Democrat Sheriff goes HAM on Liberal gun grabbers.

"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."

I got a little tingle up my leg it appears?? Sign me up!!

This was a public service announcement on radio last week in Milwaukee courtesy of County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. Here is a man with a badge telling you that your best option for safety in Milwaukee is no longer calling your police it’s protecting you and your family with a fistful of steel (thank you RATM). 

 

Now of course this didn’t go over well with everyone in Milwaukee. The Mayor had this to say about Sheriff Clarke’s call for public action in arming themselves:

"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie,"

With layoffs and furloughs this could be a political sparring match with the Mayor and the Sheriff but the good Sheriff has held this strong belief even in the wake of Newtown. He went to as far call for an armed officer in every school in the country (which I strongly agree with).

Not to be undone, Sheriff Clarke had this to say about the Mayor:

"Several years ago, a tire-iron-wielding suspect beat Mayor Tom Barrett to within inches of his life. I would think that he would be a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."

Here we have an interesting situation. We have a man of the law who is actually a Democrat not only advocating for an increasingly armed public but also going out of his way to call those (read Liberals) that support gun restrictions what they truly are:

"Shame on liberals for exploiting tragedy once again in our country and try to use tragedy as a reason to take our rights away.  Liberals are shameful."

And you are never going to guess how the Sheriff suggests we pay for a cop in every school…

“With all the money we spend on going green projects and other waste of money social service spending we do."

Bu... bu... but we cant do that, what about global warming? It appears Sheriff doesnt care for talking points, now does it? Here is a Democrat, who won his last election with 70% of the vote, thinking outside the box and favoring people’s rights and security over those of the state’s; which naturally are seized when you deny the rights of the public. Does it get better than this?? 

Now ask yourself, where do you come in on this debate? Are you a “wolf at the door” as Sheriff Clarke called the criminal? Are you a sheep who is in favor of gun control? Or are you a man/women of free will who wants to maintain their God given rights to protect his/her life?

Now only if we could have this non partisan common sense in Washington.

Turning Japanese? Turning Japanese? I really do think so.

That's why I'm turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so

I know I cannot be the first to use this analogy, but god bless new wave music & the 80's, for this apropos song. 

With so much attention being paid to the Eurozone, specifically Greece’s departure from it and 165% debt to GDP ratio in tote, its surprising to me that nobody in the MSM mentions the king of living beyond its means. This is none other than the spawn of American ingenuity and the benchmark that all post-war reconstructions whom are modeled after… Japan.

Japan’s ascension from rubble after WW2 to the world's third-largest economy has been staggering, especially for a country that’s about the size of the state of Montana. With a population that values education as much as anyone in the world, Japan has become a standard to many and no more than those in the corporate world, noted for their dedication to innovation and organization. But if you dig a little deeper, Japan and with all its glitz, glam & refined style; it isn’t all what it seems.

Because, like all fiat facilitated economies, the debt monster is alive and well and the only way to keep from getting swallowed up is to keep pushing, keep innovating and never, ever under any circumstance become stagnant. Well, at least over the last 20 years or so that’s been the case.

This is precisely what happened to Japan in the 1990’s known in Japan and around the world as Japan’s “lost decade”. When the NIKKEI started to free fall and real estate prices started to fall with it, those asset bubbles burst. This left the government in panic mode, so like all bureaucracies do in a panic, they did the opposite of what was right and did what was easy - threw money at it, instead of letting the natural correction run its course. 

They began to doll out stimulus after stimulus (sound familiar?), bailed out banks and insurance companies (getting warmer?) with the economy still limping along they said the hell with it and raised its consumption tax 2 percent (doesn’t this sound familiar too?) which subsequently brought on another recession.

After about two decades, and even with stimulus’s keep piling on, Japan’s economy finds itself in a ditch. Since 2011, the Bank of Japan has issued quantitative easing programs in excess of 900 billion alone. With very little to no growth potential, an aging population and an exponentially escalating debt tab; Japan is running on borrowed time. 

 

In a recent interview with Spiegel Online's Anne Seith, The Bank of Japan's governor, Masaaki Shirakawa said: "At the moment, the effect of our monetary policy in stimulating economic growth is very limited. The money is there, liquidity is abundant, interest rates are very low -- and, still, firms do not make use of accommodative financial conditions, the return on investment is too low."

Doesn't this sound eerily similar as well? 

Japan is currently using 25% of its outlays just to service their debt. If they raise interest rates, the number will climb dramatically. This is why the US is so fearful of raising its interests rates well. The FED wont entertain raising interest rates until 2014, so imagine all the cheap money printed off until then? If we are to raise interest rates where we already pay 220 billion on basically 0% what will it look like if those rates go up? As I pointed out back in March, via Kyle Bass, for every additional percentage point it will also bring about $140 Billion dollars on top of the existing 220 Billion.

  President's FY 2013 budget, Congressional Budget Office

Japan’s current debt to GDP ratio is currently 220% according to IMF reports for comparison’s sake the US debt to GDP ratio is about 102% (but that number has doubled in just four years). Japan however, unlike the US, has a few unique circumstances that will either prolong a slow death or escalate to their death at the speed of sound. 

Graph: zerohedge.com

Japan is one of the few countries that its public finances most of its debt (an astounding 95%). Thus, if they are comfortable with virtually no return on their investing (0.75% average return) into the debt and increasing inflation, they can literally keep financing their own debt as long as they don’t mind saving up to go to the grocery store as if it were a vacation.

The other option(s) is eye popping and absolutely lunacy to say the least. Newly elected Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants the Bank of Japan to start issuing “unlimited easing” starting with a 120 billion dollar bullet into infrastructure. If that doesn’t get inflation where he sees fit and despite a declining Yen the threats coming out of Shinzo Abe’s mouth, will bring the death of Japan sooner rather than later.

In true, ancient Japanese kamikaze fashion, the Liberal Democrat Shinzo Abe with all his love for easing (hello Bernanke) is threatening to change the country’s laws and actually take the Bank of Japan over: read quite literally, socialization.  

So, as you can see, here in the US by all accounts, we are not Japanese yet. Although if we keep up this pace, follow the Japanese playbook and we look at the last four years as any indication; it should tell you it’s only a matter of time before we do.  

'If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun he and Kassandra Perkins would both be alive today."

With last weeks murder/suicide of Kansas City Chief Jovan Blecher and girlfriend Kassandra Perkins, people from all walks of life often found themselves involved in this discussion in some way shape or form. While many of the details and motives remain a mystery, one thing remains clear - guns, do not kill people, people kill people. Many in the last week that have used this tragedy as a vehicle for their own agenda regarding gun laws and gun control and to my surprise it wasnt just the usual suspects on the "left". NBC's Bob Costas used the quote in the title to lead into his viewpoints of gun ownership in the country in an NFL halftime segment in last weeks Sunday night broadcast; 24 hours after the tragedy occurred. 

Agree or disagree with Costas using a sporting event to tout his political beliefs isnt the issue i have. Anyone familiar with sports knows Costas isnt one that hates the sound of his own voice. So if anyone in sports would be ignorant or arrogant enough to wade into such a controversial issue as gun control; Costas would be the man for the job. My issue isnt with him doing so from a network that is pretty decidedly liberal when it comes to their news, after-all "Lean Forward" is not just a slogan - as a verb it quite literally means to "Progress" and "Progressive" is the new word for Liberal... thus there is no hiding that networks news affiliation.

No, my issue lies squarely on the back of this notion that taking guns out of the hands of individuals will have some type of magical impact on stopping murders. The liberal mind that is hell bent on gun control and this cockamamie idea that this tragic murder could have been prevented if Belcher did not own a firearm is absurd and its a mindset closer related to the book & movie: Minority Report, as opposed to reasoning and logic.

Jovan Belcher wasn't a felon, he wasn't known to be mentally unstable nor did he even have a record. There was nothing that could have been done to keep Mr. Belcher from owning a legal firearm and obviously there is nothing that could have been done to keep him from owning one illegally either. So the issue isnt gun control or tighter restrictions; it is obviously gun ownership... period. That is not only an attack on the 2nd amendment its also a mistake on those that advocate such; as its the road to tyranny. Taking guns out of the hands of the public will not reduce crime, if anything, it will only create more of it and a bigger black market that already exists to support it. Dont believe me, ask the government how the war on drugs is going? How did the prohibition of alcohol work out?


According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a report from the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Some nut can get a gun legally or illegally and nothing will stop him from executing his despicable act before it happens. Some law abiding citizen can become emotional and beat his or her significant other with a bat or use a knife or shoot them with a gun and nothing will change that, the means that are used are of ill consequence. Crimes of passion and fits of rage are human problems, its not the choice of the instrument used to carry it out that's at fault. Trying to isolate one weapon as a problem where 99% of its owners never have to use it is just plain irresponsible. Bottom line: its just not possible in an open and free society to protect everybody from themselves.  

You want to stamp out gun violence? Allow and encourage more people to carry one. Every time there is a tragedy concerning gun violence the knee jerk reaction is the guns and the access are the blame and it couldnt be any further from the truth. The reason that one gun in a crowd of people can do so much damage is that not enough law abiding citizens carry a weapon. An overwhelming majority of gun related deaths are involving one person being armed and another person not being armed. How do you make these situation less damaging? Again... allow and encourage more people to carry a firearm.

If Mr Belcher didnt own a firearm would it have prevented her death? No idea, who knows what he may have picked up or did to her with his hands... and NFL linebacker doesnt need a gun to cause bodily harm to a women. If she had been carrying would this have prevented the death of Kassandra Perkins? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is assured... it would at least bettered her odds, without question. And that is the point, its basic mathematics... guns are the great equalizer and ill use this Ronald Regan quote to kill (pardon the pun) two birds with one stone:

"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all."

Leave it to the Cleaver: Congressional Black Caucus overt double standard

Maybe it’s just my imagination or has our fine nation become that hypersensitive that we have started looking for hidden messages because those actual messages in plain English don’t exist? Seems rather self-serving, doesn’t it? It also seems self promotion through divisions, such as race, are circling the drain as pundits scramble through sentences of ideological opponents for “subliminal racist” messages.   

That’s the latest word from the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver (D) of Missouri. Mr Cleaver is the super sleuth who decoded two recent Presidentialcandidates sentences that appear to be dog whistle words to the Republican red-neck base that President Obama is in fact (gasp) a black (50%) man. 

Yes, it appears that the racist voters who are on the fence of reelecting a black man need to be reminded that in fact Mr Obama is well… black, you know… in case they forgot.

I am going to go out on a limb and predict racist’s who vote based on color or would have their vote’s at least weighted in such nonsense would not need a reminding; but I’m also not equipped with the: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 who can spot such subliminal messages.

See, to a typical person, phrases like Gingrich’s “food stamp president” and Mitt Romney’s comments on “the very poor” would think: Poor. However, if equipped with: Racist Code Detector Version 7.5 you would in fact see the real meaning: “damn the black-man and do no reelect him because he is only helping blacks”!

So, if racists will vote against whom they despise anyway without a subliminal message; why the need for the racist code detector version 7.5? The answer is simple. It’s nothing more then a power grab. First, this is the Webster definition of a Caucus:

  

: a closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party or faction usually to select candidates or to decide on policy; also : a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause

That seems to be a simple premise, is closed meeting of persons united to promote an agreed upon cause. Forty years ago the Congressional Black Caucus was founded “to positively influence the course of events pertinent to African Americans and others of similar experience and situation.” So, its a closed meeting of like minded people who want to help black people. Now, this is where it gets interesting…

In a piece done in 2007, Politico’s Josephine Hearn told the story about Stephen I. Cohen, a Liberal Democrat who was rejected for membership to the caucus because he was white. Despite the fact that 60% of his constituents were black not to mention the majority of his staff was African American including his chief of staff. Seems rather confusing considering that a caucus is “a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause” and being its black, meaning race – Mr Cohen fits, his policies (Liberal Democrat) and his constituents fit that mission.

It was William Clay Jr (D) from Missouri who had the courage (or audacity) to lay it out in black and white (pardon the pun) for why Mr Cohen was not allowed directly from a state from his office:

Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.

Now we have the answer. Its not about “the needs and concerns of the black population” because if it was you wouldn’t reject a man applying to your “club” who wants to do exactly what your statement above says – help blacks (you know the people who elected him). This seems like the complete opposite of representation. And let me remind you again, its not about representation, its about power – this is just one of many clear examples.

In that same article was also the story of how Al Green (D) from Texas (now a member of the Black Caucus) got elected despite running against an incumbent Chris Bell, D-Texas who was also a Democrat but white. Hearn stated that:

Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (Black Caucus member), D-Texas, campaigned against him. 

That is another example of those in the Black Caucus of favoring skin color over policy. It would be “subliminal” if it was a Republican but to be doing this to those in your own party? This is another example of how the two party system is nothing but a sham, a fraud used to promote division across many lines and race being one of them and one of the easiest to promote at that.  

Last but not least, we have the Chairman – Mr Cleaver, the guy with the Racist Code Detector Version 7.5. I will let his quotes on the subliminal messages paint the picture:

“In the last few days, both Gov. Romney and Speaker Gingrich have been guilty of saying things that are not helpful to a society begging for racial inclusion. Whether they are intentional or not, I’m not 100 percent certain; I do know that it doesn't matter in many cases. It’s just unfortunate and it tends to divide.”

Cleaver went on to chide Congress for being “nasty” rather than “inclusive.”

Is there anything left to say? Do I have to point out the hypocrisy of the Congressional Black Caucus or do these quotes of double talk do the job? If not, let these words sink in by J.C. Watts (who is black) was elected to Congress from Oklahoma in 1994 on his views of the Congressional Black Caucus:

They said that I had sold out and (called me) Uncle Tom. But I have my thoughts. And I think they're race-hustling poverty pimps"