Bye-bye 2020 II...

 

The Latest Larry Correia Rant

 DO I UNFAIRLY PAINT THE LEFT WITH A BROAD BRUSH?

 ...I’m talking about YOU. Regular people. Voters. The guy next door. The masses on the internet. Just average joes. Democrats. Libs. Whatever you call yourself. Anybody who identifies as being on the left.

When your leaders pick a narrative, you drink that Kool-Aid. Even if it’s shit flavored Kool-Aid, most of you smile and tell us it’s the best fucking Kool-Aid you’ve ever tasted. It’s milk from the teat of a magic cherry flavored Unicorn. Nope. It’s shit. You all know it’s shit. But you go along with the narrative anyway.

When the insane progs among you lie their asses off, I’m talking blatant, easily disproven, painfully ham-fisted, fucking LIES… Do you call them out? Do you say, “hang on guys, that’s a little nuts”. Because if you do, the rest of us sure as fuck don’t ever see it. Pick a topic, any topic. It’s always the same.

Read the whole thing. When I got to that part, though, I laughed out loud, woke Mrs. Drang up from her  migraine-induced snooze, and further disturbed her by reading the entire thing out loud. She hasn't objected, so I guess she agrees. Either that. or she has Plans for tonight while I'm sleeping. 

(Actually, i know she agrees because she started talking Seattle politics...)

Flash Back!

A little way into the Korean Basic, once we had gotten to the point that we could manage more advanced grammar, we had a lesson in which "Dad" came home from work to find his sons brawling, and yelled "POK DONG AH! SSA-OOH JI MA!"; colloquially translated, "What is this riot?! Stop fighting!" 

Only we thought he was calling one of his sons "Pok Dong" -- riot or civil disturbance -- and did not quite grasp yet the nuances of Korean grammar; in this case, the imperative forms indicated by the "AH/MA" verbs endings.

(Confession digression: I are grammaring goodly in English, written or spoken, but if you require me to diagram a sentence, I'm heading for the door. I still have a hard time telling the difference between an adverb and an adjective, and I'm not clear on what a gerund is.)

So several years later I'm in Korea on my second tour, my first at the Second Infantry Division, and one weekend I scored a day pass to head down to Seoul. Maybe I was Christmas shopping, I don't recall, but I don't remember it as being particularly cold, so may not. 

Anyway, the bus route went by several universities, including Yeon Sei Dae Hak ("tae hak" = university; commonly referred to as "Yeon Dae", which, confusingly, is also the word for "regiment".)

The student body was participating in their favorite intramural activity, loudly proclaiming their opinions on various and sundry matters of great concern, featuring a variety of special effects and training aids by both said student body and their critics, to wit: bricks, rocks, fire bombs, and tear gas.

In other words, rioting.*

I caught a whiff of said tear gas, leaving me a bit hoarse for a day or two. When a Korean acquaintance asked if I was well, I explained that I had gotten too close to the "pok dong" near Yeon Dai.

And was promptly corrected: "Not a pok dong, it was a demo!"

And that, boys and girls was my first exposure to the concept that, if the cause is exalted enough, any amount of riotous, destructive, behavior can be excused by the simple process of designating it a "demonstration" or "peaceful protest."

*See P.J. O'Rourke's hilarious essay "Seoul Man" from Rolling Stone, reproduced in his collection Holidays in Hell.

 

"Hygienic Fascism"

Hygienic fascism: Turning the world into a 'safe space' — but at what cost? | TheHill

Author Aldous Huxley once said, “A thoroughly scientific dictatorship will never be overthrown.”

Even as we try to battle the COVID-19 pestilence, we may be contracting a more dangerous virus — hygienic fascism. This involves a process when our political leaders defer to a handful of “experts,” amid what Dr. Joseph Ladopo, an associate professor at the UCLA School of Medicine, describes as an atmosphere of “COVID-19-induced terror.”

Ideologically, hygienic fascism is neither right nor left, nor is it simply a matter of taking necessary precautions. It is about imposing, over a long period of time, highly draconian regulations based on certain assumptions about public health. In large part, it regards science not so much as a search for knowledge but as revealed “truth” with definitive “answers.” Anyone opposed to the conventional stratagem, including recognized professionals, are largely banished as mindless Trumpistas, ignoramuses, or worse.

I must confess, I was surprised, most of the articles I've seen at The Hill.com tend to be more on the Big Government/Social Justice Snowflakery end of the spectrum than in Rugged Individualism's neighborhood, although it is very true that I don't go there enough to be able to say that my impression of their material is conclusive.

But there they are running this article, too: Facial recognition: The other reason we may need a face mask | TheHill

Don’t get out of the hard-learned habit of covering your face, even if you live in a place that will soon no longer require it. Long after the pandemic recedes, we may still need our N-95 respirators, surgical masks and DIY bandana coverings. Marking the triumph over COVID-19, when it finally happens, should not include a bonfire of masks. This symbol of the coronavirus fight may prove just as crucial against a different foe altogether.

Also spreading fast, but largely outside of global health debates and meaningful scrutiny, is facial recognition. We’ve had Apple’s handy Face ID since 2017, of course, with its 30,000 invisible facial dots that coalesce into a phone-unlocking faceprint, but potentially more perturbing applications are already here or around the corner. Face-Six wants to reduce medical errors and fraud by promising to help hospitals “identify patients whenever necessary, conscious or unconscious.” ISM Connect has scanned crowds at Taylor Swift’s concerts to weed out stalkers and generate tour promotion metrics. Clearview AI has been used by over 600 law enforcement agencies to solve cases from shoplifting to murder. So private it listed a fake Manhattan address as its business location, Clearview AI sold a product that allows users to take a picture of someone they are curious about and obtain links to public photos and sites pertaining to this person.

The power that such apps must bestow is suggested in another purveyor’s name, iOmniscient. Its site boasts of clients in 60 countries and over 30 industries, including retail, where it measures customers’ footpaths, visit frequency and dwell time. iOmniscient “excels in uncontrolled environments with non-cooperative individuals,” which would explain its suspected use during Hong Kong’s 2019 pro-democracy protests. In response to the potential surveillance, demonstrators toppled smart lampposts believed to house the technology, destroyed CCTV cameras, hid themselves under umbrellas -- and donned face masks.

These pieces are from the Opinion pages of TheHill.com,  not "news", but still, I'm surprised.

Maybe there's hope after all.

Do You Want The Boogaloo? Because This is How You Get The Boogaloo (Updated)

(Links added to comments.)

First: If  you don't understand what is meant by The Boogaloo, well... I guess you can look it up on The Urban Dictionary.

Having said that...

In View From The Porch: People are getting edgy... Tamara excerpted a key 'graph from the rather lengthy post The COVID-19 Boogaloo Opus - Handwaving Freakoutery at Medium.

So then I see the following Tweet:

"The drones, donated by DJI, a Chinese company, have gone to 43 agencies in 22 states, all to help enforce social distancing rules."

US using Chinese drones to spy on and lecture Americans about a virus caused by communist China

Oh, and DJI "may be sending data to China" pic.twitter.com/LqH6VzonzH

— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) April 17, 2020

 Which of course, prompted a revival of the age-old questions

• Drone: Rifle or Shotgun?

and

• What Caliber for Drone?  

As infuriating as the implementation of technology in service of Big Government nannyism is,
Law enforcement is using drones to shout at people for violating social distancing.
the really bizarre thing about this story, as @LizRNC points out in her tweet above, is that these are DJI drones, a product of Communist China.

And an Internet search for the keywords "chinese drones law enforcement" will return dozens ( a conservative estimate) of articles referring to the US Government banning the use of drones from Communist China because of the predilection of the commies to have their tech phone home to the mother ship with details we'd rather the commies not have.

Seriously, what kind of an idiot elected official can be so tone-deaf in the face of Communist China's obvious responsibility for the current global pandemic and think "Hey, I know! We'll use ChiCom spy technology to nag people!" is a good idea.

Allegedly, these drones do not have the ability to transmit or record video.

Sure.

Winnie The Flu says so.

EDIT to add: And then there's this crap:

How do you report places that aren’t enforcing social distancing? It’s simple: just snap a photo and text it to 311-692. #AskMyMayor pic.twitter.com/WQdCcVf1Rl

— Mayor Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) April 18, 2020

Note: See comments for some links to news reporting on the subject. Also, statements re: No Video are probably meant to be "no recording of video or taking of photos."

The problem in a nutshell

“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.” 
Glenn Reynolds

Reading Notes, Revolutionary Edition

 So, if you read my blog you probably also read Tamara's blog and saw this post:

Which is why I wonder about people who call for a "second revolution". We beat the odds in '76, but just because you got lucky drawing to an inside straight once doesn't make it the way to bet. https://t.co/4KzaoXlYDJ

— Tamara K. (@TamSlick) September 1, 2018

This was actually a Re-Tweet with commentary of a Tweet of mine:

The Revolution eats its own.
The American War 4 Independence was an exception. French Revolution led 2 the Terror, & 2 Napoleon. The Russian Revolution led 2 the Russian Civil War led 2 purges & the Holodomor. The Chinese Civil War led 2 the Great Leap Forward, purges & famine.

— Drang (@DWDrang) September 1, 2018

which was in itself a reply to others being surprised that Twitter has gotten too hot for Will "Weaselly Crusher" Wheaton, who had up until very recently been one of the most reliable of knee-jerk leftist narrative followers.

(If the Tweets themselves do not show up, just text with funky formatting, you can click on the date of the tweet to see the things in their original glory.)
(Side note: I just noticed that I have 1776 Tweets..)

Part of the reason for this tweet was that I just finished reading Russia in Flames: War, Revolution, Civil War, 1914 - 1921: Laura Engelstein (Amazon link), which I borrowed from the King County Library.

Here's the synopsis from Amazon:

October 1917, heralded as the culmination of the Russian Revolution, remains a defining moment in world history. Even a hundred years after the events that led to the emergence of the world's first self-proclaimed socialist state, debate continues over whether, as historian E. H. Carr put it decades ago, these earth-shaking days were a "landmark in the emancipation of mankind from past oppression" or "a crime and a disaster." Some things are clear. After the implosion of the three-hundred-year-old Romanov dynasty as a result of the First World War, Russia was in crisis-one interim government replaced another in the vacuum left by imperial collapse.

In this monumental and sweeping new account, Laura Engelstein delves into the seven years of chaos surrounding 1917 --the war, the revolutionary upheaval, and the civil strife it provoked. These were years of breakdown and brutal violence on all sides, punctuated by the decisive turning points of February and October. As Engelstein proves definitively, the struggle for power engaged not only civil society and party leaders, but the broad masses of the population and every corner of the far-reaching empire, well beyond Moscow and Petrograd.

Yet in addition to the bloodshed they unleashed, the revolution and civil war revealed democratic yearnings, even if ideas of what constituted "democracy" differed dramatically. Into that vacuum left by the Romanov collapse rushed long-suppressed hopes and dreams about social justice and equality. But any possible experiment in self-rule was cut short by the October Revolution. Under the banner of true democracy, and against all odds, the Bolshevik triumph resulted in the ruthless repression of all opposition. The Bolsheviks managed to harness the social breakdown caused by the war and institutionalize violence as a method of state-building, creating a new society and a new form of power.

I think someone at Amazon couldn't bring themselves to make any observations about how the "Bolshevik Triumph" was due to the Bolshevik's being better at slaughtering anyone who didn't toe their party line better than any of their rivals. Also, that "true democracy" as espoused by the Bolsheviks was just a word to dupe the masses.

While this book is organized more-or-less chronologically, Engelstein covers the events of 1905-1921 geographically as well, examining events in all of the former Russian Empire, including those arts that managed to break off from it to become independent -- as well as in those that failed in their attempts to do so. (Growing up in Detroit, more often than not I heard Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia referred to as The Captive Nations"; they had a weekend Ethnic Festival all their own.)

The Reds did not so much defeat the Whites as the Whites defeated themselves: They were not an "Army" so much as being a chaotic shambles under a blanket descriptor. This process is well described, as is the way that Lenin and Trotsky, et alia,  blithely had thousands if not millions slaughtered for the crime of... existing.

As I noted in my tweet above (limited to 280 characters) not only was the process of the revolution devouring it's own not finished, but it was neither the first nor the last to do so. If you can find it, I highly recommend The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, et al. to describe the manner in which various revolutions have betrayed those in whose names they were carried out. Note that it was written by an assemblage of European commies.

(From the Amazon.com Review: When it was first published in France in 1997, Le livre noir du Communisme touched off a storm of controversy that continues to rage today. Even some of his contributors shied away from chief editor Stéphane Courtois's conclusion that Communism, in all its many forms, was morally no better than Nazism; the two totalitarian systems, Courtois argued, were far better at killing than at governing, as the world learned to its sorrow.)

Now, I've tried to read Russian history before and gotten so bogged down in Russian names that I had to quit; I was simply unable to keep track of who was doing what to whom. (I suppose there's a Lenin joke in there somewhere...) Robert Conquest just, well, defeats me when it comes to it. (Maybe Daddy Bear can recommend something...) I managed with this one, so there's that.

This is another of those books which run 800 pages, 200+ of which are notes, index, and bibliography. At some point I extended the loan from the library, but I managed to finish it by the original due date. It probably wouldn't have been a challenge if my reading habits haven't been severely impacted by my work schedule, i.e., working graveyard shift, I do most of my reading on my weekends.

If you've ever wondered how Russia went from the Tsar to Kerensky to Lenin, and how Lenin hung on until his death, this book covers the period well. Recommended.

WA -- SAF, CCRKBA WARN I-1639 SPONSORS THAT ‘UNREADABLE’ PETITIONS VIOLATE LAW

The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms send:

SAF, CCRKBA WARN I-1639 SPONSORS THAT ‘UNREADABLE’ PETITIONS VIOLATE LAW
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today warned sponsors of anti-gun Initiative 1639 via a demand letter that their campaign “is utilizing unreadable petitions in violation” of state law, and demanded that this be corrected to “conform to the legal requirements.”
Olympia attorney Shawn Newman, writing on behalf of the two Bellevue-based organizations, noted, “The petitions for I-1639 have the proposed measure printed on the back of the sheets in such fine print as to be unreadable… Use of fine print is unconscionable.”
State law mandates that initiative petitions “have a readable, full, true, and correct copy of the proposed measure printed on the reverse side of the petition,” Newman’s letter warns.
“In the short time that I-1639 petitions have been in circulation,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “SAF and CCRKBA have been contacted by several people who could not read the initiative language. I’ve always been warned to read the small print before signing anything. I-1639, as it appears on the back of each petition, is all small print. That should tell voters something about its content.”
According to Newman’s letter, “Obviously, due to the microscopic maze of fine print used by the initiative sponsors to disguise the actual language of the initiative on the back of their petitions, voters cannot be fully informed.” He cautioned I-1639 sponsors that having their paid signature gatherers tell voters to “read it online” is “no substitute for following the law.” Newman suggested reprinting the petitions, and contact voters who have already signed to allow them the opportunity to sign a readable copy of the measure.
“We would prefer that you become compliant with the law,” Newman wrote, “but if you choose to continue in this illegal manner, we will be forced to litigate this matter.”
Copies of the letter were sent to Secretary of State’s office, the Washington State Attorney General, and “many other interested parties to ensure that everyone has been notified of the fundamental problem with your petitions.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

 (More after the jump...)

May Day, 2018

This about sums it up:

This #MayDay, hundreds of thousands of protesters across the world will fly the flag of communist dictators who have butchered millions, demand a more authoritarian government, and be praised by the media for doing so. pic.twitter.com/bgDBcVEKEd

— Far Left Watch (@FarLeftWatch) May 1, 2018

Word Of The Day: Baizuo

pic.twitter.com/VmgbCGXUwU

— Sage Savage (@SageSavageTV) April 28, 2018

The Word Of the Day is: Baizuo (from Urban Dictionary.)

Baizuo (pronounced "bye-tswaw) is a Chinese epithet meaning naive western educated person who advocates for peace and equality only to satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority. A baizuo only cares about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment while being obsessed with political correctness to the extent that they import backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism.

The Chinese see the baizuo as ignorant and arrogant westerners who pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours.

Justin Trudeau's worldview is a low-resolution caricature of an adult's worldview.

Baizuo at Wikipedia.

Baizuo (Chinese: 白左, literally "White left(ies)"^[1]) is a derogatory Chinese epithet that came into being in the middle 2010's.^[2][3] The word received attention in Germany where it was seen as criticizing the immigration policies of Angela Merkel.^[4][5][6]

Context and usage

The word baizuo is, according to political scientist Zhang Chenchen, a Chinese word that ridicules Western "Liberal elites".^[7] The term has also been used to refer to perceived double standards of the Western media, such as the alleged bias on reporting about Islamist attacks in Xinjiang.^[8][9][10]
Zhang Chenchen further defined the word "baizuo" with the definition "People who only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment" and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.^[11]
Baizuo is used as an insult amongst Chinese netizens.

See also

• Social justice warrior
• Regressive left
• Liberal elite
• Clintonian
• Radical Chic
• limousine liberal

Can you say "Baizuo"? I knew you could.

20 years, down the drain

And just like that, my Army career was rendered irrelevant.

Pacific Stars and Stripes: Moon and Kim Discuss Denuclearization at Historic Summit

BBC: North Korea's Kim Jong-un Pledges 'New History' With South Korea

The Times: Koreas Poised For ‘Great Transition in World History’

Voice of America: North, South Korean Leaders Hold Historic Meeting

Moon and Kim
Photo from The Small Wars Journal

Moon and Kim
Photo from The Small Wars Journal

Not really, of course.

Note, by the way, that Kim and Moon did not sign a peace treaty, which some of the reporting implied happened. It sounds like they agreed to look into it later this year.

No, what is so momentous is the fact that the heads of state met: Neither country has heretofore even acknowledged that the other existed legitimately. North Korea has always insisted on meeting with the USA alone, while the USA refuses to meet separately, and officially designates it "north Korea", with a small "n".

As I was explaining to a colleague in The Salt Mines,  I served for 20 years, 3 months, and 3 days, and almost 9 of those years were in the Republic of Korea. I spent a fair amount of time on, or within rifle-shot of, the Demilitarized Zone.

One year I was Watch NCO at Field Station Korea; this was under Bush 41, when Mrs. Drang and I were still newlyweds, and de-nuclearization talks on The Peninsula were proceeding well enough that every installation in the republic of Korea was required to make plans for how to deal with commie inspectors.

At a facility that was a wholly-owned subsidiary, so to speak, of the National Security Agency (which was still commonly referred to as "No Such Agency" at the start of my career) you might assume this resulted in some angst.

You would be correct, but it might surprise you that the Secret Squirrel contingent just read the instructions, and made plans accordingly. (Collection operations would be suspended, equipment turned of, and contents of filing cabinets and the like would be covered with kraft paper. IIRC, things would filed so that the kraft paper could be pulled back to reveal files, but they would be set up in such a manner that nothing could be learned of the contents of files by so doing. They would not have the right to inspect read the files, just do a quick scan with the Mark I Eyeball, and wave a Geiger Counter over it, if they wanted.)

(This was the first use I saw of an Access Card scanner; some genius covered those boxes with kraft paper...)

No, the person who really got all spun up was the NCOIC of the Information Technology Section. (Whatever we called it back on 1990.)

Mind you, that doesn't mean we were all impressed, those of us who had already invested a significant amount of time and effort into the "Korean Mission" fully expected the whole thing to come to naught, which it did.

So.

My standard answer regarding peace on the Korean Peninsula remains "I'll believe it when I see it", but I must admit, for the first time since 1980 I do feel some hope.

Text of HR 5087, new Federal "Assault Weapon" Ban

Text - H.R.5087 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Institutes a 10 round magazine limit.

"Improves" upon the Clinton Ban by banning any semi-automatic rifle with one "Evil Feature". (Note: It even admits that a "barrel shroud" is a safety device, but still bans it...)

Co-Sponsored by The Usual Suspects. Including my own Representative, who was, at one time, rated B by the NRA.

Adds mandatory "safe storage" for grandfathered "assault weapons."

Includes a "by-name" list of banned rifles and shotguns...

...and an extensive "by-name" list of exempt rifles and shotguns, including not only semi-automatics, but pump, bolt, lever-action, break action, and even by-name list of "drillings and combinations."

(Nothing suspicious about that at all, right?)

But, hey, it lets retired Law Enforcement Officers keep their Large Capacity Feeding Devices upon retirement, IF they purchased them for on-duty use before retirement... 

Free To Choose...

Friedman would be laughing his ass off, or taking up arms, one or the other...

How does removing a requirement to purchase a thing, "or else", deprive people who WANT to purchase the thing, of the thing?
Doesn't matter whether you replace "thing" with "widget", "candy bar", or "health insurance", people who WANT TO can still purchase it.

— Drang (@DWDrang) November 19, 2017

I mean, I get that progressives are too invested in their ideology to even acknowledge the question.*

And socialists of all stripes would probably say that asking the question is racist, classist, sexist, and a dozen other "ists" I can't even think of right now.

But the fact remains that no one has proposed banning health insurance, nor even  repealing the law that makes it a crime to refuse someone emergency care because they can't afford to pay for it.

They're just proposing that the government cease forcing people to spend money on something they don't want.

Remember, ultimately, any government requirement is backed up by someone with a gun.

BTW, if Obamacare was so great,

• Why does anyone have to be forced to buy it?
• Why do I know so many people with serious medical conditions and no health care?

* Ignoring the obvious question, how many of them are smart enough to even recognize the logical fallacy?

Note to Everybody

Inspired by Tam's post Copypasta from my Bookface wall...

Go ahead and unfriend me.

The only way I am going back to Facebook is if they change their rules to let one post using a pseudonym with your "legal ID" not publicly available, and not searchable, without a warrant.

I'd even be willing to pay a double sawbuck (that's a Jackson for you kids, AKA an Irony Note, until Harriet replaces Andy, at which time it will be a Freedom Note, I guess) per annum for the service.

Facebook can be a useful way to stay in touch with family and friends; people evacuating from Hurricane Harvey only need a couple of minutes to post to their wall "Safe in Dallas, more later" and everyone will know they made it out OK.

Google+ could do that much, too, and anyone who has an Android phone has a Google+ account by virtue of having an Android, AKA GMail, AKA Google, account. And Google+ does not demand you post your legal ID anywhere. (Ask me how I know...)

But Zuckerberg et. al. are more interested in making piles of money and in manipulating society than in providing a simple service that people would actually like.

So feel no guilt at all about trimming your friends list by one there.

BTW, I'm still on Twitter, as of this week. Not real active, compared to some, but posting a link to the blog posts will (or used to) cross-post to Facebook, and occasionally some SJW does or says something stupid...

"Down mit Kapitalism!"

Ooh, great selfie, bro...

Self-absorbed fascists in Hamburg

And here we thought the Occupy Wall Street cry bullies were pathetic...

PSA, Cybersecurity Edition

Generating a Bunch Of "Internet Noise" Isn't Going to Hide Your Browsing Habits

I thought that was obvious, but maybe that's because traffic analysis is what I do did.

Note that the guy who wrote the "Internet Noise" app actually says in his write up of the thing that it's "protest-ware", not an actual privacy/security app.

Which seems pointless, but what do I know? If it makes you happy to clog system resources in a gesture the people you're protesting at won't even notice, go for it.

WA Governor proves he learned nothing

One might think that one of the few democratic governors left these days might have learned from  the 2016 election that now is not the time to double down on Democratic party big-money causes.

Nope.

Courtesy of Shift WA we learn that Governor Inslee has decided that Olympia is coming up a little short. $8.7 Billion short.

But that's OK, he has a plan...

That graphic neatly summarizes what Shift WA calls Governor Inlee's Lumps of Coal for WA:

1. A lump of Inslee coal in your stocking: A “bold” budget to fund bigger gov’t. A 21% increase...
2. Lump #2 of Inslee coal in your stocking: A new state income tax Proposals for an income tax always play so well here...
3. Lump #3 of Inslee coal in your stocking: A BIG gas/carbon tax We voted down a carbon tax last November. This one was even designed to partially offset our high sales tax. So what does Jay want to do? Of course!
4. Inslee’s Lump of Coal #4: Let’s sock it to small businesses This one is a "Gross Receipts tax", not a tax on profit, so it will literally tax some businesses out of business...
5. Jay’s lump of coal #5: Tax the foreigners (from Canada)! People from out of state are exempt from the state's high sales tax. He wants to end that.which costs businesses business.

(edited to add) RELATED: Washington has what’s the nation’s most regressive state and local tax structure.

GOAL ALERT 2017-1

Couple days late here. My work schedule these days is... weird.
This time Joe forwards an NRA Alrt for WA, with added commentary at the beginning.

All  I'll add is that, if we defeat these draconian laws we can expect to see them or similar as ballot initiatives.

***

FROM: GOAL WA <goalwa@cox.net>

TO: undisclosed recipients

SENT: Sun 1/22/2017 5:50 AM

SUBJECT: GOAL ALERT 2017-1 22 Jan 2017

I am taking the liberty of forwarding this message from NRA-ILA to all GOAL listers. It contains the best and most thorough explanation I have seen of the breadth and impact of Attorney General Ferguson’s proposed “assault weapon/large capacity magazine” ban and/or registration legislation.

Don’t look to the past and recall the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal gun ban. That was a joke – a “ban” that banned nothing already in existence, and was so poorly worded that it opened the door to widespread and easy evasion. This one is for real. It not only eviscerates the 2^nd Amendment, it does a fair job on the 4^th and 5^th Amendments as well.

As we look at the elevation of Donald Trump to the presidency and the commitments that he made on the campaign trail to protect the 2^nd Amendment, let us remember that almost all gun control laws on the books come at the state level. And as my mother would have said, “this one is a doozy.”

If you have never been politically active before, THIS is the time to start. This is the time to communicate with your elected officials – by e-mail, by telephone (remember the toll-free legislative hotline

(800-562-6000 and TDD 800-635-9993), by old-fashioned snail mail – and let them know in polite but firm terms that these bills (HB 1134, SB 5050 and HB 1387 (no Senate version bill number yet) SB are totally unacceptable and infringe on and impair the US and state constitutional protections of the right to keep and bear arms.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/MemberEmail/

https://app.leg.wa.gov/pbc/

This is the time, too, to plan a day to visit the Capitol Campus and speak directly with the people YOU sent to Olympia to represent you. In all likelihood, in the next two weeks a day will be scheduled when multiple gun bills are heard – a great opportunity to put grassroots lobbying (YOU) to work. Yes, most of us have to work for a living, and have to take time off to visit Olympia. How much are your 2^nd Amendment rights worth to you? The other side rents buses and cleans out downtown Seattle to give freeloaders a free ride. Are they more committed that we are? I’ll try and get another alert out when “gun bill day” is scheduled.

http://leg.wa.gov/legislature/Pages/ComingToTheLegislature.aspx

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170113/alert-wa-state-proposes-draconian-gun-ban-bills

Alert: WA State Proposes Draconian Gun Ban Bills

Friday, January 13, 2017 Alert: WA State Proposes Draconian Gun Ban Bills

Inspired, perhaps, by Oscar Wilde (“Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess”), Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has announced two new sweeping gun control bills, with Sen. David Frockt (D-Seattle) and Rep. Strom Peterson (D-Edmonds) as the bill’s prime sponsors.

Despite being described as “assault weapon reform,” the proposed legislation is nothing short of a ban of many common, legal firearms and “large-capacity magazines” currently possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense, hunting, and recreational shooting.

Both bills use the same extensive definitions of “assault weapon” and “large-capacity magazine” (LCM). “Assault weapon” would include:

·         a semiautomatic rifle using a detachable magazine and with one or more of the listed six features (e.g., folding or telescoping stock, thumbhole stock),

·         a semiautomatic handgun or a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that can hold more than ten rounds,

·         a semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches,

·         a semiautomatic handgun using a detachable magazine and with one of the listed four features, and

·         a shotgun with a revolving cylinder or certain semiautomatic shotguns.

The bills exclude “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action,” “antique” firearms, and any gun that has been made permanently inoperable.

An LCM is defined as “any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds,” or “any conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which such a device can be assembled” if the parts are in the possession or control of the same person, but excludes a tubular magazine contained in a lever-action firearm and a .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.

The first bill prohibits all possession, purchase, sale or transfer of an “assault weapon” or LCM, except as permitted. (“Transfer” already has a special definition in Washington law, and means any “intended delivery of a firearm to another person without consideration of payment or promise of payment including, but not limited to, gifts and loans.”) The exceptions for other than law enforcement personnel or licensed dealers include persons who legally possess such items when the law takes effect, and persons who become owners through inheritance or other operation of law, provided these owners can “establish such provenance.” Once grandfathered, owners are themselves prohibited from selling or transferring the item, other than to a licensed dealer or by way of permanent relinquishment to law enforcement. Guns and magazines relinquished to law enforcement “must be destroyed.” These bills have less to do with “meaningful reforms” for public safety and reducing crime (other than the newly defined crimes of being gun owners) than they do with moving the incremental process of stigmatizing guns and eliminating firearm possession by law-abiding citizens another giant step forward in Washington State.

The bill also imposes a storage requirement on grandfathered owners as a condition of continued lawful possession. The “assault weapon” or LCM must be kept in a safe, gun safe, lock box or other device that can be locked and constructed of workmanship and material such “that it cannot be pried open or easily removed or defeated.”

The second bill proposes a marginally less extreme alternative. First, it would impose a registration-licensing system for “assault weapons” and LCMs. Every person who possesses, transports, manufactures, purchases or sells an “assault weapon” or LCM must have an annual state-issued license, with an updated license required every time there is a change in possession of the gun or LCM. The licensing requirement has a delay period (until 2020) before it applies to persons who currently possess such items, but these persons would be prohibited from selling or transferring the gun or LCM to anyone other than a licensed dealer, a gunsmith, or to law enforcement for permanent relinquishment.

Like the first bill, this bill mandates that relinquished guns and LCMs “must be destroyed.”

Licenses would not be available to persons under 21 years of age.  

Applicants would have to show proof of completing the specific kind of comprehensive training, and provide a statement that he or she will only use the gun or LCM for the specified “lawful” purposes and will always use “safe gun storage” when the "assault weapon" or LCM is not in the person’s “immediate possession.” The license applicant must provide a “full description” of both the lawful purpose for which the assault weapon or LCM is sought and the “safe gun storage” the applicant will use. The application also requires a minimum $50 fee, detailed personal information, detailed information about the weapon or LCM, fingerprinting, and a state database/NICS check. The bill also imposes a “great care” standard for licensees, in which the licensee must keep the assault weapon unloaded, within “secure gun storage,” when it is not in the licensee’s immediate possession.

Licensed dealers would be prohibited from selling or delivering an "assault weapon" or LCM to any person who does not have a state-issued license. Even with licensees, the bill would require the dealer to keep records of every transaction, to be submitted to local law enforcement.

Further, because Washington State has a private background check requirement that applies to sales and “transfers” of firearms, the dealer performing a background check on a non-sale private “transfer” of an "assault weapon" is prohibited from “facilitating the transfer” if the parties lack the necessary licenses. Residents of other states would be prohibited from purchasing rifles and shotguns in Washington if the firearm comes within the definition of “assault weapon.”

And if all this wasn’t enough, the penalties for violations of these bills are staggering. Under the first bill, any violations are Class C felonies, as are violations of the licensing or the “great care” requirements in the second bill. Class C felonies are punishable by five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $10,000, or both the imprisonment and the fine.

According to a news report, the goal is to pass the “assault weapons” ban, with the second bill being the fall-back or alternative. Predictably, these measures are being characterized as “common-sense solutions” to prevent "gun violence".

As we’ve pointed out before, bans of “assault weapons” tend to be an arbitrary categorization of certain firearms based on the presence of designated features. These bans are unrelated to the likelihood of such guns being used in crime or in a mass shooting event. A study that Congress required on the impact of the federal assault weapons and LCM ban, which expired in 2004, “concluded that ‘the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders’ even before the ban, and that the law’s 10-round limit on new ammunition magazines wasn’t a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes.” Similarly, state-level data suggests there is no indication that "assault weapon" and LCM bans reduce violent crime.

Despite being described as “assault weapon reform,” the proposed legislation is nothing short of a ban of many common, legal firearms and “large-capacity magazines” currently possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense, hunting, and recreational shooting.

Moreover, based on a survey released a few days ago by the Pew Research Center, restrictions on "assault weapons" are not supported by the law enforcement community. The survey found that even though almost all (86%) of the officers describe their job as more difficult now than previously and that their department lacked enough officers to adequately patrol their community, only about a third of officers (32%) expressed support for a ban on "assault weapons" (and an overwhelming majority of the police officers, 74%, agreed that it was more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns than it was to control gun ownership).

Sadly, these bills follow the recent tradition of Washington State’s poorly drafted gun control initiatives and misinformation in how these are portrayed to the public. The 2014 background check initiative, I-594, was peddled as one that required background checks “on all gun sales,” to prohibit “dangerous people” from buying guns. In reality, the legislation went far beyond regulating sales and covers almost all gifts, loans, and other “transfers” of a firearm, meaning that any situation in which a firearm temporarily changes hands is a potential violation of the law. Another Washington initiative, I-1491, on “extreme risk protection orders,” was described as a “temporary” suspension of a person’s access to firearms if there was “documented evidence” that the person may be dangerous. The actual text of the measure, however, authorizes court orders that ban possession or access to guns for a minimum of one year – which orders are renewable indefinitely – without any requirement for evidence by an expert or medical practitioner regarding the person’s mental health or propensity towards violence.

Oddly, given the stated goal of the legislation, it does nothing to require a mental health follow-up or treatment for a person who is placed under such an order. And while the professed justification for passing such gun laws has been the need to save lives by keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people, there’s little to show that there’s been any appreciable impact on public safety because of these restrictions.

Consistent with this pattern, though, we expect to see the drastic regulatory scope and reach of the new bills downplayed, with correspondingly big claims about their value in reducing gun violence. Already, Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s press release states, about the first bill, that “[t]he legislation covers only sales, thereby grandfathering current gun ownership,” adding that the “ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines applies to magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” In fact, the plain language of the bill clearly prohibits, besides sales, the possession and “transfers” (gifts and loans) of guns and LCMs. Likewise, the licensing and registration regime is entirely omitted in the description of the second bill, which is referred to as “enhancing background checks and raising the minimum age required to buy” assault weapons and LCMs. Nowhere is there a mention of the dire penalties.

These bills have less to do with “meaningful reforms” for public safety and reducing crime (other than the newly defined crimes of being gun owners) than they do with moving the incremental process of stigmatizing guns and eliminating firearm possession by law-abiding citizens another giant step forward in Washington State.

Washington NRA members and Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to click the "Take Action" button above to contact their state legislators in opposition to these anti-gun bills, SB 5050, HB 1134 and HB 1187.

------------------------------------

Posted by: GOAL WA <goalwa@cox.net>