Private vs. Public

Much has been made about the Socialist Party demanding to be able to scrutinize President Trump’s tax returns over the past fifty years or whatever, and how Senior Socialist Pelosi isn’t able to rein in the demands of the AOC Wing of the Party.  Whatever.

My take is simple:  a private citizen’s tax information is an intensely confidential business — between the individual (or his agent) and the IRS, and no other.

Once an individual starts working in government, i.e. in public service, then his tax returns should be published in the Congressional Record each year, for two reasons:

  1. a position in public service should require that the public be able to scrutinize how it is possible for, say, ex-Senator Harry Reid (or current Speaker Pelosi, for that matter) to become a multi-millionaire while earning only a Congressional salary, and
  2. the knowledge that their financial dealings while in public service are being made public would make all gummint workers and elected officials more circumspect in their behavior, and rein in their corruption tendencies.

In other words, before  someone starts working for the Gummint / is elected to office, those tax records are nunya.  Once you become  a public servant — and only then — those tax records should be subject to public scrutiny.

So if Trump tells Congress to FOAD when they demand to see his pre-presidential tax returns, I’ll support him to the hilt.  But should Red Nancy refuse to let us see her tax returns from all the years she’s been in Congress, she should be impeached herself.

Demonization

So let me make sure I’ve got this absolutely clear:  if the Gummint passes a patently un-Constitutional law and someone refuses to comply with it, that person would be a “homegrown terrorist”?

Got it.  I should also point out that it was Lenin who first equated refuseniks  with being terrorists.

Here’s a tip for this asshole:  you keep making shitty laws and stockpiling bodybags, and we’ll keep buying ammo.  We’ll see who runs out first.

Cutting Out The Middlemen

I think I can safely say that all who visit this here back porch are in agreement that centralization of the governmental kind is generally meant to create efficiencies, but seldom does.

The same is true of pretty much any organization which is dealing solely with collecting and disbursing other people’s money — and here I’m turning my baleful gaze onto the cockroaches known as “international aid societies”, who can skim money out of donations better than any dairy can skim the cream off milk.  And I have some support in this viewpoint, from the BritGov of all places:

Aid minister Penny Mordaunt has drawn up plans for the UK to take more control of how we help countries around the world.
The International Development Secretary has demanded a major overhaul so less of the UK’s £14.1billion aid budget is handed out through staff at international agencies.
She wants to use the cash to fund specific projects chosen by Britain with more oversight to make sure money is not wasted.
The proposal is part of this year’s comprehensive spending review, which will set the course of Government budgets for the next few years. Around a third (37 per cent) of the aid budget is currently spent as contributions to multilateral organisations, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and European Commission.

Leaving aside the need for a minister for aid (the Brits love this Yes, Minister crap), what Mordaunt says is absolutely correct.  For those who know not who she is, by the way, allow me to enlighten with a  couple pics:

 

 

 

The Right Honorable Member from Portsmouth North sure makes a change from the dreary Socialist trolls who infest our body politic, doesn’t she?  And she makes sense — an even bigger change.

So Much For Background Checks

Like everyone here I was saddened to read of the mass shooting that happened in Illinois last week.  Dude got laid off, pulled a gun and started shooting, killing six and wounding several more, including cops.  I was expecting to have ILGov Fatboi Pritzker immediately start calling for more stringent gun control laws etc., and was wondering what was taking him so long.  Here’s probably why the delay:

The chief also released new details about Martin’s criminal background and the weapon in the shooting.
Martin should have been legally barred from purchasing a gun due to his felony record. He had a 1995 conviction for aggravated assault for stabbing a woman in Marshall County, Mississippi.
However, in January 2014, Martin applied for and was issued an Illinois Firearm Owners Identification (FOI) card, which is required to own or purchase a gun in Illinois.
On March 6 2014, Martin applied to purchase a handgun at a licensed dealer in Aurora. Five days later, he took possession of a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber revolver, the same type of gun described as the weapon in Sunday’s shooting.
On March 16 2014, Martin applied for a Concealed Carry permit in an unknown location. He was fingerprinted during the background check, and his prior felony conviction came to light during the background check.
At the discovery, Martin’s CCW application was rejected, and his FOI card was revoked. He apparently retained possession of the handgun, however.
Ziman was unable to explain why the felony conviction did not prevent Martin from obtaining a FOI card in the first place, merely saying it was possible that it would not have been discovered until the more rigorous CCW check.

So much for the much-vaunted background checks we’re always hearing about.  Illinois screwed up, and six people died because of it.  I would hope that the murdered people’s families initiate a class-action lawsuit for negligence against the state, because a law unenforced isn’t a law.  Of course, Illinois is bankrupt because they’re paying off (or not even paying) excessively-high entitlements to former government workers, so the lawsuit might be a waste of time.  And needless to say, the gnomes at the IL State Police (representing “police power”, see below) won’t be fired for negligence because unions.

One last thing about the choirboy’s gun:  S&W doesn’t make a revolver chambered in .40 S&W, so it must have been a semi-automatic pistol  (Clueless Journalism 101).


State of Illinois constitution, Article I, Section 22:
“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Turning Round And Biting

It appears that the BritGov has a perennial shortage of men wanting to join their army.  This led them, amid much merriment, to launch an ad campaign appealing to the Snowflake Generation — and apparently, to pretty much everyone’s surprise, it worked:

The controversial Army recruitment campaign aimed at ‘snowflakes’ led to an unprecedented wave of youngsters signing up, figures reveal.
Posters released on January 3 targeted ‘snowflakes, selfie addicts, class clowns, phone zombies and ‘me, me, millennials’ ‘ as part of a £1.5million campaign aimed at overturning negative stereotypes.
Critics said they patronised youngsters and the soldier used on the ‘snowflake’ poster threatened to quit.
But the Army said yesterday it had 9,700 applications in the first three weeks of January – a five-year high – compared to 5,437 the previous year.

Whether anyone would want  more of said demographic in their army, or anywhere for that matter, is a topic for another time, but whatever.

What’s troubling is the way that the Brit Army supports its soldiers once they’ve joined.  Try this little horror show (and you may want to put all guns and/or throwable objects out of reach before you read it):

How hero soldier won the Military Cross for unimaginable bravery in Iraq then years later was smeared as a war criminal by leeching lawyers

Disgusting.  And I’m not just talking about the fucking lawyers.


P.S.  Mind you, that’s not to say the U.S. doesn’t do the same thing.  Fuckers.