Stale and Moss-Covered

Amen, Rand Paul.  This is exactly what I'm seeing here in Cobb County, Georgia.  Gotta support the old guard, the good old boy network, as they ignore all small government principles.

From RealClearPolitics:

"Rand Paul: 'The GOP Of Old Has Grown Stale And Moss-Covered'"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/14/rand_paul_the_gop_of_old_has_grown_stale_and_moss-covered.html

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered. I don't think we need to name any names, do we? Our party is encumbered by an inconsistent approach to freedom. The new GOP will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and the personal sphere. If we're going to have a Republican party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP. We must have a message that is broad, our vision must be broad, and that vision must be based on freedom.

There are millions of Americans, young and old, native and immigrant, black, white and brown, who simply seek to live free, to practice a religion, free to choose where their kids go to school, free to choose their own health care, free to keep the fruits of their labor, free to live without government constantly being on their back. I will stand for them. I will stand for you. I will stand for our prosperity and our freedom, and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me. Thank you. God bless America.

Based on freedom.  AMEN.

And from the Washington Times:

"CPAC 2013: Youth-favorite Rand Paul chastises ‘stale and moss-covered’ GOP" by David Sherfinski and Seth McLaughlin

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/cpac-2013-rand-paul-gop-old-has-grown-stale-and-mo/

Fresh off his filibuster that captured the hearts of libertarian conservatives, Sen. Rand Paul told attendees Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference that the Republican Party has become “stale” and must return to basic constitutional principles if it wants to ignite a political revolution.

“The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered,” Mr. Paul said. “The new GOP, the GOP that will win again, will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and personal sphere. If we are going to have a Republican Party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP.” 

It all comes down to the fundamental principle of liberty.  And liberty cannot flourish under big government.

But Mr. Paul, who impressed senators on both sides of the aisle with his recent information-seeking filibuster over the Obama administration’s policy on drone strikes, appeared to have the most enthusiastic support in attendance.

“I came with a message — a message for the president,” he said. “A message that is loud and clear. A message that doesn’t mince words.”

“Don’t drone me, bro!” shouted one audience member. 

“Well,” Mr. Paul said with a laugh, “that’s not exactly what I was thinking. However, I think he might have distilled my 13-hour speech into three words.”

I think that audience member NAILED IT!   :)

The Chart That Proves That The Mainstream Media Is Lying To You About Unemployment

We're in a recovery, right?  The unemployment rate is going down, right?  Wrong.  The media are (yes, I prefer the Latin usage) lying to you.

From The Economic Collapse Blog:

"The Chart That Proves That The Mainstream Media Is Lying To You About Unemployment" by Michael

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-chart-that-proves-that-the-mainstream-media-is-lying-to-you-about-unemployment

The mainstream media is absolutely giddy that the U.S. unemployment rate has hit a "four-year low" of 7.7 percent.  But is unemployment in the United States actually going down?  After all, you would think that it should be.  The Obama administration has "borrowed" more than 6 trillion dollars from future generations of Americans, interest rates have been pushed to all-time lows, and the Federal Reserve has been wildly printing more money in a desperate attempt to "stimulate" the economy.  So have those efforts been successful?  Well, according to the mainstream media, the U.S. unemployment rate is falling steadily.  Headlines all over the nation boldly declared that "236,000 jobs" were added to the economy in February, but what they didn't tell you was that the number of Americans "not in the labor force" rose by 296,000.  And that is how they are getting the unemployment rate to go down - by pretending that huge numbers of unemployed Americans don't want jobs.  Sadly, as you will see below, the truth is that the percentage of working age Americans that have a job is just 0.1% higher than it was exactly three years ago.  And we have not even come close to getting back to where we were before the last economic crisis.  For example, more than 146 million Americans were employed back in 2007.  But today, only 142.2 million Americans have a job even though our population has grown steadily since then.  So where in the world is this "economic recovery" that they keep talking about?

At this point, the "unemployment rate" has become so meaningless that it really isn't even worth paying much attention to.  If you really want to know what the employment picture looks like in the United States, you need to look at the employment-population ratio.

...the percentage of Americans with a job fell from about 63 percent to below 59 percent during the last economic crisis.  Since that time, it has not risen back above 59 percent.  This is the first time in the post-World War II era that we have not seen the employment rate bounce back following a recession.  At this point, the employment-population ratio has been below 59 percent for 42 months in a row.

Just consider these numbers...
-The number of homeless people sleeping in homeless shelters in New York City has increased by 19 percent over the past year.
-The number of Americans on food stamps has risen from 32 million to 47 million while Barack Obama has been in the White House.
-According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 146 million Americans are either "poor" or "low income" at this point.
-Median household income in the United States has fallen for four consecutive years.
No, the truth is that everything is most definitely not fine.
If everything is fine, then why did the Federal Reserve inject another 100 billion dollars into foreign banks during the last full week of February?

Bottom line: You can't trust a word that our government tells us.  They are only interested in propping themselves up to stay in power.  Nothing more.

Rand Paul's Filibuster, and Democratic Myths

By now you've heard of Rand Paul's old-fashioned (he actually took the floor of the Senate and talked) filibuster a week or two ago.  Paul asked perfectly reasonable questions, and the Obama administration (the most transparent in history, according to its supporters) didn't answer.  So he filibustered the nomination of John O. Brennan to lead the CIA.

I found one of the best interpretations of what this all means on The Guardian's site.

"Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster" by Glenn Greenwald

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/10/paul-filibuster-drones-progressives

I'd like to just select a few key quotes, but the whole article is packed with good points.  Consider this, then, a slight trimming of the article, paring it down to the essentials..

Commencing immediately upon the 9/11 attack, the US government under two successive administrations has spent 12 straight years inventing and implementing new theories of government power in the name of Terrorism. Literally every year since 9/11 has ushered in increased authorities of exactly the type Americans are inculcated to believe only exist in those Other, Non-Free societies: ubiquitous surveillance, impenetrable secrecy, and the power to imprison and even kill without charges or due process. Even as the 9/11 attack recedes into the distant past, the US government still finds ways continuously to increase its powers in the name of Terrorism while virtually never relinquishing any of the power it acquires. So inexorable has this process been that the Obama administration has already exercised the power to target even its own citizens for execution far from any battlefield, and the process has now arrived at its inevitable destination: does this due-process-free execution power extend to US soil as well?

Last week's 13-hour filibuster of John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director by GOP Sen. Rand Paul was one of the first - and, from the perspective of media attention, easily among the most effective -Congressional efforts to dramatize and oppose just how radical these Terrorism-justified powers have become.

All of this put Democrats - who spent eight years flamboyantly pretending to be champions of due process and opponents of mass secrecy and executive power abuses - in a very uncomfortable position. The politician who took such a unique stand in defense of these principles was not merely a Republican but a leading member of its dreaded Tea Party wing, while the actor most responsible for the extremist theories of power being protested was their own beloved leader and his political party.

All of those Democratic Senators other than Merkley and Leahy (and Sanders) voted to confirm the torture-advocating, secrecy-loving, drone-embracing Brennan as CIA chief.

Meanwhile, a large bulk of the Democratic and liberal commentariat ... degraded all of the weighty issues raised by this episode by processing it through their stunted, trivial prism of partisan loyalty. They thus dutifully devoted themselves to reading from the only script they know: Democrats Good, GOP Bad.

To accomplish that, most avoided full-throated defenses of drones and the power of the president to secretly order US citizens executed without due process or transparency. They prefer to ignore the fact that the politician they most deeply admire is a devoted defender of those policies. After stumbling around for a few days in search of a tactic to convert this episode into an attack on the GOP and distract from Obama's extremism, they collectively settled on personalizing the conflict by focusing on Rand Paul's flaws as a person and a politician and, in particular, mocking his concerns as "paranoia" (that attack was echoed, among others, by the war-cheering Washington Post editorial page).

Besides, they claim, Attorney General Eric Holder has now made crystal clear that Obama lacks the authority to target US citizens on US soil for execution by drone, so all of Paul's concerns are nothing more than wild conspiracies.

The reality is that Paul was doing nothing more than voicing concerns that have long been voiced by leading civil liberties groups such as the ACLU. Indeed, the ACLU lavishly praised Paul, saying that "as a result of Sen. Paul's historic filibuster, civil liberties got two wins". In particular, said the ACLU, "Americans learned about the breathtakingly broad claims of executive authority undergirding the Obama administration's vast killing program."

But almost without exception, progressives who defend Obama's Terrorism policies steadfastly ignore the fact that they are embracing policies that are vehemently denounced by the ACLU. That's because they like to tell themselves that only Big, Bad Republicans attack the ACLU...  It's remarkable indeed how frequently, in the Age of Obama, standard partisan Democrats embrace exactly the policies identified by the ACLU as the most menacing.

I want to highlight three key points from all of this, centered around myths propagated by Democrats to demean Paul's filibuster and the concerns raised by it:

(1) Progressives and their "empathy gap"

The US government's continuous killing, due-process-free imprisonment, and other rights abuses under the War on Terror banner has affected one group far more than any other: Muslims and, increasingly, American Muslims. Politically, this has been the key fact enabling this to endure. Put simply, if you're not Muslim, it's very easy to dismiss, minimize or mock these issues because you can easily tell yourself that they don't affect you or your family and therefore there is no reason to care. And since the vast, vast majority of Democratic politicians and progressive media commentators are not Muslim, one continuously sees this mentality shaping reaction to these issues.

When you combine what Teju Cole describes as this selfish "empathy gap" among progressives with the authoritarian strain in American liberalism that worships political power and reveres political institutions (especially when their party controls them), it's unsurprising that they are so callous and dismissive of these issues (I'm not talking about those who pay little attention to these issues - there are lots of significant issues and one can only pay attention to a finite number - but rather those who affirmatively dismiss their significance or rationalize these policies). As Amy Goodman wrote in the Guardian: "Senator Paul's outrage with the president's claimed right to kill US citizens is entirely appropriate. That there is not more outrage at the thousands killed around the globe is shameful … and dangerous."

For a political faction that loves to depict itself as the champions of "empathy", and which reflexively accuses others of having their political beliefs shaped by self-interest, this is an ironic fact indeed. It's also the central dynamic driving the politics of these issues: the US government and media collaborate to keep the victims of these abuses largely invisible, so we rarely have to confront them, and on those rare occasions when we do, we can easily tell ourselves (false though the assurance is) that these abuses do not affect us and our families and it's therefore only "paranoia" that can explain why someone might care so much about them.

This is a common theme among Democrats and other progressives.  Their standards change radically depending on whether they are personally affected.  For example, gay marriage and women's rights are so important to them ... here on U.S. soil.  But not when oppressive regimes overseas trample those rights.  Or, to name another example, when they sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and see those guns kill teenagers in Mexico.  Again, doesn't affect us personally, and who cares about Mexicans anyway?  Hypocrites.

(2) Whether domestic assassinations are imminent is irrelevant to the debate

The primary means of mocking Paul's concerns was to deride the notion that Obama is about to unleash drone attacks and death squads on US soil aimed at Americans. But nobody, including Paul, suggested that was the case. To focus on that attack is an absurd strawman, a deliberate distraction from the real issues, a total irrelevancy. That's true for two primary reasons.

First, the reason this question matters so much - can the President target US citizens for assassination without due process on US soil? - is because it demonstrates just how radical the Obama administration's theories of executive power are. Once you embrace the premises of everything they do in this area - we are a Nation at War; the entire globe is the battlefield; the president is vested with the unchecked power to use force against anyone he accuses of involvement with Terrorism - then there is no cogent, coherent way to say that the president lacks the power to assassinate even US citizens on US soil. That conclusion is the necessary, logical outcome of the premises that have been embraced. That's why it is so vital to ask that.

Once you embrace the US government's War on Terror framework, then there is no cogent legal argument for limiting the assassination power to foreign soil. If the Globe is a Battlefield, then that, by definition, obviously includes the US.

Second, presidents change, and so do circumstances. The belief that Barack Obama - despite his record - is too kind, too good, too magnanimous, too responsible to target US citizens for assassination on US soil is entirely irrelevant. At some point, there will be another president, even a Republican one, who will inherit the theories he embraces. Moreover, circumstances can change rapidly, so that - just as happened with 9/11 - what seems unthinkable quickly becomes not only possible but normalized.

That's why it is always the tactic of governments that seek to abuse power to select the most marginalized and easily demonized targets in the first instance (Anwar Awlaki): because they know that once the citizenry cheers for that power on the ground that they dislike the target, the power then becomes institutionalized and impossible to resist when it expands outward, as it always does.

That's what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote: "In questions of power . . . let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." It's also what Frederick Douglass meant when he warned:

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."

Human nature means that once you vest a power in political leaders, once you acquiesce to radical theories, that power will inevitably be abused. The time to object - the only effective time - is when that power theory first takes root, not later when it is finally widespread.

Great quotes, and great warnings from our forefathers.

(3) Holder did not disclaim the power to assassinate on US soil

Defenders of the Obama administration now insist that this entire controversy has been resolved by a letter written to Paul by Attorney General Eric Holder, in which Holder wrote: "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no." Despite Paul's declaration of victory, this carefully crafted statement tells us almost nothing about the actual controversy.

As Law Professor Ryan Goodman wrote yesterday in the New York Times, "the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in combat." That phrase - "engaged in combat" - does not only include people who are engaged in violence at the time you detain or kill them. It includes a huge array of people who we would not normally think of, using common language, as being "engaged in combat".

Indeed, the whole point of the Paul filibuster was to ask whether the Obama administration believes that it has the power to target a US citizen for assassination on US soil the way it did to Anwar Awlaki in Yemen. The Awlaki assassination was justified on the ground that Awlaki was a "combatant", that he was "engaged in combat", even though he was killed not while making bombs or shooting at anyone but after he had left a cafe where he had breakfast. If the Obama administration believes that Awlaki was "engaged in combat" at the time he was killed - and it clearly does - then Holder's letter is meaningless at best, and menacing at worst, because that standard is so broad as to vest the president with exactly the power his supporters now insist he disclaimed.

The phrase "engaged in combat" has come to mean little more than: anyone the President accuses, in secrecy and with no due process, of supporting a Terrorist group. Indeed, radically broad definitions of "enemy combatant" have been at the heart of every War on Terror policy, from Guantanamo to CIA black sites to torture. As Professor Goodman wrote:

"By declining to specify what it means to be 'engaged in combat' the letter does not foreclose the possible scenario - however hypothetical - of a military drone strike, against a United States citizen, on American soil. It also raises anew questions about the standards the administration has used in deciding to use drone strikes to kill Americans suspected of terrorist involvement overseas . . .

"The Obama administration's continued refusal to do so should alarm any American concerned about the constitutional right of our citizens - no matter what evil they may or may not be engaged in - to due process under the law. For those Americans, Mr. Holder's seemingly simple but maddeningly vague letter offers no reassurance."

Indeed, as both Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller and Marcy Wheeler noted, Holder, by deleting the word "actively" from Paul's question (can you kill someone not "actively engaged in combat"?), raised more questions than he answered. As Professor Heller wrote:

"'Engaged in combat' seems like a much broader standard than 'senior operational leader'. which the recently disclosed White Paper described as a necessary condition of killing an American citizen overseas. Does that mean the President can kill an American citizen inside the US who is a lower-ranking member of al-Qaeda or an associated force? . . . .

"What does 'engaged in combat' mean? That is a particularly important question, given that Holder did not restrict killing an American inside the US to senior operational leaders and deleted 'actively' from Paul's question. Does 'engaging' require participation in planning or executing a terrorist attack? Does any kind of direct participation in hostilities qualify? Do acts short of direct participation in hostilities - such as financing terrorism or propagandizing - qualify? Is mere membership, however loosely defined by the US, enough?"

Particularly since the Obama administration continues to conceal the legal memos defining its claimed powers - memos we would need to read to understand what it means by "engaged in combat" - the Holder letter should exacerbate concerns, not resolve them. As Digby, comparing Bush and Obama legal language on these issues, wrote yesterday about Holder's letter: "It's fair to say that these odd phrasings and very particular choices of words are not an accident and anyone with common sense can tell instantly that by being so precise, they are hiding something."

At best, Holder's letter begs the question: what do you mean when you accuse someone of being "engaged in combat"? And what are the exact limits of your power to target US citizens for execution without due process? That these questions even need to be asked underscores how urgently needed Paul's filibuster was, and how much more serious pushback is still merited. But the primary obstacle to this effort has been, and remains, that the Democrats who spent all that time parading around as champions of these political values are now at the head of the line leading the war against them.

More weasel words from the scum that occupies the Attorney General position.  Did you expect anything different?

Incidentally, you also saw the fallout within the Republican Party, right?  You can see where RINOs like McCain and Graham truly stand--they want more and bigger government, without a care in the world for our rights.  Or for winning elections, for that matter.  You know how I feel about the likes of them--no respect at all.  I stand with Rand.

My Favorite President (?)

Okay, maybe not my favorite president.  I'm not exactly a presidential scholar.  It's hard to top George Washington, walking away from power the way he did.  But I love Calvin Coolidge's attitude.  Absolutely love it.

This piece is adapted from a talk at Hillsdale College, by Amity Shlaes, author of Coolidge.

"Calvin Coolidge and the Moral Case for Economy"

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2013&month=02

An alternative model for conservatives is Calvin Coolidge. President from 1923 to 1929, Coolidge sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was Coolidge’s penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, Coolidge was the Great Refrainer.

In doing research for my new biography of Coolidge, I reviewed his presidential appointment books and found a clue as to why he was able to be so consistent: sheer discipline. Coolidge and his budget director met every Friday morning before cabinet meetings to identify budget cuts and discuss how to say “no” to the requests of cabinet members. Most presidents give in after a time—Eisenhower being a good example—but Coolidge did not, despite the budget surpluses during his presidency. He held 14 meetings with his budget director after coming to office in late 1923, 55 meetings in 1924, 52 in 1925, 63 in 1926, and 51 in 1927.

The key here, in my opinion, is to understand the true reason for tax cuts.  If you're doing it to get more government revenue then you're doing it for the wrong idea.

Speaking of tax rates, in December 1923, Coolidge and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon launched a campaign to lower top rates from the fifties to the twenties. Mellon believed, and informed Coolidge, that these cuts might result in additional revenue. This was referred to as “scientific taxation”—an early formulation of the Laffer Curve. And Coolidge passed the word on: “Experience does not show that the higher rate produces the larger revenue. Experience is all the other way,” he said in a speech in early 1924. “When the surtax on incomes of $300,000 and over was but 10 percent, the revenue was about the same as it was at 65 percent.” 

Mellon and Coolidge did not win all they sought. The top rate of the final law was in the forties. But even this reduction yielded results—more money flowing into the Treasury—suggesting that “scientific taxation” worked. By 1926, Coolidge was able to sign legislation that brought the top marginal rate down to 25 percent, and to do so retroactively. 

Today’s Republicans tend to take pleasure when the Laffer Curve is vindicated and more money flows into government as a result of tax cuts. Indeed, this idea of “scientific taxation” is often used to attempt to get Democrats to go along with tax cuts, as if those cuts are an end in themselves. By contrast, the specter of increased federal revenue rendered Coolidge anxious, personally and politically—so much so that he considered foregoing the rate cuts: “While I am exceedingly interested in having tax reduction . . . it can only be brought about as a result of economy,” he said at one point. He would not put tax cuts before budget reduction, insisting on twinning the two goals.

In short, Coolidge didn’t favor tax cuts as a means to increase revenue or to buy off Democrats. He favored them because they took government, the people’s servant, out of the way of the people. And this sense of government as servant extended to his own office. Senator Selden Spencer once took a walk with Coolidge around the White House grounds. To cheer the President up, Spencer pointed to the White House and asked playfully, “Who lives there?” “Nobody,” Coolidge replied. “They just come and go.”

Did you catch those last two paragraphs?  Tax cuts are to be pursued because they get government out of the way. Not because they result in more government revenue.  Never forget that.

A second lesson concerns how we look at tax rates. When tax rates are set and judged according to how much revenue they bring in due to the Laffer Curve—which is how most of today’s tax cutters present them, thereby agreeing with tax hikers that the goal of tax policy is to increase revenue—tax policy can become a mechanism to expand government. The goals of legitimate government—American freedom and prosperity—are left by the wayside. Thus the best case for lower taxes is the moral case—and as Coolidge well understood, a moral tax policy demands tough budgeting.

Marquette Memories

Love this!  Stories from my alma mater, by two hilarious alums.

"Danny Pudi & Chris Marrs' favorite Marquette basketball moments"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqlnn_lwrIM

Sheriff David Clarke on the 2nd Amendment

You may know Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke from this public safety announcement that ran on Milwaukee area radio a few weeks back:

"Sheriff David Clarke PSA for Milwaukee County"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8TCx-sM1vw


This radio spot generated a lot of controversy.  Two articles from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

"Sheriff David Clarke's radio ad says 911 not best option, urges residents to take firearms classes" by
Bruce Vielmetti, Steve Schultze and Don Walker
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/sheriff-clarke-urges-residents-to-arm-themselves-with-guns-o38h47h-188375091.html

In the radio ad, Clarke tells residents personal safety isn't a spectator sport anymore, and that "I need you in the game."

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," Clarke intones.

"You could beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back."

Clarke urges listeners to take a firearm safety course and handle a firearm "so you can defend yourself until we get there."

"You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We're partners now. Can I count on you?"

"Sheriff David Clarke calls guns 'great equalizer' in new radio ad" by Sharif Durhams
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/sheriff-david-clarke-calls-guns-the-great-equalizer-in-radio-ad-dc8vu6e-194241801.html

Clarke's 30-second audio spot seems to take aim at the jurisdiction of the Milwaukee Police Department and the court system.

"Violent crime went up nearly 10% in Milwaukee. Are you the next victim?" Clarke says. "You don't have to be, but that's your call."

The sheriff says a "soft on crime court system" puts armed criminals back on area streets, but that residents can get a gun to protect themselves.

"Now it's the crook who has to wonder what you might do," Clarke says. "It could be a great equalizer, but you always have to think survival."

Well, Sheriff Clarke was a guest host on the Mark Belling Late Afternoon Show on WISN radio, Milwaukee, Wisconsin on March 6, 2013.  It was a very entertaining and enlightening three hours (minus commercials, of course).  I've taken the time to transcribe interesting portions of the show.

Caller (Steve from Cudahy):

I was shocked to hear, you know, turning on the TV last week and seeing, you know, our police chief asking the question, 'Why do we need more than ten bullets in a clip?'.  And I thought, you've got to be kidding, you know, I mean the issue--I keep hearing this and no one seems to be saying this on these talk shows, not yours, but as far as, you know, on cable.  They keep talking about home defense but the issue isn't home defense or deer hunting.  The issue is the Second Amendment, which we can't compromise, was given, and you can back me up on this, this is how I read it, that it's to to protect us from tyrannical government.

Sheriff Clarke:

Exactly.  But I've got a better answer, Steve, for that. Why does somebody need a magazine that holds more than ten rounds?  Why should people be able to buy ammo over the internet?  Why do people need an AR-15?  You know what my answer is?

Caller:

What's that?

Sheriff Clarke:

Because they want want one!

Caller:

Yeah.

Sheriff Clarke:

All right?  And because the Constitution says they can do it.  That's my response to that.  They don't--you don't owe me an explanation as to why you want a magazine that holds more than ten rounds.  You don't owe me an explanation.  And I'm an entity of government.  You don't owe the government an explanation.  We have enough rules and restrictions on the Second Amendment.  If a criminal defendant exercises his Fifth Amendment rights I don't go, 'What do you need an attorney for?'  You get him an attorney!

Clarke also expressed a great deal of clarity on his role and who he needs to answer to--and it's NOT politicians!

Those are my constituents in the City of Milwaukee.  And I'm responsible.  It's not about who responds to calls for service.  I'm their voice.  I don't work for [Milwaukee] Mayor Barrett, I don't work for [Milwaukee Police Chief] Ed Flynn, I don't work for [Milwaukee County Executive] Chris Abele, I don't work for [Milwaukee County Chief] Judge [Jeffrey] Kremers.  I work for the people of this county, they put me here.  I don't take orders from them [the politicians].

I'm responsible for the safety of everybody in this county. ... I'm responsible.  So I'm offering a vision, for safer streets, safer schools, safer communities, and that we need to be tough on crime.  That's my role here.  I've got cops, sheriff's deputies, put their lives on the line every time they put that uniform on, and I'm going to have some puke politician come along and talk about well, you guys don't handle that.  Are you crazy?

Like I said, I'm the voice of law-abiding citizens all throughout this county.  I'm in an environment where other public officials are hiding the truth about crime and violence in this area.  I'm going to keep people informed as to what's going on--like I said, I'm their voice.  These folks that I mention here, Kremers and Barrett and Abele and Flynn, they're struggling with that, that I occupy the position that I do and I do have the bully pulpit.  Like I said, this is not about who responds to what.  I'm trying to keep people from being victimized before they are.  I won't be lectured to--by Flynn, Barrett, Abele, Kremers, the Journal Sentinel--about what we're spending on crime prevention messages.  They're trying to intimidate, that's not going to work with me.  I will not be deterred, and I will not be dissuaded, from addressing issues of crime anywhere in Milwaukee County.  And this political environment that I'm in.  I use different tactics.  They're not used to these tactics.  They're used to attacking the messenger, attacking the message, and having the messenger go away in either frustration or intimidation.  And to silence them.  You can't tell people crime is on the rise in Milwaukee County.  Oh really?  I should do what you want me to do and tell them all is well?  Well it's not well.

But when I say those those things, oh, Clarke's critical. Oh yeah, well you know what?  Get used to it!  Because, in these political fights--and they are political fights--I fight unconventionally.  And I keep coming back.  And that's the way it's going to be.

Clarke has a well-grounded philosophy on the role of government, and how that affects freedom.

Read your Declaration of Independence.  I say that, I try to say that, everywhere I go.  That came up, too: Clarke calls for revolution!  I didn't call for anything.  I trust that law-abiding people, everywhere, but in Milwaukee County, should be empowered to make these decisions for themselves.  About how to defend themselves.  How to protect themselves and their family.  The Castle Doctrine, the Personal Protection Act.  I don't fear a law-abiding person with a gun.  I fear a career criminal with a gun.  When a felon possess a gun, bad things happen.  As John Lott talked about, when a law-abiding person owns and possesses a gun, good things happen.  Government has got to learn how to let go of power and start trusting its citizens.  It's about freedom, all this stuff.  The violence in these communities, stressed communities in the City of Milwaukee, people aren't free.  You can't even let your kids play outside.  You can't even let 'em out of your site.

Final note: I love this guy.  Listen to how he finishes the show strong!

You know, Jolene [the show's producer] jumped on me a little bit, cause I didn't read the weather.  And again, look out the window if you want to know what's going on, with the weather.  I'm sure--is it Justin Zolich? [weather man]--he would, he would agree, just look out the window.

He did finish on a serious note:

Anyway, thanks for joining us today.  It's been my pleasure.  Honored to be here, I'm honored to serve you.  I'm blessed to be in this position to represent my community, what I've done for 35 years.  Still have fire in the belly.  I'm still going to take the fight where it needs to be fought.  And for the people who are struggling with this, the media, and some of the, you know, political class, because I won't go to their side, here's my message: Get used to it.  Thanks for being with us today.

Song of the Day: Imagine Dragons - It's Time

While I'm on a kick of posting popular (as opposed to my preferred, more obscure, independent music) I thought I would just take the opportunity to say ... I'm never changing who I am.   :)

Imagine Dragons - It's Time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sENM2wA_FTg

Simple, repetitive, ... and true?

It's time to begin, isn't it?
I get a little bit bigger but then I'll admit
I'm just the same as I was
Now don't you understand
That I'm never changing who I am

And the rest of the lyrics, from AZLyrics.com:
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/imaginedragons/itstime.html

IMAGINE DRAGONS LYRICS
"It's Time"

So this is what you meant
When you said that you were spent
And now it's time to build from the bottom of the pit
Right to the top
Don't hold back
Packing my bags and giving the academy a rain check

I don't ever wanna let you down
I don't ever wanna leave this town
'Cause after all
This city never sleeps at night

It's time to begin, isn't it?
I get a little bit bigger, but then I'll admit
I'm just the same as I was
Now don't you understand
That I'm never changing who I am

So this is where you fell
And I am left to sell
The path to heaven runs through miles of clouded hell
Right to the top
Don't look back
Turning the rags and giving the commodities a rain check

I don't ever wanna let you down
I don't ever wanna leave this town
'Cause after all
This city never sleeps at night

It's time to begin, isn't it?
I get a little bit bigger but then I'll admit
I'm just the same as I was
Now don't you understand
That I'm never changing who I am

It's time to begin, isn't it?
I get a little bit bigger, but then I'll admit
I'm just the same as I was
Now don't you understand
That I'm never changing who I am

This road never looked so lonely
This house doesn't burn down slowly
To ashes, to ashes

It's time to begin, isn't it?
I get a little bit bigger, but then I'll admit
I'm just the same as I was
Now don't you understand
That I'm never changing who I am

It's time to begin, isn't it?
I get a little bit bigger, but then I'll admit
I'm just the same as I was
Now don't you understand
That I'm never changing who I am