Read The Union Label

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden


Of all the cynical frauds of the Obama administration, few are so despicable as sacrificing the education of poor and minority children to the interests of the teachers’ unions.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s attempt to suppress the spread of charter schools in Louisiana was just one of the signs of that cynicism. His nationwide threats of legal action against schools that discipline more black students than he thinks they should are at least as damaging.

Charter schools are hated by teachers’ unions and by much of the educational establishment in general. They seem to be especially hated when they succeed in educating minority children whom the educational establishment says cannot be educated.

Apparently it can be done when you don’t have to hire unionized teachers with iron-clad tenure, and when you don’t have to follow the dogmas in vogue in the educational establishment.

Last year, there was an attempt to shut down the American Indian Model Schools in Oakland, California — schools that had been ranked among the top schools in the nation, schools with the top test scores in their district and the fourth highest scores in the entire state of California.

The reason given was that the former — repeat, FORMER — head of these schools was accused of financial irregularities. Since there are courts of law to determine the guilt or innocence of individuals, why should school children be punished by having their schools shut down, immediately and permanently, before any court even held a trial?

Fortunately, a court order prevented this planned vindictive closing of this highly successful charter school with minority students. But the attempt shows the animus and the cynical disregard of the education of children who have few other places to get a comparable education.

Attorney General Holder’s threats of legal action against schools where minority students are disciplined more often than he wants are a much more sweeping and damaging blow to the education of poor and minority students across the country.

Among the biggest obstacles to educating children in many ghetto schools are disruptive students whose antics, threats and violence can make education virtually impossible. If only 10 percent of the students are this way, that sacrifices the education of the other 90 percent.

The idea that Eric Holder, or anybody else, can sit in Washington and determine how many disciplinary actions against individual students are warranted or unwarranted in schools across the length and breadth of this country would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

Relying on racial statistics tells you nothing, unless you believe that black male students cannot possibly be more disruptive than Asian female students, or that students in crime-ridden neighborhoods cannot possibly require disciplinary actions more often than children in the most staid, middle-class neighborhoods.

Attorney General Holder is not fool enough to believe either of those things. Why then is he pursuing this numbers game?

The most obvious answer is politics. Anything that promotes a sense of grievance from charges of racial discrimination offers hope of energizing the black vote to turn out to vote for Democrats, which is especially needed when support from other voters is weakening in the wake of Obama administration scandals and fiascoes.

Eric Holder’s other big racial crusade, against requiring identification for voting, is the same political game. And it is carried out with the same cynical promotion of fears, with orchestrated hysteria from other Democrats — as if having to show identification to vote is like a revival of the Ku Klux Klan.

Blacks, whites and everybody else can be asked for identification these days, whether cashing a check or using a credit card at a local store or going to an airport — or even getting into some political meetings called to protest voter ID laws.

But to sacrifice the education of children, especially children for whom education may be their only ticket out of poverty, is truly a new low. As someone once said to Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Why would they? THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA and no one is allowed to get in the way of it. Period.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Just Shut The Hell Up!

Before you snatch defeat YET AGAIN from the jaws of obvious victory!

Principle: ObamaCare is failing and more unchecked immigration would ensure Republicans’ demise, yet GOP leaders are surrendering on both issues. Poised to win big in November, their best strategy may be to shut up.

Sometimes it seems as if top congressional Republicans have seen the movie “Animal House” one too many times, specifically the hazing scene with Kevin Bacon repeatedly saying, “Thank you, sir. May I have another?” each time he gets paddled on his rear.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, sees a very dubious stat claiming that more than 600,000 residents of her state got new insurance through the state exchange, and she proceeds to declare that ObamaCare is a permanent fixture of American life.

“We need to look at reforming the exchanges” instead of repealing ObamaCare, said the fourth-ranking House GOP leader, whose election to that post a year and a half ago was described by as “a victory for party leaders over insurgent conservatives.”

Wow, the Exchange Reform Party. That’s really what Ronald Reagan had in mind when he emphasized that ideas have consequences, so Republicans must raise “a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors.”

What would Rodgers’ “reforming the exchanges” slogan be for the GOP congressional campaigns this year? “Fine-Tuning We Can Believe In”?

She — and, frankly, other GOP leaders, too — are allowing President Obama to set the political narrative.

Earlier this month, the president sneered that Republicans were going “through the stages of grief” over losing on ObamaCare. In other words, this is Social Security or Medicare all over again, with the GOP complaining and vowing to repeal a new entitlement, but eventually coming to accept and embrace it as irreversible.

With its skyrocketing costs, botched bureaucracy and numerous promises betrayed, ObamaCare is one of the least popular government schemes in history, yet “leaders” such as Rodgers are keen to follow whatever socialist unknown it leads to.

Pale pastel indeed. And not content with only flagellating themselves on ObamaCare, House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders continue their needless, self-destructive push for immigration “reform.”

As pointed out in the Washington Post over the weekend, registering a multitude of Hispanics through amnesty could quickly enhance their voting clout in now-solid red states such as Texas and Arizona, possibly “reducing Republicans’ already weak standing with the Hispanic voters (and future voters)” — an unthinkable shot in the foot for the party to inflict on itself.

When Democrats accuse the Tea Party of holding a gun to the heads of the GOP, they have it mixed up. Republicans are holding a gun to their own heads. Why? Certain big business interests insist they do this so they can employ the cheap, unskilled labor that our Democrat-friendly immigration policies produce — and that an amnesty-based “reform” would only perpetuate.

If Republicans wish to win — a big if — it’s time to stop the self-loathing, demand ObamaCare’s repeal and refuse to legalize millions of new Democrats.

But they have “Jar Jar” Boehner as a Leader!

And Jar Jar was the deciding vote for the Empire.

Coincidence? I hope not.


The Obama Decision-Making Pipeline

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Bear Facts

Live Science: “Melting Arctic sea ice has contributed considerably more to warming at the top of the world than previously predicted by climate models, according to a new analysis of 30 years of satellite observations.

Not Live Science: Five meters of ice– about 16 feet thick – is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaska’s Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career.

That’s because the thick ice ridges could prevent ringed seals, the bears’ major prey, from creating breathing holes they need to survive in the frigid waters, Crockford told

Prompted by reports of the heaviest sea ice conditions on the East Coast ‘in decades’ and news that ice on the Great Lakes is, for mid-April, the worst it’s been since records began, I took a close look at the ice thickness charts for the Arctic,” Crockford noted in her Polar Bear Science blog on April 18th.

Well, that’s Politically Incorrect. Can’t have that…

“Sea ice charts aren’t a guarantee that this heavy spring ice phenomenon is developing in the Beaufort, but they could be a warning,” she wrote, noting that they “don’t bode well” for the Beaufort bears.

“What happens is that really thick ice moves in because currents and winds from Greenland and the Canadian islands push it against the shore,” Crockford told

“The male seals arrive in the area in early spring to set up breeding territories. They drill a hole through the ice to maintain breathing holes close to the shore. But there’s a limit. They can drill through two meters (about seven feet) of ice. But too much beyond that and they’re in trouble.”

ringed seal

Ringed seal (NOAA)

“The reason that’s important is that seals mate right after the pups, who are born in April, are weaned. So the male seal wants to be there, but he has to have breathing holes. If the ice is too thick, he has to move off someplace else,” she explained.

But this is the same time that female polar bears are just emerging with their newborn cubs from maternity dens either on or near the shore.

“When those bears come out of their dens in the spring, they need to find seals right away because they will have gone six months without eating,” Crockford said. “If there are no seals, they have to go further out, where there’s thinner ice.”

“Spring and early summer are really a critical time for polar bears. That’s when they need to eat as many seals as they can because that’s when they put on fat for the rest of the year. If they have trouble doing that in the spring, they’re in big trouble.”

There were comparably high levels of spring ice in the Beaufort Sea in 2004 and 2006, when bear counts were “one of the pieces of evidence used to have the bears listed as ‘threatened’ in the U.S.,” Crockford pointed out.

“Polar bear biologists were finding some bears quite thin and found a population decline,” she said, which they attributed to melting summer ice caused by global warming.

“But the biologists were not there to see the thick [spring] ice. All they saw was thin bears,” she pointed out. “They blamed the poor condition of the bears on summer ice, instead of acknowledging that it was likely the condition of the ice in the spring that was the cause of the problem.”

“Female [polar bears] with cubs having trouble feeding are one aspect of the repercussions of thick ice,” Crockford added. “The other repercussion is that other bears, instead of hanging around and starving, probably left the area. They could have gone to the Chukchi Sea, which is located between the U.S. and Russia near the Bering Strait.”

PBSG logo

The international IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) conducted a polar bear population survey for the area in 2006. It reported a decline in the adult polar bear population and reduced cub survival rates, which was used to list the bears as a “threatened species” in the U.S. in 2008.

But the PBSG did not take into account the fact that polar bears “can just move” to other areas if their food supply is limited, Crockford told “If some of those bears were part of that count, it would look like they died,” she pointed out.

In its 2013 status update, released on February 14th, the PBSG repeated its 2006 “reduced” population estimate, putting the Southern Beaufort Sea at 1,526 bears and “declining due to a negative trend in sea ice conditions, particularly over the continental shelf, resulting from the continuing effects of climate warming.”

However, in what Crockford characterizes as an “astonishing admission,” the update also stated that “it is important to note that there is the potential for un-modeled spatial heterogeneity in mark-recapture sampling that could bias survival and abundance estimates. A thorough re-assessment of survival and abundance is underway and a final result is anticipated in 2014.”

“What’s shocking is that the PBSG have now admitted that the ‘movement of bears’ issue essentially invalidates the 2006 population estimate and the much-touted ‘reduced survival of cubs’,” Crockford said in a March 24th blog post.

“This is a cyclical pattern that is quite specific to that part of Alaska, which has been known about since the 1970s,” when wildife biologists noticed “ten times as many seals as usual in the Chukchi Sea. There were more bears, too,” Crockford told

“It seems to happen every 10 years, so it should be expected by people who work in the area. And not just by people who study polar bears, but also people who study seals.”

“It looks like similar conditions are setting up now, and we know the timing is right,” she added. “We’re keeping an eye on it.” (CNS)



Budget Busting

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) dealt the Obama administration yet another reality check when scrutinizing the President’s FY2015 budget proposal. The Budget offered by the President does nothing more than increases our debt and deficits without any substantive reforms to the main drivers of spending.

In what has turned into a regular occurrence, the President will offer a policy with populist appeal — such as increasing the minimum wage – only to have the negative impacts of the proposal exposed by non-partisan analysis from those outside the West Wing.

CBO’s latest report on the President’s budget points out the mathematical reality: This is not a serious attempt to fix the nation’s finances.

Remember when the CBO was the Darling of the Left because they fed them garbage about ObamaCare and got garbage out and they were all happy…Well, I bet this will unfriend them…:)


“CBO estimates that the federal deficit would total $492 billion in 2014 and that the cumulative deficit over the 2015-2024 period would amount to $7.6 trillion.”


“Federal debt held by the public would increase from $12.8 trillion, or 74 percent of GDP, at the end of 2014 to $19.9 trillion at the end of 2024.” Overall debt in the country will soon approach $20 trillion, adding to our already crushing debt burden. This will continue to exacerbate adverse effects on the economy.  According to a CBO report published earlier this year, economic growth is projected to slow to 2 percent by 2017.

Mandatory Spending

“All of the proposed policies affecting Medicare other than freezing payment rates for physicians would reduce outlays by a total of $373 billion over 10 years.”  NOTE: Medicare and Social Security have a combined unfunded liability of $30.3 trillion according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Discretionary Spending

“Over the 2015-2024 period, the President’s proposals other than those involving the reclassification of transportation programs and the phasing down of funding for overseas contingency operations would boost spending for discretionary programs by $433 billion.

Bottom Line: The President’s budget fails the most basic test in trying to get our country back on a fiscally sustainable path. He increases spending across his budget while offering no real reforms to the real drivers of the country’s debt i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Instead of even starting a conversation about the country’s spending problems the President makes things worse with this irresponsible budget – a budget that will leave American taxpayers drowning in red ink for years to come. (AFP)

“If anyone was hoping for a serious budget that did more than increase Washington spending and find new ways to tax job creators, it sure sounds like they’ll be disappointed,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.).(WSJ)

Like Democrats know how do anything else.

As for “bi-partisan compromise”? Well, the Democrats put out some bait. Then they said you have to raise taxes to take the bait. If you don’t take the bait we’ll bash you for “doing nothing” and if you do we’ll bash you for raising taxes. We win!

Now that’s “Bi-Partisan” 🙂

The following is a statement from Brian H. Graff, Executive Director/CEO of the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries (ASPPA) in response to the proposed fiscal year 2015 budget President Barack Obama released today:

“Unfortunately, this year’s budget proposal includes the same wrong-headed attacks on employer-sponsored retirement plans as last year. The double tax on contributions to 401(k) plans and the misguided $3 million cap on the value of retirement benefits do not close any loopholes or curb any abuse. They punish small business owners who sponsor retirement plans for themselves and their employees. It is disappointing that an administration that claims to be concerned about giving more American workers access to retirement savings would discourage small business owners from maintaining the 401(k) plans they have now.

Under the “double taxation” budget proposal, small business owners earning more than $250,000 would have to pay tax on contributions in the year the contributions are made, and then pay tax at the full rate when contributions are distributed at retirement. This amounts to a penalty for saving through a 401(k) plan. Who could blame a small business owner for thinking that if the government is going to penalize them for saving in a retirement plan, maybe they should not have that plan?

In addition, if a small business owner has saved $3 million in his or her 401(k) account, or has a pension from another plan and a modest amount in their 401(k) or IRA, they won’t be allowed to save any more. Without any further incentive to keep the plan, many small business owners will now either shut down the plan or reduce contributions for workers. This means that employees of small businesses will now lose out not only on the opportunity to save at work, but also on contributions the owner would have made on their behalf to pass nondiscrimination rules.

The proposed retirement savings cap in the president’s budget is not closing a loophole and is not correcting some perceived abuse of the rules. There are already caps on contributions and a cap on the pay that can be used to calculate benefits. This proposed cap would basically punish savers for starting to save for retirement when they are young or investing “too successfully.” EBRI estimates that even at current low interest rates, 1 in 10 current 401(k) participants will likely hit the cap if they continue to save in a 401(k) plan until retirement. Since the cap shrinks as interest rates increase, while account balances will grow faster, the higher interest rates climb, the more savers will end up being affected by the cap.

We think it is grossly unfair that this proposal would limit a small business owner to retirement benefits that are nowhere near as valuable as executives’ at large corporations. Small business can’t use the nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements that provide millions – even billions – of dollars in retirement benefits to big corporate executives. Every time retirement plan limits are cut, the corporate CEOs get more nonqualified retirement benefits. It’s the small business owners and their employees who lose out, and that just isn’t fair.

President Obama’s own pension, based on reasonable actuarial assumptions, is worth at least $5 million. That’s 40% more than the small business retirement savings cap permitted under the president’s budget. Is the president saying his own pension is a loophole too? It’s simply wrong to attack small business owners who have responsibly maintained retirement plans for themselves and their workers.”

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne


The Twilight of America

Our nation has now slipped into the twilight of its years from the sunlight of its heyday. Many are asking themselves “How did this happen”, an even larger chunk of people are licking their Cheetos stained fingers, turning on the Kardashians and asking, “Gee what will I get for Christmas?”

Who’s on “Dancing with The Stars”?

With the House still firmly in the hands of the GOP who have been labeled as woman hating corporate thieves, and the Senate now weakened by 2 more years of internal strife and struggle with the right wing, the power of the Presidency is now stronger than ever, and firmly in the hands of a leftist who uses the Constitution as a guideline rather than as the rule of law.

The impotent Congress will now be in no position to argue when Obama issues executive order after executive order in the coming months which will be merely be a further consolidation of power masked under the guise of saving us from a do-nothing Congress.

People often use the expression “how could this happen?” when things go horribly wrong, or the old standby “why me?”, and blame the world around them for all perceived injustices that are perpetrated on their persons.  Yet, they never look to the answer that any rational adult observing from the outside would offer them—namely to suggest that they should look in the mirror and examine their own lives a bit more carefully, as well as their voting record.

Assuming they vote of course. According to the math, the majority of Americans didn’t even vote in the last 2 elections. Even less will now vote as they grow disenfranchised and dissatisfied with the specter of a government that watches our every move and waiting for a mistake to cash in on.

So pardon me if I don’t weep too much for the fate that is about to befall them and the predicament their children will eventually be placed in. As the role and power of the Presidency grows, liberty will shrink and American lives will continually become more directed by an unfeeling and arbitrary bureaucracy. Compartmentalized and like a horse with blinders on, people will continue to vote for more government to solve their own problems and fulfill their own shallow needs without regard to the subtle implications of a nation that is financially and morally bankrupt.

Many will blame Obama for this change to a statist government; others still will blame the GOP or the minor political parties. Pseudo intellectuals will point out the finer details of campaign finance issues and cronyism. The wool scarf wearing Occupy Wall Street crowd will blame corporate greed. In the end, all of it is merely a load of pasture patties wafting on the wind. Obama is merely the symptom to a much greater problem of rampant self-interest and fueled by a desire to be famous and pretty rather than free.

The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of everyone who wakes up in the morning and puts on a pair of pants and turns on the TV and is more concerned about their own petty little needs rather than the question of the direction of society and the role of government in everyone’s lives.

People will line up for their free pills, their subsidized housing, education and automobiles, and their government-sponsored health care and wonder why they have no money in their pockets. The elderly of previous generations will pass into the night and turn over their enormous wealth to the next generation not realizing that it has already been spent, with government confiscating more and more in the name of ‘fairness’.

It is not the end of America despite what pundits are saying, it is a worse fate. Like a lame horse stumbling around the track while the audience gasps in horror, America will become a modern day Portugal, a nation of wandering sailors who drink lots of spirits and talk fondly of the ‘good old days’ when they ran the world.

Put a pillow over Uncle Sam’s face please, it’s the only decent thing to do.

People will exclaim ‘we will become another Greece’. If only we were that lucky to have society collapse. At least then we would have a chance to rebuild, instead of living in a perpetual coma from a botched lobotomy,  like Ken Kesey’s Randall McMurphy, a symbol to all that would cross the American government, which is now a modern day Nurse Ratched.

Put a pillow over Uncle Sam’s face please, it’s the only decent thing to do.

As for me, I will remain to the bitter end and circling the wagons to defend what is left as best I can to try and preserve what I can of that golden time when men walked free in the sunlight, instead of basking in the glow of a solar panel powered utopic promise that is merely a roof over a tin shack run by our government slumlords. (Thomas Purcell)

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden


Cry Racism

The careless overuse of the word “racist” by people who try to gain by belittling those who disagree with them, has so cheapened the word that it really has no validity to me any longer.

Good people who don’t have a racist bone in their entire bodies are routinely branded as racists by foul-mouthed opportunists and people who have never had an original thought in their lives, and are only capable of repeating what they have heard others say, people who can’t defend their position against a rational premise so they resort to insults.

I have been called a racist by people who know nothing at all about me except that I have criticized Barack Obama for doing things that I genuinely feel are detrimental to the country.

It’s little more than a knee jerk reaction, as a famous Englishman once said, “… sound and fury.  Signifying nothing.”

Never mind the validity of the supposedly “racist” statement or the intent with which it was made, it doesn’t even matter what was said, but rather who it was said about that moves them to a frenzy of four letter words, comic innuendo, juvenile hyperbole and unreasonable name calling.

Any person who throws his or her hat into the rabid ring of politics should check their ethnicity at the door and take their heart off their sleeve because their stand on policy is going to be attacked by either the left or the right.

And what about the “war on women”, another meaningless slogan that you can bet will be used frequently in the next presidential election.

We all know that Hillary Clinton is going to run in the presidential primaries, she may act coy about it but it’s just part of the game and everybody knows that the lion’s share of the media are going to be on her side, promoting, defending and making excuses for the things that took place during her tenure as Secretary of State and shadowy happenings from her distant past.

Those brave enough to take her to task can depend on being called misogynists, Neanderthals and 19th century throwbacks who can’t accept the thought of a woman president. They will be soundly chastised and dragged through deep editorial mud for their “sexist” attitudes.

My question is, if Ms. Clinton and her media sycophants wither under the verbal sparring of political opponent: what is she going to do when she faces down Vladimir Putin, the Mullahs of the Middle East and the assorted nuts and bolts who rule their people with an iron hand and could care less about insulting a female?

There is definitely racism in America and it isn’t confined to any one ethnic or social group, it is both overt and covert, some groups and individuals not even trying to hide their intolerance and others who veil theirs behind insincere words, but when someone criticizes a person of a different race for something they disagree with it’s not racism, it is opinion and they have a right to express it.

Anti-Semitism is a way of life with some of the Islamic sects, but it seems the American media takes little notice of the fact.

Recently, the bureau of land management had a face off with Cliven Bundy, a rancher in Nevada over grazing his cattle on federal land and not paying the federal government for the grazing rights. The Feds showed up in force and were met by scores of concerned citizens who had gathered to support the rancher.

There were guns on both sides and the whole situation could have turned ugly had the Feds not used some rare common sense and packed up and left.

I am not qualified to argue Mr. Bundy’s case, pro or con. He feels that the land he grazes his cattle on should not be controlled by the federal government, but faithfully pays his state and county taxes.

At least, in my estimation, the Feds overstepped their authority when they tried to round up Mr. Bundy’s cattle and take them off the land.

Now turn the coin over. According to media accounts, Al Sharpton’s National Action Network owes millions of dollars in back taxes and not one federal agent has shown up at his door to take away his possessions.

In fact, the president and the attorney general both spoke at their recent convention.

And what about the two New Black Panthers who intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place whom Eric Holder’s Justice Department never prosecuted?

Is not selective enforcement of the law along racial lines not racism? And has it not been practically institutionalized during the Obama administration?

Power hungry politicians and hate mongers – with help from the media – have done a good job of keeping the racial pot stirred among Americans, using the results to their advantage.

I’ve never seen the nation this deeply divided.

Being born and raised in the Deep South in the days before the repeal of the Jim Crow laws, I know first hand what a racist is. Racism is motivated by ignorance and blind hate and manifests itself in hurtful ways, and none of them as mild as criticizing the policies of a minority politician.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Bless You, Charlie.

race card 2Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

High Cost of Liberalism

Liberals can be disarming. In fact, they are for disarming anybody who can be disarmed, whether domestically or internationally.

Unfortunately, the people who are the easiest to disarm are the ones who are the most peaceful — and disarming them makes them vulnerable to those who are the least peaceful.

We are currently getting a painful demonstration of that in Ukraine. When Ukraine became an independent nation, it gave up all the nuclear missiles that were on its territory from the days when it had been part of the Soviet Union.

At that time, Ukraine had the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if it still had those nuclear weapons? Or do you think it is just a coincidence that nations with nuclear weapons don’t get invaded?

Among those who urged Ukraine to reduce even its conventional, non-nuclear weapons as well, was a new United States Senator named Barack Obama. He was all for disarmament then, and apparently even now as President of the United States. He has refused Ukraine’s request for weapons with which to defend itself.

As with so many things that liberals do, the disarmament crusade is judged by its good intentions, not by its actual consequences.

Indeed, many liberals seem unaware that the consequences could be anything other than what they hope for. That is why disarmament advocates are called “the peace movement.”

Whether disarmament has in fact led to peace, more often than military deterrence has, is something that could be argued on the basis of the facts of history — but it seldom is.

Liberals almost never talk about disarmament in terms of evidence of its consequences, whether they are discussing gun control at home or international disarmament agreements.

International disarmament agreements flourished between the two World Wars. Just a few years after the end of the First World War there were the Washington Naval Agreements of 1921-1922 that led to the United States actually sinking some of its own warships. Then there was the celebrated Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, in which nations renounced war, with France’s Foreign Minister Aristide Briand declaring, “Away with rifles, machine guns, and cannon!” The “international community” loved it.

In Britain, the Labour Party repeatedly voted against military armaments during most of the decade of the 1930s. A popular argument of the time was that Britain should disarm “as an example to others.”

Unfortunately, Hitler did not follow that example. He was busy building the most powerful military machine on the continent of Europe.

Nor did Germany or Japan allow the Washington Naval Agreements to cramp their style. The fact that Britain and America limited the size of their battleships simply meant that Germany and Japan had larger battleships when World War II began.

What is happening in Ukraine today is just a continuation of the old story about nations that disarm increasing the chances of being attacked by nations that do not disarm.

Any number of empirical studies about domestic gun control laws tell much the same story. Gun control advocates seldom, if ever, present hard evidence that gun crimes in general, or murder rates in particular, go down after gun control laws are passed or tightened.

That is the crucial question about gun control laws. But liberals settle that question by assumption. Then they can turn their attention to denouncing the National Rifle Association.

But neither the National Rifle Association nor the Second Amendment is the crucial issue. If the hard facts show that gun control laws actually reduce the murder rate, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Amendments have been repealed.

If in fact tighter gun control laws reduced the murder rate, that would be the liberals’ ace of trumps. Why then do the liberals not play their ace of trumps, by showing us such hard facts? Because they don’t have any such hard facts. So they give us lofty rhetoric and outraged indignation instead. (Thomas Sowell)

Feigned, faked, and phony as a Liberal “deficit reduction”. 🙂

So we get more fear tactics, because that’s their main weapon.

No one expects the Gun Inquisition…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen
And it’s Still “No!” 🙂
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail