Friday, October 2, 2015

et ceteras

True to form, Barack Obama referred to himself more than twice per minute during his "address to the nation" about the Oregon shooting. Has there ever been a POTUS who behaves less statesmanlike and more narcissistic than him?

To the usual gun control nuts who always squeal brainlessly after a shooting, let me mention just two of the many facts they should (but won't) take into consideration: 1) gun violence in America has been dropping dramatically for the last 20 years even though gun ownership has increased dramatically over the same period; and 2) the tragedy in Oregon, just like every other mass shooting I can think of, was perpetrated at a location that was known to be a "gun free zone" -- do you really think these are all coincidences, or could it be that killers choose to do their deeds in areas where they are confident the victims won't be equipped to fight back?

And, if you think gun control advocates are a bunch of intelligent, non-violent pacifists, maybe this guy's Facebook comment will cause you to reconsider:

I dunno who Willie Wilburn Walker is, but I do know that his comment has been screenshot to someone who can get it to the proper authorities (thanks to one of my fellow alumni from the St. Pete High Class of '89).

*     *     *     *     *

At this very point in this post, I intended to stop dwelling on the Oregon shooting and move on to other things, but then I read something I have to share.

In case you haven't heard, people who were there are confirming that the gunman was specifically targeting Christians. Reportedly, he was asking people what religion they were, and when they said they were Christians he shot them in the head; but if they said something else or were silent, he shot them in the leg or in some other presumably non-fatal spot.

In response to this, the inimitable David French penned these words over at National Review's Corner blog: "With Christians explicitly targeted for mass murder, are we now going to launch a round of anguished soul-searching about anti-Christian rhetoric? Will we cleanse political discourse of anti-Christian expression? Will militant, angry atheists be universally shamed into silence?"

I won't hold my breath while listening to the crickets chirp, and I'm sure Mr. French won't either.

*     *     *     *     *

Speaking of David French, a couple months ago -- in the wake of the anti-Confederate flag furor and in the midst of lavish praise being heaped upon Ta-Nehisi Coates's book Between the World and Me -- French wrote one of the best articles I have ever read. It is written as a letter to his youngest daughter, Naomi. He and his wife are white, and Naomi, whom they adopted from Ethiopia, is black.

The article I'm talking about can be read here. If you like it, you might also appreciate this one, which deals with the way many liberals have reacted to the Frenches adopting a black child.

*     *     *     *     *

I have problems with Donald Trump, some of which I voiced in my July 14th post, and those problems are big enough to keep me from voting for him when the Florida primary finally rolls around. But I have to admit that I think his recently revealed tax plan is good.

In fact, his plan in some ways mirrors my own that has been in my head for the last 15 years. Whenever I've been asked, I have said that there should be a zero percent bracket for individuals making $25,000 or less, and for couples making $50,000 or less combined -- and lo and behold, Trump's plan calls for exactly that!

But no, I still can't picture myself voting for him in the primary. I have not decided on "my" candidate yet, but Trump is not near the top and I am leaning toward Carly.

*     *     *     *     *

Something else I said in my July 14th post is this: "There is no reason for Republicans to fear facing (Hillary Clinton) in the general election, and I will not be surprised if she fails to even make it to the general election."

Then, in my August 22nd post, I predicted that she "will not be a candidate in the 2016 presidential election" (by which I meant the 2016 general election).

Today I am standing by my prediction and digging my heels even further in the sand, because Bernie Sanders almost equaled her in fundraising for the quarter that ended two days ago, despite starting the quarter as an afterthought and despite the fact that he does not court fat cats for donations. Sanders has already received 1.3 million donations, which means he has crossed the one million threshold sooner than Obama did in both 2008 and 2012 -- and he has crossed it by a whopping 30 percent margin.

Combine that with Hillary's trustworthiness and likability problems, and she is, like I said previously, toast.

*     *     *     *     *

Speaking of Sanders, I obviously will never vote for him. He self-describes as a socialist, and history's most prominent socialists include such tyrants and mass murderers as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, and Fidel Castro.

Sanders will never be a murderer, much less a mass murderer, but I don't put it past him to become a low-grade tyrant because he would genuinely believe that whatever he does is in others' best interest ... and if we allow the nose of the socialist camel to get under our tent by electing Sanders, that camel will then come all the way into the tent and stand on all four legs ... and then, at some point in the near or distant (but probably near) future, our government will transform into a tyranny, and I refuse to be a party to that.

But still, I have to admit there is something about him that I like, and it's not hard to figure out what it is. By virtue of the fact he calls himself a socialist while needing to be elected in a historically non-socialist nation, he is an obviously honest man in a profession known for dishonesty. The fact that he has been in Congress for 25 years and continues to rely on small rather than large donations proves he is not for sale. Although his preferred solutions to problems tend to be batty, and tend to be likely to exacerbate rather than solve the problems, his identification of problems tends to be spot-on. And, he is running for the Democrat nomination even though he's not even a Democrat (in reality, he's a registered, card-carrying independent).

Based on the honesty factor alone, it will be good for American politics if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination -- but only if, and I do mean only, he does not become president.

*     *     *     *    *

Again speaking of Sanders, most people call him Bernie, not Sanders ... and most people say Hillary, not Clinton ... and Carly, not Fiorina ... and Jeb, not Bush ... and a large number of people say Marco, not Rubio.

And I think that is good.

And that is all.

Until next time, take care!

No comments: