow for women to be imprisoned to insure that she is eating properly. They would allow for an investigation into the circumstances of any “miscarriage” to determine whether there was either deliberate or negligent causation of the loss.

They tell us that life is sacred, given by God. They say this of course, while we know that their interest begins and ends there. They are not generally willing to support that child once born. Many of them later will label that same child a “taker”, a 48%’er, a lazy, or other such appellation suggesting that they are unworthy of their charitable largess. And indeed they wish to reserve that right of “charity” to those persons deemed “worthy” as defined by them.

They engage in this ying-yang dichotomy of what God demands. God demands we preserve life at conception. God is ignored when in the guise of Jesus, He demands compassion and care for the least of God’s children. In the biggest effrontery of all, they accomplish this by proclaiming that God made his manual understandable to everyone, and therefore their self-serving interpretation is sacrosanct. They even have the gall to point to scripture for this proposition–beware of false prophets–everyone who tells them differently are of course the false prophets. It’s all neat and tidy.

However, the facts tend to get in the way. I offer the story of the adulterous woman from the Gospel of John, from Chapter 8.

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”

Note how the Scribes correctly state that the penalty for adultery is death. Stoning was never a punishment of pain, it was a death sentence. Yet Jesus precludes the use of the penalty, telling the woman to “go forth and sin no more”–an impossibility of course to any mortal human being. He forgives her. He in a real sense rehabilitates her. He sends her forth to resume her life, hopefully with a new outlook and a better approach to community living.

Yet these fundamentalists who insist that there is but one way to read the bible, and that is literally, seem able, as is always the case with them, to manage to avoid the obvious literalness of this passage.

They are quite happy to merrily go on judging others and condemning them to death. They continue to usurp the right of God (from their previous logic) to control matters of life and death.

It is why they forever deserve not only our ridicule, but our condemnation as Christians. They are simply users of scripture to accomplish their own personal desires. As such their opinions carry no weight.

So just jump in and rant away good readers!

by

The Benghazi Hustle

benghazi-hearings-hdb-1-4_3_rx383_c540x380Here we go again. Everybody hold tight because this merry-go-round is speeding around the curve and headed for–well just about anything that the GOP imagination can dream up.

In a valiant attempt to turn a mole hill into a mountain, Republican Tea Snorters are busy twisting and feigning shock and awe at the shameful and deliberate attempt by the Obama Administration to get “brave Americans” murdered by, well, you know, their true friends.

If one reads the headlines of the extreme-stream media, here is what you will find:

“Benghazi Witness: First Time in my Career that a Diplomat Has more balls than somebody in the Military.”

“Benghazi revelations today could obliterate Obama’s Credibility and Sink Hillary’s 2016 ambitions.”

“Issa seeks more whistle blowers after dramatic Benghazi hearing.”

“Two key witnesses refuse to testify at Benghazi hearing.”

“Benghazi Makes Watergate look like kindergarten: The End of Obama”

“Hillary perjured herself on Benghazi?”

“Benghazi Whistleblower: You Should have Seen what Clinton Tried to do to us that night.”

And on and on it goes.

Here’s what I think we know at this point.

  1. A YouTube video riled up Muslims around the world and demonstrations were being held in a variety of places, Egypt among them.
  2. A demonstration occurred at Benghazi, that was violent.
  3. Ambassador Stevens was fairly well known to favor less security rather than more in an attempt to be open to the residents of the country.
  4. Republicans had steadfastly refused State Department requests for more money to beef up security around the world.
  5. The Ambassador and three others were killed in the first attack.
  6. Air support could not have reached the outpost for hours, a minimum of 5-7 according to the military.
  7. There was no basis for suspecting a second attack.
  8. There were no deaths or serious injuries sustained in the second attack.
  9. A team of FOUR, a military security forces was located at Tripoli but they were concerned about security there, and even John Bolton admitted that they were unable to determine whether the four men should leave that facility for Benghazi when the deaths had already occurred and there was no reason to suspect a second attack.
  10. Senator Tom Corker from Tennessee, sat on the Senate hearings on Benghazi and said that he read all the material and thought he knew what happened and was satisfied.
  11. The President termed the attack a “terrorist attack” the day following the attack.
  12. That Susan Rice delivered the cautionary remarks that we were unsure what happened based on material supplied her by others in the State Department or other agencies.
  13. That Al Qaeda is not an organization so much as an idea, and many Islamic groups claim “affiliation” without benefit of any actual connection. To this day, we don’t know I don’t think who this group consisted of.
  14. There was no reason to believe that naming it other than a terrorist attack was some how beneficial to the White House in the midst of an election. Most presidents, following some catastrophe or other see their polling improve as people tend to “rally round” the Administration. If the President had war mongered the event, the GOP would have been arguing just the opposite–that he was making it much worse than it was in order to gain sympathy.

The bottom line to me here is simply. The Benghazi outpost was under-secured. Certainly the GOP bears SOME responsibility for that fact as do congressional Democrats who agreed that they didn’t need additional funds. There was apparently not good plans in place for an emergency like this. There should have been.

Beyond that, it was a sad tragedy. But let us remember. Americans are dying around the world every day. They are dying in service to the country, and as employees of corporations doing business in dangerous places. These four were doing their jobs. They perhaps did not receive the full support they should have, but such is life in dangerous occupations. I don’t mean to minimize it, but it should not be overstated either.

The GOP tried to make this into some scandal during the fall of 2012 to hurt the chances of the President to be re-elected, and enhance their candidates chances. That didn’t happen. Now they see polling that suggests that Hillary Clinton, if the nominee will beat any Republican so far put forth, easily and soundly.

Is it hard to see why this is happening now? Of course not. This is just an attempt to dirty up Clinton and force her to not run.

That’s my take on it.

And what is yours?

Republicans are united in their insanity that this will lead to impeachment.

Do you?

Related articles
by

If You Talk From Your Ass, I Guess You Talk From Three Sides of Your Mouth

wayne-lapierreHalf the civilized world has now reacted to the bilge that comes out of the anal region of Wayne La PEE PEE Pierre, so I won’t bore you with more.

Except this.

Part of me secretly snickers at how the NRA, along with all the Right-wing elites, (read Fox, corporate interests, and GOP politicos), play their audiences for a fool. I mean to the rest of normally functioning America, you are always saying, “how can people be so stupid to not get it?”

Get what?

Oh, get that the Right-wing elites get the little people, mostly working class but definitely middle class wannabes, to do their bidding. They do this by such blatant lying and cursing of the truth, that, well, it only works if you are burdened with a lack of grey matter with which to discern reality.

I mean, face it, smart people are not listening to Fox, only those who are (how can we say this delicately?) intellectually challenged respond to that crap. It’s really a combination of lack of intellectual acuity and lack of interest in well, thinking, that motivates the average working Joe to “just let Fox do it”–the thinking that is.

How else can you explain Wayne’s rant at the NRA conference and the illogical crap he spewed to ears who can hear, but alas cannot decipher the message?

Wayne says, (not wanting to exploit a tragedy of course), that the poor people of Boston “cowered” behind their locked doors, wishing for all they were worth that they had guns with which to protect themselves against the monster bombers roaming the streets.

Now such a statement defies intelligence. Boston has no laws against the ownership of firearms. Everybody in Boston prior to the bombing there, has all the firearms they wanted. Nobody was cowering without defense unless they were of a mind that ownership of firearms was not a thing for them.

Now Wayne is not stupid. Insane, maybe, but not stupid. He knew that. He knew nobody in Boston was wishing they had guns. If they had wished such a thing, they would have bought one, or many. But Wayne is talking to stupid Teapotters out there. And frankly one can’t assume they don’t know this. For Teapotters think that background checks = national registry = confiscation of guns=abandonment of the 2nd Amendment=last step before communism=end of the world. They truly do believe that. They believe it because Fox and Wayne have told them so.

And as one listened to the endless parade of new civil war mongering that passed as “speeches” at the NRA convention, one cannot help but understand that these people really truly don’t know any better. I’m not sure that one of their survivalist “stores” isn’t designing the Teapotter uniform even as we speak, in anticipation of the coming militia call-up ordered by Wayne and his band of boobs.

Which is all kind of amusing since Kelly Ayotte is scrambling to make herself “understood”. See, she really does support background checks. Really, really, really. It was just the mainstream media and it’s awful use of “tapes of her answers” that got everybody all confused. Or her explanation that background checks would impose burdens on gun sellers that was unfair, that got taken out of context–the context being the word salad she wallowed in while trying to figure out what to say.

But Ayotte too is well aware that she is playing to a weak audience. She raises the NRA claim that those persons denied the right to buy weapons under the current NICS system aren’t prosecuted enough. That is a straw argument and Ayotte knows it, although she hopes her audience doesn’t. She calls all those rejected by NICS as “criminals”. They aren’t of course, they just don’t qualify for gun ownership. She bemoans that this is the problem with the system–police and prosecutors aren’t using their resources to prosecute a person who the system has successfully prevented from buying a gun. I mean wow, better they should get that year’s probation while the rampage of house break-ins continue from lack of police power. There are priorities and then there are priorities!

Meanwhile, Jeff Flake from Arizona has had a change of heart as well. Likening his popularity in Arizona to that of “pond scum”, Flack now alleges that the reason he opposed the legislation was that it made it a “commercial sale” if I emailed you and said I had a gun and would you like to buy it. Jeff is now sure that “that can be worked out” and he had happily join the majority and vote for background checks.

I rather think that his resemblance to pond scum had a lot more to do with his decision than did the flimsy made up email crap.

While the NRA continues it barrage of hate spewing and fear mongering, it seems that the tide is turning. Frankly nothing points that out more clearly than looking at who spoke at the NRA and who didn’t. Rick Santorum? The “don’t forget me,”  girl, Sarah? Glenn “I’m madder than any hatter” Beck? Surely you jest?

With a lineup like that, I mean does it say it all? Where were the Rubio’s? The Graham’s? The Ryan’s? The Cantor’s? Where were they? Oh, they quietly whispered, “gosh darn Wayne, you know my heart is with you, and I’ll work tirelessly behind-the-scenes, but I can’t AFFORD to publicly support you. You understand. Elections coming. Can’t rile up the folks now can we? *wink*wink*nudge*nudge. Just don’t ahh, mention that you invited me okay?”

Did I mention that we, the sane ones are NOT GOING AWAY this time?

Did I mention that?

You heard me? I don’t have to shout?

Good.

PS: I hear that some of these boobs are calling for an “armed march” on Washington on the 4th of July. Good luck with that.

Related articles
by

Just One of Those Crazy Accidents

kids-with-gunsSo said the local county coroner, Gary White, declaring the shooting of a two-year-old by her five-year-old brother, just one of those things.

Crazy things happen when guns and kids are mixed. The parents are just really feeling stupid for leaving the boy’s “first rifle” propped in the corner and left loaded.

Just an accident. Move on.

Well, HELL NO!

First let me clear the air. Let there be no mistake about what’s about to come your way. I am utterly opposed to guns personally. I have lived with guns all my life. My father was an avid hunter. All my male relatives were as well. I had plenty of occasion to handle guns during my professional career. I know my calibers and I know firearms identification. I’m not ignorant of the territory.

I am also not a mother. This seems an important fact to some. A right-wing, “I love Jesus, the bible, and my guns” adherent told me that I was probably incapable of compassion for unborn babies because I was not a mother like her. So be forewarned, I am going to speak about that which I have no knowledge–children and guns and parents. (Okay, stop laughing–that would eliminate all men from being compassionate I know. But who in the hell ever accused a right-wing TeaPotter of being either rational or logical?)

You may have heard about the story of the five-year-old. For his fourth birthday, his stellarly-bright parents thought it a good idea to buy their boy his first gun. The gun in question is called a Crickett, manufactured by Keystone Sporting Arms. They have since cleaned up their website, because, well you know. Their commercials to kids look pretty damn sick about now. Luckily, it was captured before their wiped the site clean.

Just a couple of weeks ago, a deputy sheriff was showing off his arsenal to guests when his child grabbed a gun off the bed, fired it, and killed the female guest. This is of course nothing new. Although statistics often include more than just accidents, something like a couple of hundred children under the age of 12 die every year from firearms “accidents”. This is to say nothing of the suicides (the method of choice, and by far the most successful) accomplished by our youth by guns.

We can talk about gun violence all day. We can talk about all these tragedies. We can talk about background checks, and assault type weapons and high-capacity clips. Yet who would have thought that it would be legal to market and sell, and buy a gun for a four-year-old? Who in their thinking mind can contemplate that such a thing would be legal?

Apparently the manufacturers don’t specify any age when such weapons are “appropriate”. Goodness, that’s shocking isn’t it. Little triggers for little hands. Ahh, can you just swoon with the sweetness of this new market? Increasingly, as the gun makers have found the male market literally saturated, they have turned to women and children as new targets.

kidguns3And this marketing is very real, as you can see.

Generally speaking, it is left up to the states to determine the rules under which guns can be legally in the hands of youth. Almost all require that one be 18 to buy a gun on their own, but many states allow people to buy guns for children as gifts, and there seem to be no restrictions in some states at least as it relates to shotguns and rifles.

The penalties imposed upon adults for negligence also vary considerably.

A whole culture has grown, and continues to grow around the “family that shoots together”. This kind of behavior is touted as bonding, and ultimately of course hints at the need of children to be able to defend themselves. Yes, we all want kids to turn to guns as their first line of defense don’t we?

Of course, such things are kept subtle. Mostly the ads suggest that the family fun of gunning is all about “sportsmanship” and family togetherness.

kidguns6Don’t delay, get your child in on his new membership in the NRA the ads tell you.

The real intent–to sell guns and make profits is hidden behind lofty goals of “gun safety” and the joys of target shooting, to say nothing of spending quality time with dad in the woods in pursuit of making a bloody mess of Bambi.

Studies show that kids who are exposed to guns at an early age, have, as you might expect, good thoughts about gun ownership in general, and worse yet, they are more apt to encourage their friends to join in the fun.

WHY IS THIS LEGAL?

I can only ask the question because the answer seems so obvious. It should not be. At least to the vast majority of rational beings.

Guns are lethal. Cigarettes are harmful to one’s health. We don’t let parents buy them for their kids so start them on the joys of puffing. Alcohol is dangerous to one’s health. We don’t allow parents to invite all the little one’s at Sally’s birthday party to throw a few back between games of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, and ice cream and cake do we? We don’t allow children to drive automobiles on public streets. We don’t allow them operate all kinds of dangerous machinery, work before a suitable age, work at many dangerous jobs. The list is endless.

But somehow we let them use lethal firearms because mom and dad like a well-armed family.

kidguns4This magazine is for kids.

I’m glad to know that “glocks are for girls” aren’t you?

These kids after reading this bilge will not be begging for Barbies. They will be begging for more fire power!

What kind of insanity is this?

Look, as I said, I’m no parent. But I was once a child.

I knew a lot of other children when I was one.

I know a heck of a lot of adults today.

I know that most people are not competent to tie their shoes without supervision let alone raise kids.

Most of us manage to grow up not being serial killers because I guess the drive to be average is so darn strong that we avoid those pitfalls.

But most of us are from dysfunctional homes to one degree or another. Some of us came from wretched conditions, some of us were physically assaulted, some of us just emotionally assaulted.

Most parents are lousy. But we make allowances because nobody requires potential parents to take classes. We cut our parents slack because they “did they best they could” given their own upbringing. We are generous that way.

But there is a time and place to draw a line. And I draw it when parents are ALLOWED to buy guns for children for “fun”. I draw the line there. I don’t just draw a line. I erect a damn wall. And if you cross it, I am inclined to grab your kid and run while you sit in some damn cell and think about it for twenty years.

I of course, would allow no gun maker to make children’s weapons nor market them, nor sell them to anyone. They are NOT APPROPRIATE–EVER!

Is this country stark raving mad?

kidguns2Is it just me?

Cuz if it is just me, then boy, I am too damn dumb to breath.

Well?

Does this image make you feel all warm and happy?

Does it?

Or this one?

kidguns5

 

Related articles
by

The Stupid Chronicles April 27, 2013

james-tracyLook closely at the picture attached here. This is the face of lunacy. You now know exactly what to look for when you casually saunter down the street. When you see lunacy, run!

This man’s name is James Tracy. No not Dick Tracy. He bears not brain-sharing with the great detective of comics. No James is one of those rare nuts who actually somehow made it through grad school and got a degree, and purports to teach our youth.

If you have a child enrolled in Florida Atlantic, I’d suggest you shut off the funds now, and get your kid immediately.

James is certifiable. James “teaches” (I use the term loosely of course) communications and, get this, conspiracy theory. James is a conspiracy. A conspiracy to appear like a normal human being.

James believes the Boston Marathon bombing was “staged”. For all the world, to him, it looks like a pre-organized drill.

In short, the event closely resembles a mass-casualty drill, which for training purposes are designed to be as lifelike as possible. Since it is mediated, however, and primarily experienced from afar through the careful assemblage of words, images, and the official pronouncements and commentary of celebrity journalists, it has the semblance of being for all practical purposes “real.”
….

With the above in mind, photographic evidence of the event suggests the possibility of play actors getting into position after the detonation of what may in fact have been a smoke bomb or similarly benign explosive.

And goody of all goodies there is a video!

And you can read more of Tracy’s insanity at his own blog.

New Hampshire makes another appearance in the crazy parade with an entry from their state legislature. Stella Trembley, oh STELLLLLLA, what have you done now? Stella

Stella no doubt in communication with Mr. Tracy, has her own theories about the Boston Marathon bombing.

Stella pays attention to that great witless Beck, so she posted this on Beck’s site:

Just as you said would happen. Top Down, Bottom UP. The Boston Marathon was a Black Ops “terrorist” attack. One suspect killed, the other one will be too before they even have a chance to speak. Drones and now “terrorist” attacks by our own Government. Sad day, but a “wake up” to all of us. First there was a “suspect” then there wasnt. Infowars broke the story and they knew they had been “found out”.
http://youtu.be/axQtAFtmtVA

Yes, I’m sure that Stella believes that George Bush ordered the 9/11 tragedy as well.

Note as well that the YouTube link she gave on her comment is from none other than career nut Alex Jones.

We did mention that Ms. Stella is a Republican didn’t we? No? Well you knew that anyway didn’t you?

One thing you can be sure of, the stupids are well, really really stupid. That’s why they are so endearing, when they are not annoying gnats in need of swatting.

Such is the case of Representative Tom Shaw, who resides at the Iowa State House, where he plays tiddlywinks most of the day long until it’s time for his chocolate milk and nap break.

tom-shaw-199x300Tommy is still mighty angry at the justices of the Iowa Supreme Court, who several years ago had the temerity to actually follow the constitution and declare Iowa’s refusal to allow gays to marry, well, unconstitutional.

Tommy figured out a neat plan to punish the four remaining justices (three were defeated for re-election after a tissue of lies campaign forged by one VanderPlatts and his homophobic friends).

Tommy has offered up a bill directed just at these four justices, cutting their salaries from $163, 200, to just $25,000.

Tommy thinks it’s constitutional.

Tommy is of course an idiot.

Tommy can usually be spotted at the capital building in Des Moines, being led around by his thinking-brain dog Charles.

Tommy also wears Depends and poops in them regularly, so people learn to take a wide berth when seeing him.

From Iowa, we move a bit north and east to my original neck of the woods–Michigan.

platkoHere we find Gloria Platko, a Democrat up in Buena Vista County. She doesn’t seem particularly fond of township supervisor Dwayne Parker, whom she referred to with the “N” word.

She also adjectived that word with “arrogant”.

Gloria, poor dear, was unaware that she was being taped when she made the remarks.

She regrets them of course. NOW.

She assures us she is no racist, because in that time-honored defense, “she’s eaten Thanksgiving dinner at the homes of blacks before.”

She said she probably should have used the word ignoramus.

Sorry, Gloria, that word is taken. You have that dubious distinction of owning the word.

Give back your salary.

It’s always a good bet that Donald Trump can make a stupid list.

trump-stewThe first question or observation one makes about The Donald, is how could stupid make that much money?

Donald doesn’t like Jon Stewart much.

That would be obvious, since Stewart, like all good thinking people tends to point out Donald’s numerous stupid moments.

Donald has another major flaw other than being stupid. He’s very thin-skinned and fights back, hate to use the phrase, but it fits, “like a girl.”

You know what I mean, all snotty and so forth.

So to “get back” at Stewart for being, well, really brilliant at what he does, Trump said,

I am smarter than Jon Stewart will ever be because he is so stupid and because his real name is not even Jon Stewart. It’s something much more Jewish-y. So, ha! Also: he is overrated.

He tweeted it too.

So there, Jon Stewart: It’s all out now. You’re a JEW!, or Jewish-y at least. Take that!

Trumpet head remains, as always,  an idiot.

Oh Gosh, that was a joke Donald, don’t sue me!

hi-there

Related articles