Pigs Flew!

In a stunning reversal to the Obama Administration and the Progressive movement, the Supreme Court today declared the "Tax the Top 2%" legislation to be unconstitutional! A flagship measure of the Obama Campaign and the Occupy Wall Street thugs was described as "unfair in the way it would be applied to different households"!

A news story that one would certainly expect from a democratic republican government where every citizen is treated equally -- RIGHT!
Sorry, not so, only a JOKE, this was the lead article on today's  Drudge report. It is a news article from of all places --- Socialist France.

France's Constitutional Council on Saturday rejected a 75 percent upper income tax rate to be introduced in 2013 in a setback to Socialist President Francois Hollande's push to make the rich contribute more to cutting the public deficit.
The Council ruled that the planned 75 percent tax on annual income above 1 million euros ($1.32 million) - a flagship measure of Hollande's election campaign - was unfair in the way it would be applied to different households.
...
While the tax plan was largely symbolic and would only have affected a few thousand people, it has infuriated high earners in France, prompting some such as actor Gerard Depardieu to flee abroad. The message it sent also shocked entrepreneurs and foreign investors, who accuse Hollande of being anti-business.
Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said the rejection of the 75 percent tax and other minor measures could cut up to 500 million euros in forecast tax revenues but would not hurt efforts to slash the public deficit to below a European Union ceiling of 3 percent of economic output next year.

So much like President Obama's "hate tax the rich" plan, this Tax would be only a tiny effect on the French deficit.  The possible 500 million euro "top tax" is a tiny fraction of the $39 billion he is proposing:

President François Hollande, a Socialist who was elected this year on a pro-growth platform, presented a budget on Friday that would produce the biggest cut in the public deficit in 30 years while raising the top rate for the wealthiest taxpayers to 75 percent from the current 41 percent.  ... 

Mr. Hollande’s budget finds the extra $39 billion by raising French taxes still further, upsetting businessmen and the middle class. About $13 billion will come from new taxes on corporations and an additional $10 billion from new income taxes, including a new higher rate of 45 percent on incomes over $193,000 and a controversial, largely symbolic and supposedly temporary wealth tax of 75 percent on earnings of over $1.3 million. Those higher taxes, too, have been criticized by business leaders as a large disincentive for talented people to work in France, criticisms echoed by the opposition center-right parties.

In fact the true impact on the deficit will probably be not only much less than anticipated, but has proved the old phrase "if you want something to go away, TAX it". Several French millionaires, like Gerard Depardieux, have started leaving the country and applying for citizenship elsewhere. Their money will no longer be in France to tax. Thus perhaps having a significantly negative impact on tax revenues, rather than positive.

 France's luxury property market has hit a selling 'panic' as millionaires rush to flee the socialist government's looming tax hikes, a leading estate agent has revealed.More than 400 Paris homes worth more than €1million have been put on the market since President Francois Hollande came to power in May - more than double the same period last year. Many of France's super-rich want to escape to 'wealth-friendly' countries like Britain, Switzerland and Luxembourg.

Time after time the progressive policies are shown not to work.  The big problem is ... we all have to suffer through their repeated attempts to try it again.

Anti-Gun Politics Inconsistent

Liberals reflexively decry gun violence and call "to end the proliferation of guns".  But then Texas Democratic Executive Committee Member John Cobarruvias tweets "Can we now shoot the #NRA and everyone who defends them? #PrayForNewton— John Cobarruvias (@BayAreaHouston) December 14, 2012". Perhaps its time to question the sincerity of some?

In a speech I recently heard by Steve Sutton, he was analyzing liberals and conservatives. The first part of that speech was:

There are two types of liberals, first, those who really want to help people.  And they believe the way to do that is to do it through the liberal policies that they believe in.  If you talk with them about it and say "all you want to do is redistribute wealth", they say "well yeah, thats exactly what I want to do".
They are sincere, they mean well, but they are wrong on virtually every public policy issue, but thats' their motivation, to help people.
There are other liberals who know better. They know their policies do not work. But they work politically. So they are not about helping people, they are about winning elections, acquiring power and telling you what to do. And there is no discussing with them, they are just evil and you must defeat them. There is no compromise, there is no debate, there is no sincerity.

Evidence of that insincerity, and political use of policies they know do not work, is no where better seen than in their autonomic response to a tragedy.  They follow a "good for me but not for thee" approach. As can be seen in some of the actions vs talk of some of the biggest proponents of gun control, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer.

Chuck Schumer has recently been extremely vocal about gun control and attacking the NRA and others who support conceal carry. But yet he felt the need for a conceal carry permit, which is denied to most.
http://cdn.ammoland.com/files/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Chuck-Schumer.jpg

Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an "unrestricted" pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it's evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules -- one for Americans and one for himself.

Dianne Feinstein in 1995
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQMwpbSjC1A

"Less than 20 years ago, I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer and the bomb was set to detonate around 2 ‘o clock in the morning, but it was a construction explosive that doesn’t detonate when it drops below freezing. It doesn’t usually freeze in San Francisco, but on this night it dropped below freezing and the bomb didn’t detonate.
"I was very lucky, but I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home and I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me. Now having said all of that, that was period of time ago and I’ve watched through these 20 years as terrorism has increased both on the far extremist left and the far extremist right in this country."

Mitch Berg added to that description:

And throughout that time, her line has been the same:  her life is vital and worth protecting; yours is mundane and can wait your turn.   When she was mayor of San Francisco, she revoked all civilian carry permits – but got her's converted to a “police” permit.
Her “training” was no more involved that what all of us carry permit holders get.
You find this level of hypocrisy throughout the gun control movement; the lists of prominent gun-grabbers who’ve gotten themselves carry permits, or wangled permits for their bodyguards, or who’ve been busted with illegal guns, is legendary among 2nd Amendment Rights activists…

In the vein of "never let a crisis go to waste" Jerrold Nadler (NY) states

A veteran Democratic lawmaker believes the nation will go along with stronger gun control laws if President Obama “exploits” the Newtown, Conn., tragedy and nudges Congress to action.

Harry Reid has also had concealed carry when he felt threatened, as he states in videos uploaded in 2010 to his website.  In contrast to most Democrats, he has been supported by the NRA and supported the NRA 2nd Amendment issues in the past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbzbFbKxK0#!

Reid: “When I was Chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, I had a lot of bad people after me and I carried a gun every place I went”

But Senate Leader Reid may be "evolving" in his stance.

In the past, Reid has touted the rights of gun owners and eagerly sought the NRA's endorsements, contributions and praise. In 2004, Reid was one of the rare Democrats to be endorsed by the NRA. In 2009 he sought to please the powerful lobby by supporting a controversial bill to allow gun owners with concealed weapon permits to cross state lines. 

.... After this latest tragedy at Sandy Hook that left 20 children dead, Reid took a timid step forward, saying it was time to “engage in a meaningful conversation and thoughtful debate about how to change laws and culture that allow violence to grow." Hinting at a softening of his position, he said that as we discuss how best to protect our nation’s children, “every idea should be on the table.”
But for the gun control advocates in his office on Tuesday, Reid’s faint-hearted call for reform was not nearly enough. With alarm clocks in hand, they said the time for discussion was long past; they wanted action. They said it was time for Senator Reid to stand up to the NRA and to use his leadership to protect our children, not the gun manufacturers.

When the question of personal security arises, they choose to make the rational decision for themselves to take the one step that has real meaning in their self defense.  They arm themselves, or get armed security, as do so many bleating Hollywood voices (here here ) of the the gun withholding movement.  But when the political posturing and power brokering begins, then everyone else's rights are abridged and told to go without.

Next: What do statistics about guns and conceal carry say.

Evil Ran Unimpeded

Last week evil ran abhorrently free.  As expected it has been instantly grasped by those opposed to self defense with klaxon calls for yet more redundant government control, rather than moral control.  Effective solutions will never come from denial and violations to constitutional rights.  Only further advancement of authoritarian central control will be achieved! There were three tragic events, here is the case of Jacob Tyler Roberts, who killed two people in the crowded Clackamas Town Center mall in suburban Portland, Ore.

ABC News

Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts said earlier today on "Good Morning America" that he believes Roberts went into the mall with the goal of killing as many people as he could.
"I believe, at least from the information that's been provided to me at this point in time, it really was a killing of total strangers. To my knowledge at this point in time he was really trying, I think, to kill as many people as possible."

While his  stolen AR-15 rifle had briefly jammed, police said he had quickly gotten it working again.  So there was no apparent reason for his rampage to have stopped.  Add yet another count to the number of laws he broke without being impeded in his intent.  So much for laws stopping him.  However there was an armed legal carry citizen there.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
http://www.nwcn.com/home/183609901.html

"As I was going down to pull I saw someone in the back of the charlotte move and I knew if I fired and missed I could hit them."
Meli took cover inside a nearby store.  He never pulled the trigger.  He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli.  "I know after he saw me I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.
"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli.  "It just bothers me."

The fact that this even occurred was completely lacking from almost all main stream media accounts (exemplifying the meaning of "low-information" voters).  Of course the official reason will never be stated that a legal carry citizen was what stopped or might have stopped a rampaging lunatic criminal.  So the "official statement" reads:
http://news.msn.com/us/man-accused-in-ore-mall-shooting-wanted-to-travel

Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts said the fact that more people weren't killed was due to several factors. The suspect's gun jammed at one point; the mall implemented an immediate lockdown; and a large number of officers arrived on-scene quickly, "curtailing the suspect's ability to move around the mall."
"Ten thousand people in the mall at one time kept a level head. They got themselves out of the mall. They helped others get out, and there are just a number of heroes that took the time to help people get out," the sheriff said. "It was really about a full group of people coming together to make a difference."

Perhaps the new law in Michigan, if it gets signed, might help prevent mass shootings from ever happening in School's there.  It has specific additional training requirements for the specific permit extensions.  But then would the media ever report it having been a success?  Or will it be the flaming target of every self defense opposition member of the main stream media and politicizing pundit/politician? Is that a redundancy?  Evil prevails when good men do nothing.  Fortunately for those in an Oregon Mall, there was a man who didn't "do nothing".