Support Good Government

Friends,

Several bills assaulting your right to keep and bear arms were introduced to Congress on Monday, January 7, 2013. Among other things, these bills seek to register semi-automatic firearms. Noncompliance will be met with police raids of your home, seizure and destruction of your property, fines, and imprisonment.

Friends,

Several bills assaulting your right to keep and bear arms were introduced to Congress on Monday, January 7, 2013. Among other things, these bills seek to register semi-automatic firearms. Noncompliance will be met with police raids of your home, seizure and destruction of your property, fines, and imprisonment. I understand many people were upset by the Sandy Hook tragedy. So was I. The appropriate response to this kind of tragedy is to empower you to defend yourself from the criminal, insane, and invaders foreign and domestic. It is not to further restrict your inalienable right to defense of yourself, your home, your livelihood, and your children.

The legacy of the twentieth century is that governments murdered millions more people — mostly those over which they governed — than were ever killed by criminals or died in foreign wars. Many of those governments which registered and seized firearms were amongst the most murderous; registration and seizure were but the prelude to widespread imprisonment, exile, and executions.

Many people have a bias toward normalcy and believe this cannot occur in the United States of America. Should these bills pass, we can only hope they are correct.

Semi-automatic firearms with large magazines have been in routine use since the time of Jefferson, when he chartered the Lewis & Clark expedition in 1804 to include a prototype semi-automatic rifle as part of the arsenal. We Americans have used these tools as individuals and armies for over two centuries. Increasingly frequent school shootings, however, are a relatively new and rare phenomenon mostly occurring since the passage of the 1990 Gun Free School Zones act.

Should these bills pass — despite their unconstitutional nature — I will register my firearms peacefully. No black helicopters will descend on my suburban house. No BATF agents will endanger their lives raiding my home in the middle of the night to seize unregistered firearms. Should one day we be invaded or the government overrun, those of us with our names on those registration lists will be targeted to shortly thereafter receive bullets to the back of our heads just like happened in the Soviet Union, Cambodia, China, Turkey, Uganda, Rwanda, Germany, and occupied Europe during World War 2.

But I will fight in hopes to prevent that day from ever arriving.

Some few of the bills below are fairly innocuous. I’m in favor, for instance, of reporting when guns are stolen, and a freely-usable electronic system for instantly checking the background of potential buyers so I can be sure I’m not selling a firearm to a criminal. We could limit abuse through the simple creation of one-time passcodes to this information on the part of prospective buyers.

But the abuses in most of these bills should not — MUST not — stand. They would outlaw the most common, safe, and effective firearms, rounds, magazines, and add-ons for home defense. And the timing of all the bills below is suspect; all play upon emotionalism in hopes of pushing a political agenda, instead of supporting and being supported by logic, reason, and balance of power encouraged by our Constitution.

Please act with me. Write your Congressmen or Congresswomen. Forbid them from taking away your life, liberty, and property through these bills:

  1. HR 137 (Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY) “THE FIX GUN CHECKS ACT: To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale.”
  2. HR 138 (Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY) “THE HIGH CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE ACT: To prohibit the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and for other purposes.”
  3. HR 141 (Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY) “CLOSING THE ‘GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE’: To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.”
  4. HR 142 (Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY) “To require face to face purchases of ammunition, to require licensing of ammunition dealers, and to require reporting regarding bulk purchases of ammunition.”
  5. HR 34 (Bobby Rush, D-IL) “THE BLAIR HOLD FIREARM LICENSING AND RECORD OF SALE ACT: To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.”
  6. HR 117 (Rush Holt, D-NJ) “To provide for the mandatory licensing and registration of handguns”
  7. HR 65 (Sheila Jackson, D-TX) “RAISING THE AGE OF LEGAL HANDGUN OWNERSHIP TO 21: To prevent children’s access to firearms”
  8. HR 21 (Jim Moran, D-VA) “THE NRA MEMBERS’ GUN SAFETY ACT: To provide for greater safety in the use of firearms”
  9. Not yet submitted: “Stopping the spread of deadly assault weapons” (Dianne Feinstein, D-CA)

Although I also dislike its timing, please encourage your Congressmen or Congresswomen to support the one bill submitted that will actually help reduce the frequency and severity of school shootings:

  1. HR 133 (Thomas Massie, R-KY), “To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act”

Respectfully, Matthew P. Barnson

Supporting links:

  • Magazine limit ban being pushed to a vote as soon as possible, otherwise people will come to their senses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrAt7-ij2k
  • Write your congressman: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/mail/?alertid=61046526&type=ML
  • What extremist anti-gun people really are willing to do. Hint: it involves prying firearms out of the cold, dead fingers of anybody who has one: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20121230/OPINION01/312300033/1036/OPINION01/Kaul-Nation-needs-new-agenda-guns
  • In my opinion, this man embodies the voice of the Bolshevik Revolution: Ask the defenders of liberty to give up their arms peaceably. If they don’t do it, kill them.

About me

Many people think you need to consider the source in any argument. So here you go.

I own one 9mm pistol. I do not own any high-capacity semi-automatic rifles outside of an antique tube-fed .22 with a cracked stock that was given to me by my brother-in-law a decade ago. I do not hunt. I do not fish. I carry a firearm mostly to defend myself against two-legged predators.

I drive a hybrid and bicycle to work a lot. I voted for the moderate candidate — Barack Obama — both times, but I oppose mainstreaming the opinions of the extreme Left. I’m upset at how polarized toward the Far Right our House of Representatives has become, yet at a time like this I’m glad someone with a backbone might actually fight for my rights instead of buttering them up and serving them to a vain delusion that banning semi-automatic weapons will somehow save us from criminals and the insane.

Some friends have asked me to finish the sentence, “I need an assault weapon because…” The term “assault weapon” is a pejorative. I will use the term “modern sporting rifle”, because that’s what it is.

I need a modern sporting rifle because it is the lightest, safest, most reliable, most comfortable, most ambidextrous, most configurable, most well-tested, least wallboard-penetrating, safest to use at night defending my home, cheapest to keep in good practice with rifle ever developed by mankind; all of those features are extremely useful to me when practicing with the firearm, and may be critical to the defense of my home, my livelihood, my family, or my life.

Before you accuse me of shifting goalposts, I edit this document as needed to address inaccuracies, poor grammar, incorrect spelling, poorly phrased logic, etc. Words are ephemeral on the Internet. Deal with it.

How to recognize a conspiracy theory

In this age when conspiracy theories abound and you can find entire communities devoted to group-think, finding dragons in the clouds and believing them to be real, I think it’s a great idea to revisit Michael Shermer’s Conspiracy Theory Detector. Summary below the break.

In this age when conspiracy theories abound and you can find entire communities devoted to group-think, finding dragons in the clouds and believing them to be real, I think it’s a great idea to revisit Michael Shermer’s Conspiracy Theory Detector. Summary below the break.

  1. Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections — or to randomness — the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
  2. The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
  3. The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
  4. Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
  5. The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
  6. The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
  7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
  8. The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
  9. The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
  10. The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Examples of conspiracy theories that fail the test: “Birther” theory, “9/11 planned demolition”, and “Clinton Body Count”. If you hold up the Benghazi ambassador assassination to the same scrutiny, I don’t see how anyone can come up with any other explanation than that there WAS a conspiracy of Islamic militants who decided to attack the compound on the same day as anti-American demonstrations took place in many other highly-populated places in the Middle East.

It’s also useful to note that most conspiracy theorists share common traits likely to cause them to believe conspiracy theories:

  1. Backing more than one conspiracy theory,
  2. Talking about conspiracy theories with like-minded people,
  3. Endorsing democratic procedures,
  4. An imaginative outlook, (this is not a compliment; it means imagining things and believing they exist in the real world)
  5. Mistrust of authority,
  6. Feeling suspicious of others.

Colloquialisms: Canary in a Coal Mine

Conversation with my staff over the phone in India today. I love colloquialisms.

Me: “In this case, our application is just the canary in the coal mine. ”
Them: “A what?”
Me: “A canary in a coal mine. If it is dead, it’s not because it had a pre-existing health condition.”
Them: “What health condition did it have?”
Me: “… Uh. It was poisoned. By being in a coal mine.”

Conversation with my staff over the phone in India today. I love colloquialisms.

Me: “In this case, our application is just the canary in the coal mine. ” Them: “A what?” Me: “A canary in a coal mine. If it is dead, it’s not because it had a pre-existing health condition.” Them: “What health condition did it have?” Me: “… Uh. It was poisoned. By being in a coal mine.” Them: “Why would a coal mine poison a bird?” Me: “The coal mine may contain poisonous gases. That’s why miners would take a bird down into the mine with them: so if the canary dies, they could know to run to the surface.” Them: “That’s so cruel. If there are poisonous gases in a mine, they shouldn’t bring a bird with them in the first place.”

Had to go on mute. Laughing too hard!

Who are the Secessionists?

Comment thread: https://www.facebook.com/ihenpecked/posts/10151254231702458?comment_id=24876373&notif_t=like

This morning, I decided to sit down and analyze some statistics, and from them I arrived at a hypothesis that I still need to validate. What do you think?

Comment thread: https://www.facebook.com/ihenpecked/posts/10151254231702458?comment_id=24876373&notif_t=like

This morning, I decided to sit down and analyze some statistics, and from them I arrived at a hypothesis that I still need to validate. What do you think?

If you look at the statistics, as of 2012 the median household income is RISING in the USA, and in fact is at the highest levels in history in inflation-adjusted dollars. It’s easy to see where the money is coming from if you analyze income over time by gender, race, and education. The overall national economy is not a zero-sum game (the US economy overall is expanding without taking away from other economies; in fact, economies world-wide are expanding, too) but wages within the total at any given time appear to be a zero-sum game.

Hispanics and Blacks are increasing in income, while Asians and Whites are decreasing. Women are increasing in income, while Men are decreasing. Pay for those with at least an Associate’s Degree is increasing, while for those with less it is decreasing; more women than men are getting those degrees, and Hispanics and Blacks are increasing their share of degrees while Whites are decreasing their share.

Therefore, if you are a white man with less than an Associate’s Degree — a really, really gigantic block of voters! — you’ve probably experienced a profound negative shift in your socioeconomic status over the past decade. From this point of view, Barack Obama is a nightmare for America, accelerating this shift, and representing the “evil” that is destroying a way of life.

From my perspective, there’s a simple — but not easy — cure. Get an education and get on-board the gravy train of the “knowledge economy” that is at the heart of America’s current economic domination of the planet.

But it seems to be more popular to rail at perceived injustice than to improve one’s own situation.

George Washington on Political Parties

For those who missed it, here was George Washington’s 1796 farewell address to the nation, touching on political parties:

For those who missed it, here was George Washington’s 1796 farewell address to the nation, touching on political parties:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

US Congress Partisan & Ideological Makeup

If you have a few minutes and are interested in an unbiased graphic of political trends in the House and Senate, check this out. It shows the shifts in power based exclusively on economic voting bloc patterns of the House and Senate over time. There are some fascinating patterns here, especially if you click the “large” graphic and pan around…

If you have a few minutes and are interested in an unbiased graphic of political trends in the House and Senate, check this out. It shows the shifts in power based exclusively on economic voting bloc patterns of the House and Senate over time. There are some fascinating patterns here, especially if you click the “large” graphic and pan around…

* The near-complete complete collapse of the Center Right in the House and voting dominance of the Far Right, starting around 1984 and continuing today. The last time we saw such an evisceration of the Center Right was under William McKinley at the start of the 20th century, but even then a few holdouts remained. Today, the only Center Right congressmen in the House are Democrats. * Voting Far Right seems to be a winning strategy for Republicans in the House for the past thirty years. While I often disagree with the Far Right ideology — I’m very much a Centrist — it’s hard to argue with the success of the takeover. * It’s hard to pick out the Policy Pendulum from this graph, but it looks like House voting patterns swung from Center Right to Center Left in 1930-1940, 1956-1966, 1974-1993, and 2006-2008. * Joe Biden’s trend from Far Left to Centrist during a long Senate career. * Newt Gingrich’s voting record looks very much like that of Gerald Ford. * That centrist candidates really tend to get their teeth kicked in in swing states; one is much safer on the Far Right or Far Left if the goal of the politician is longevity. * Senators Hatch and Byrd have one thing in common: they both kept their Senate seats far, far too long. I wonder if they’ll both die in office, too?

http://xkcd.com/1127/ Blogged at: http://barnson.org/node/1883

Open Letter to Republican Strategists

I just read an Open Letter to Republican Strategists, and gotta say I can’t agree more. I’m not quite as affluent as this guy, nor do we align on every issue.

I just read an Open Letter to Republican Strategists, and gotta say I can’t agree more. I’m not quite as affluent as this guy, nor do we align on every issue. Nevertheless, I’m a bread-and-butter type of voter for the Republican Party — my party, by the way — but I handed in my vote that helped hand the Democrats the election.

Our party needs to get out of the business of being up in everybody else’s business, and focus on a core message that actually resonates with my kind of voter:

  • Fiscal conservatism in deed, not just in name as it has been for my entire lifetime.
  • Be pro-science. The current Republican anti-science stance is repugnant. Arguing over the benefits and disadvantages of cap-and-trade proposals is just fine. Arguing over the existence of settled conclusions in climate science, rape-induced pregnancy, evolution, and physics just makes you look like “the party of the stupid”.
  • Be in favor of fixing health care. Being squarely anti-ACA is inimical to this goal; enhance, improve, and adjust the legislation. Your promise to “repeal ObamaCare” on Day 1 in office is a big part of what led to your defeat. Give productive suggestions, instead of a promise to tear down necessary improvements to US health infrastructure.

There is more, but that would be a good start. Instead of deciding to double-down again on an extremist form of anti-American fascism, why not entertain the notion of finding out what a winning constituency actually wants?

Veteran’s Day: Fears For The New Civil War

Today, like each Veteran’s Day for the past several years, I am grateful for veterans who have defended our country. Even those on both sides of the conflict dating back to 1860, when the Confederate states illegally seceded, roused others to support their secession due to the election of an unpopular President (Abraham Lincoln), then took violent action at Fort Sumter to spark the Civil War.

Today, like each Veteran’s Day for the past several years, I am grateful for veterans who have defended our country. Even those on both sides of the conflict dating back to 1860, when the Confederate states illegally seceded, roused others to support their secession due to the election of an unpopular President (Abraham Lincoln), then took violent action at Fort Sumter to spark the Civil War.

I pray the extremists of today do not attempt to repeat the failed effort of the Confederacy once again.

I’ve recently been researching social, economic, governmental, and other historic developments leading up to conflicts within the United States and other civilizations, specifically the Civil War, WW1, and WW2. Our country’s history is very unique in some ways. For instance, it’s the first secular government based on enlightenment principles to survive as more than a solitary nation-state of roughly the size of a city. But starting with the Civil Rights Movement up to a peak with the re-election of the nation’s first Black president, the country seems to be on a track towards the same kind of fundamental, ideological, extremist disagreement that fueled the Civil War but started forty years earlier.

Lincoln was not even on the ballot of ten states due to lack of support, yet won anyway. His election on a platform positioned to oppose the Conservative platform of Southern Democrats was extremely divisive, and conservatives in the South saw Lincoln’s election as an assault upon their sovereignty, their dignity, and their way of life. Secessions began even before his inauguration as a result of policies that ultimately would unite the nation, but not before a terrible cost of lives.

We ignore the lessons of history to our peril. My chief political concern today is what seems to be the pending inevitable loss of life squandered in an ideological conflict within the United States unless the impact of extremist factions can be mitigated. The gulf of understanding is deepening, making it extremely difficult to maintain a position as a moderate in today’s political climate.

The voting alignment of the most-recent election along almost purely racial divisions is alarming and dangerous to the health of the country. Romney lost due to a seemingly-inevitable decline of his primary voting bloc: non-Hispanic ethnic whites, both males and females. Unless we do something FAST to come to some kind of New Middle, we’re going to see a new revolution along such racial and loosely geographic lines within our lifetimes due to this decline of influence.

Just like the South as the Union expanded from 1840 to 1860.

Chain E-Mail of Obama “Firsts” analyzed

Got this note in my Facebook inbox. Tough to address so much misinformation, but I’ll try. This list of “Firsts” is clearly in the league of “throw enough poo, some of it will stick”, but I was asked by a friend to provide some answers, so here goes.

Quit trashing President Obama’s accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. He has an impressive list of 34 accomplishments:
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

Flatly false. This claim is based upon an April Fools joke article that Birthers took seriously. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

Got this note in my Facebook inbox. Tough to address so much misinformation, but I’ll try. This list of “Firsts” is clearly in the league of “throw enough poo, some of it will stick”, but I was asked by a friend to provide some answers, so here goes.

Quit trashing President Obama’s accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. He has an impressive list of 34 accomplishments: First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

Flatly false. This claim is based upon an April Fools joke article that Birthers took seriously. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

Dubious, but not outright false. While “042” is typically a social security number associated with Connecticut, there are several reasons why this may have occurred, not the least of which is that the “area number” doesn’t always mean what people assume it means. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.asp

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

True, but this fits into the category of “the party blaming the President is the actual party who bears the blame”. S&P gave very specific reasons for the downgrade. It’s important to realize who S&P blames: “…we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon. “…new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. ”

In other words, S&P downgraded because A) Revenues dropped precipitously over the past ten years due to both tax cuts and a reduction of GDP, B) the Republicans and Democrats could not agree on fiscal policy, and C) an obstructionist Congress refused to allow a return to historical taxation rates as a possible option to make good on our debts. Blame the President if you want, but he was powerless to do anything more than make speeches while the Republicans blocked all efforts to increase revenue.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_credit_rating_downgrade#S.26P_rationale_for_the_downgrade

First President to violate the War Powers Act.

False. If you accept Republican Congressional framing of the issue, President Obama is the third President to violate the War Powers act. It was first violated 8 years after Congress’ override of Nixon’s veto by President Reagan in 1981, then again by Clinton in 1999, and finally by Obama in 2011.

That said, some — including the Administration — argue that Obama may have not violated the War Powers act at all. By providing exclusively logistical support in Libya beyond the 60-day limit — no combat troops on the ground — there have been no military casualties of the type typically seen in an armed conflict (excluding four diplomatic deaths, which are non-military). Congressional Republicans claim this argument does not pass the “small test”, while Congressional Democrats tend to support it.

Barack Obama has drawn criticism for failing to involve the US Military in combat actions in Libya as a result of the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi. It may be safely argued that Obama declined to involve the military in response to the attacks specifically to avoid violating the War Powers act. This creates another situation in which those crying most strongly for military involvement are simultaneously arguing against its use, as Congressional Republicans find themselves arguing both for and against military involvement in Libya.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .

False. Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar was temporarily held in contempt for enforcing new safety standards in February 2011. As he was appointed by Obama, one might safely argue he was acting as a proxy for the President. However, the claim as it stands above is false: Barack Obama was never held in contempt.

Regardless, as of this writing, those contempt claims have been resolved.

First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party

True, but with caveats. First, I assume this refers to the “individual mandate” of Obamacare. The Supreme Court has ruled the individual mandate a “tax”, but the recipient of the proceeds of the tax will be a certain category of insurance provider. This tax is in lieu of the “single payer” taxation system which could not pass Congress due to opposition from Republicans and moderate Democrats.

First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.

I have to change my rating from “True with Caveats” to “Mixed” in order to cover the complexity of the answer.

Tautology: Considering that the neologism “shovel-ready” did not exist until the Obama administration, it is impossible for previous presidents to have spent money on projects which used the term. It is a false statement that the President spent a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready jobs”; the Stimulus was $787 Billion and included a wide variety of monies allocated for various economic stimuli, not just “shovel-ready jobs”. It is a true statement that the funds for “shovel-ready jobs” in many areas — including $50 Billion for transportation — in fact require further planning and allocation of resources before shovels can be used, and were not within 2-3 months of being ready for shovels at the time of the allocation of money for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shovel_ready

First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

Misleading. As part of GMs bankruptcy proceedings, the deal required that to qualify for a $50Bn restructuring loan GM favor obligations to employees — including wages, pensions, and benefits — over obligations to other creditors.

What’s interesting is as of this writing, a search for “abrogate bankruptcy law” only turns up results involving this laundry-list of ostensible offensive “firsts”. Abrogate means “to repeal”, and the President did no such thing. He stipulated lender conditions for a loan which required favoring middle-class employees over institutional lenders. This requirement was accepted by GM and its creditors, though it may be safely argued that the US Government had GM over a barrel by this point: the creditors would have received virtually nothing without the restructuring loan, and this way received something rather than nothing. The complaint is from those creditors who would have preferred the restructuring loan favor their interests first over those of the employees.

First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

Two statuses: Tautology, and False. The DREAM Act did not exist in a form likely to be ratified under George W. Bush, and did not exist under any president prior to that. The Obama administration has announced that for the remainder of Obama’s term, it will not deport illegal immigrants who meet the criteria to remain in the USA as specified in the DREAM act. Presidential authority to enforce existing laws in ways that meet the administration’s goals has a long history dating back to George Washington’s decisions regarding the US position in the French Revolutionary Wars. In this case, no provision of the DREAM act is being implemented; the Obama administration is suspending some deportation temporarily based on the assumption that this Republican-sponsored bill with broad support will be passed.

First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

False. The temporary deportation suspension is not secret, not amnesty, and doesn’t apply to those convicted of felonies. However, since the act of illegal immigration is itself a crime, refusing to deport an illegal immigrant is, by definition, refusing to deport someone who has committed a crime. Therefore, it is true Obama stopped deportation of criminals if their sole crime is that of having migrated to the USA without going through official channels.

First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

False. In response to encouragement from the administration, BP created a $20Bn fund to handle claims related to its Deepwater Horizon spill, which created a massive environmental and economic hardship in the Gulf region. To date, billions of dollars of the fund have been distributed to claimants under a variety of circumstances to repay damages to US citizens and corporations directly injured by their oil spill. Early complaints that BP was not administering the fund fairly — distributing only $375M of the $20,000M — resulted in BP handing over administration to an independent third-party administrator, Kenneth Feinberg. Feinberg was made famous for his even-handed handling of claims under the Bush administration when he was appointed by the Attorney General to handle claims related to September 11.

First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

False. As part of a taxpayer-funded restructuring loan, the Obama administration required new leadership at Chrysler. This requirement was not put in place for Bush’s earlier TARP bailout of the company. However, this is not the first time the government has forced management changes as part of restructuring loans and government takeover of failing or monopolistic institutions. Demands for management changes — particularly for monopolistic industries — date from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal.

First President to terminate America ‘s ability to put a man in space.

False. Obama scrapped Bush’s political-ploy “put a man back on the moon by 2020” plan in favor of broader manned spaceflight goals including much deeper space and targets further away — and more rewarding — than our Moon. However, he did eliminate the Space Shuttle program at over $1Bn per launch, resulting in large cost savings for the nation and opening up funds to be used in other areas of exploration than low-orbit maintenance flights.

Since May 1, 1961, there have been gaps as long as seven years in which the United States did not accomplish any manned space flights. As of this writing, the final Space Shuttle landed July 21, 2011, resulting in a gap of manned space flight of 16 months to the present. Currently the USA is partially funding the private-sector CCDev program for manned spaceflight, and continues pursuing public/private joint ventures for manned spaceflight in the American research paradigm which has become a model for the world: public funding for private ventures with healthy competition in the industry, resulting in consistent innovation and exploration.

First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

The prayer claim is utterly, irrefutably false. Barack Obama has never canceled the National Day of Prayer. However, he has not required White House staffers join him in observing it as some previous Presidents have. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/prayerday.asp

I also rate the second claim “false” for getting both the quote and the spirit of the quote wrong. In 2006, Obama was quoted saying the USA is not “just” a Christian nation. In this regard, he is factually correct. This USA is, broadly, 76% “Christian” as of 2008, with the rest divided over various religions and a substantial 12%-15% with no affiliation and none desired. The context of that quote dealt with ensuring minority religious populations are not ignored by a tyranny of the majority.

First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

This is true. The author, however, appears to be suggesting that Obama is approving bills without reading them or is signing everything. This story, however, doesn’t mean what the author appears to intend. The USA PATRIOT Act was scheduled to expire on a given day at 6AM while the President was traveling to France on a diplomatic mission. It took until 5:45 AM for both houses of Congress to approve the extension to the bill. With insufficient time to fly the bill to the President due to Congress’ delay, the decision was made to use an autopen. It marked the first such use in history. Were it not for this technology, the bill would have expired completely, the laws would have to have been drawn anew, and a great deal of counter-terrorism funding would have evaporated in the interim which would endanger US lives.

The merits of the USA PATRIOT act are debatable. I personally disagree with his decision to sign the extension of the Act, particularly with so little time to read it. It is regrettable legacy legislation that should be allowed to die on its own, and only certain provisions kept.

First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

False. Presidents have been refusing to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional since George Washington. In fact, refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws is considered by many to be a key function of the Presidency, as a check and balance against Congressional over-reaching.

First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.

False, but concerning. In the wake of the passage of Obamacare, numerous health insurance companies began immediately raising rates — without market justification — and blaming yet-to-be-enacted legislation for the increase in costs. Health & Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent out a letter instructing insurance companies not to unjustifiably raise costs in advance of planned changes to health care law changes, or they would face penalties. On the one hand, notifications against price-gouging and inducements to panic in monopoly or near-monopoly industries have a very long history in the Executive branch. On the other, threatening retribution against speech is not acceptable.

First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

Mixed. This appears to be in reference to Boeing’s location of a new manufacturing facility in South Carolina — a so-called “Right To Work” or anti-Union state — instead of the Seattle, Washington area. The National Labor Relations Board filed a ten-page complaint against Boeing for discriminating against union members in hiring practices and production of new designs in South Carolina.

This claim could be rated “False”. Complaints like this are not unprecedented; Barack Obama is not the first President to influence the choice of location for private industry serving a public good. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was, as far as I can tell, the first to do so, dictating factory locations and output for the war effort. I’m fairly certain such oversight existed before FDR, but have not yet found documentation one way or the other.

First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

False. First, the President also does not swear to protect the States; he swears to faithfully execute his Office, and protect and defend the Constitution. Second, the President did not file lawsuits; the Justice Department under the Attorney General did. Even if one rightly considers the Justice Department a proxy for the President, the Justice Department has since its inception in the office of Attorney General routinely files lawsuits for civil rights, ADA, foreign policy, discrimination, currency disputes, and other constitutional violations by the states, as well as lawsuits against monopolies and in favor of the rights of people of the USA against various states which sought to infringe their rights.

The US Department of Justice has been at loggerheads with states over various since the second Attorney General, William Bradford began the practice of assisting states with creation of laws consistent with Federal guidelines. In fact, Attorney General Bradford represented the United States in the very first case ever tried before the US Supreme Court, representing William West in his suit against the state of Rhode Island. The US Attorney General’s office and Justice Department have a long history of defending citizens against abuses by stage legislatures, and it may be argued from the history of the inauguration of the office that one of its primary duties is to protect citizens from such statutory over-reaching.

First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

Misleading. The Obama administration, indeed, has engaged in controversial revocation of permits for federal land exploitation which were disused in order to re-issue permits to those individuals or organizations which would use them. However, the purpose of those revocations is to free up permits from those interests who sat on them for decades without taking action so they can be used by interests who will exploit them sooner.

First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

False, but a valid concern for supporters of coal-based power. Congressional legislation and Presidential action have bankrupted industries and corporations for a very long time, from anti-trust regulations in the early twentieth century to today’s stringent emissions requirements. Those who cannot compete die; those who innovate to meet tougher standards survive. That said, Obama mentioned in a 2008 interview that he desired to bankrupt those industries which could not meet reasonable emissions requirements, and has clarified but not disavowed his statement. If his “All Of The Above” energy strategy statements are to be believed, coal should be part of the energy strategy, not legislated out of existence through too-stringent emissions requirements.

First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

Was ranked False, but now Plausible. Walpin hadbeen absent from work, had informed former president George W. Bush of his desire to resign on Obama’s inauguration day, was fired for reasons well-documented (including his near-total absence from duty) and was terminated by the unanimous request of the Board of Directors of AmeriCorps. However, the timing of the decision 7 months after Walpin’s referral of Kevin Johnson for prosecution is reason for concern that this firing was politically-motivated, despite Walpin’s poor job performance.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/16/obama-accuses-fired-inspector-general-americorps-confused-disoriented/ http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/06/white_house_explains_firing_of.html

First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

False, but an important statistic to watch. This represents both an incorrect number and a misleading statistic. George W. Bush popularized the practice, with 49 appointed officials acting in a “czar” capacity, and Barack Obama 43. However, prior Presidents never had more than 19. This appears to be a growing trend in governance, and one that has the appearance of an extra-Constitutional appointment. It probably should be subject to either a Constitutional Amendment authorizing the practice, or treatment of Czars as cabinet-level appointments requiring approval by the Senate.

First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

Pejorative statement, subject to interpretation. Status “unknown but presumed false”, as other Presidents have had advisors frequently characterized as “radical” by their opposition.

First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 102 to date.

True, but misleading. Most Americans have some sort of fitness regimen, as does President Obama. The average human being should — according to common consensus — get at least three hours of exercise per week. If each of those 102 trips were five hours, then Barack Obama will have exercised for approximately 510 hours over his four-year term. To be consistent with fitness goals, 624 hours of exercise would be expected of any American who wishes to maintain a minimum level of fitness over the course of four years.

Obama, of course, is no paragon of fitness virtue. Although he’s given up smoking, that life-long habit may have cost him many years of taxpayer-funded future illness as a result. So although a fitness regimen is laudable, the choice of extremely low-impact sport (golf) and eyebrow-raising health choices in the past are reason enough to make anyone skeptical of the hours spent “golfing”.

First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

Three claims, evaluated independently. Medical: False. Many Presidents have hidden medical conditions while in office that did not render them unfit for duty. http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/ Educational: False. Many presidents did not reveal their scholastic records, which are not “sealed” or hidden, but simply cannot be released without approval of the person who’s records they are. George W. Bush’s college records, for instance, were not released until they were leaked. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/ Travel: False. Barack Obama has extensively documented his travels in two award-winning books, his passport is a matter of public record, and since his election as Senator his travel has been extensively scrutinized.

First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

False. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for Obama’s efforts to revitalize nuclear disarmament, among other reasons detailed on the Nobel site. Obama has, in fact, revitalized foreign relations, nuclear oversight, and reduced Russian nuclear inventories to historic new lows under the provisions of the START treaties. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

However, it might be safely said that Obama was largely awarded the Peace Prize for his rhetoric in contrast to George W. Bush’s pro-war stance and disregard for global reaction to widespread US military action, rather than his real accomplishments which were, at the time of the award, mostly in-progress and not yet complete.

First President to go on multiple global “apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

False. While President Obama has visited more foreign countries than any president in history — largely to repair foreign relations damaged by years of neglect under his predecessor — there were no apologies in these visits. The “apology tour” is simply an oft-repeated lie.

Source: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/editing-romneys-apology-defense/

First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.

False. While the President is always on duty, Obama’s days nominally on vacation put him squarely in the middle of the road for recent Presidents: far fewer than some, slightly more than others.

“So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.” Sources: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-20093801.html http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/

First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

False. Lady Bird Johnson had 36. Laura Bush had 26. Jackie Kennedy had 40. Michelle Obama’s 22 is a reasonable number in context, but it may be possible she is the only First Lady to have had exactly twenty-two assistants.

Michelle Obama’s Staff

First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

FALSE. The now-deceased dog trainer who trained the Obamas’ dog earned a TOTAL of $102,000 per year training many dogs for high-profile figures. US taxpayers DO NOT pay $102,000/year to a dog trainer. The Obama’s presidential dog “Bo” — a Portuguese Water Dog — was a gift from Senator Kennedy shortly after Obama took office. Bo’s training was not paid for from the Presidential salary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29

First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

True. But is using a civilization’s holy book to persuade them to behave peacably and in cooperation with our nation wrong? This statement seems to feed into the extreme Birther “Obama is a Secret Muslim” argument which has been repeatedly debunked. On a personal note, I find it extremely concerning that in order to be considered a righteous Christian in America today, many believe one must be strongly opposed to competing belief systems.

First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences”.

False. This is yet another parody believed to be real by the gullible. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/veteranshealth.asp

Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

False. Once again, the quote is from a parody of a White House brainstorming session. No such actual quote exists from the President. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/would-obama-have-soldiers-pay-for-own-war-injuries/

First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs. Arizona).

False. Barack Obama is not the first president to attempt to overrule a state’s destructive attempt at foreign policy; foreign relations is solely the purview of the President, with ratification required by Congress. Limiting the power of individual states to enact foreign policy legislation is specifically part of the purview of the Constitution as part of the Treaty and Foreign Commerce clauses to the US Constitution.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is a living document. I’ll continue updating it as I receive various arguments, particularly if I receive satisfactory contradictions to my conclusions above, or additional information allowing me to present the arguments more impartially. You can expect it to change as I refine my opinions and am exposed to new information.

How I’m voting for 2012

I know you’re all just DYING to know how I’m voting for 2012, so here it is!

If you’re in Utah, all the voter information packets are online, as well as in polling places and supermarkets shortly: http://vote.utah.gov/on-my-ballot/candidates/

Here’s how much of my ticket is going to look. Some of this may not apply unless you, too, are in RIV002 in Utah 🙂

I know you’re all just DYING to know how I’m voting for 2012, so here it is!

If you’re in Utah, all the voter information packets are online, as well as in polling places and supermarkets shortly: http://vote.utah.gov/on-my-ballot/candidates/

Here’s how much of my ticket is going to look. Some of this may not apply unless you, too, are in RIV002 in Utah 🙂

President/VP: Obama/Biden. Far too much talk about why I think they are the right choice for the next four years elsewhere. Even though the gigantic 2009 budget deficits were a gift from the Bush Jr. era, Obama has fought to prevent it from getting any larger. Gets my vote.

Senate: Scott Howell. I don’t think he has a prayer of beating Hatch — only Liljenquist did — but I’ll try anyway. Definitely a vote AGAINST the incumbent who’s been there since I was three years old!

House: Just decided this today. Mia Love. Matheson hasn’t done anything specific to endear him to me, and Love at least has the balls to own her history and statements. And she’s part of the “fiscal discipline” camp. That said, I worry about her education platform; public education is the engine that powers our ongoing innovation, and I’ve spoken elsewhere about how much more important ongoing technological and biological innovation is to improve the human condition than just about anything else. Also, I’d be lying if I didn’t admit the fact she is a female sways my vote a little bit, too. We need more female representatives because it’s clear our male reps can’t stomach doing what needs to be done to balance the budget.

Governor: Probably Herbert. I don’t like him much as a politician, but he’s part of the coalition that led to fiscal discipline at the state level sufficient to balance our budget and pay down some debt for 2012. That is enough to get my vote. Keep up the budget-balancing while funding expansions of public transportation and education, and you’ll keep the office. Too bad the Federal Republicans don’t have the kind of gumption we’re mustering at the State level.

State-level races: All the incumbents get the nod, regardless of party. Keep up the good work keeping the budget balanced while driving some important projects to improve our infrastructure.

Salt Lake County: Ben McAdams. More experience working at the state level, and once again I approve of what our state legislators are doing. His opponent, Mark Crockett, needs some more time working in a public office before I trust him to be mayor of my county. Run for dog-catcher or something.

County Council: Joseph Demma. Good plans for the budget — SLCO is not doing so well — and seems like a sound planner with foresight. His opponent, Jim Bradley, has not yet bothered to file a history and statement with the election commission. I don’t want people who procrastinate planning until the last minute in charge of my zoning laws, thanks.

School Board 11: Sergio Vasquez. We need more scientists on the school board, and a published academic scientist with solid credentials and a grounding in biological science fills the bill nicely. Hopefully he’ll help the board remember that evolution is science, while creationism is mythology or perhaps comparative religion.

Amendment A: Severance tax trust fund. Opposed. Let the Legislature decide what to do with the severance taxes from energy development; don’t hamstring them by requiring a supermajority and governor approval to do anything with the money. Plus, I’m generally opposed to Constitutional Amendments on principle unless they are really, truly necessary, and this strikes me as totally unnecessary.

Amendment B: Exempt from property taxes all active duty military with primary residences in Utah if they are deployed more than 200 days in a year. I’m pro-military, but if soldiers own property they should be taxed just like anybody else. This would hit the local budgets of cities with a large number of active-duty personnel the hardest, resulting in reductions in policing, road repairs, and other civic expectations. In other words, this is a “go to war, and come back to find your home town a war zone” amendment. No, thanks.