UNCATEGORIZED

July 24, 2014

My Chat With Silvio Canto Jr.

a CantoMy first radio appearance was with radio talk show host, American Thinker contributor and author of Cubanos in Wisconsin, Silvio Canto Jr.

He was a truly gracious host, especially, considering my struggle with laryngitis during the interview.  He has an interesting life story and I recommend picking up his book.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cantotalk/2013/09/13/a-chat-with-scott-mayer-about-todays-issues


Government 101

Good video on our republic and other forms of government:

 

 


World’s First Nanoassault Rifle (Updated)

ar15My article as originally published in American Thinker:

The crafting of imaginary weaponry by children out of various objects is a phenomenon that has been occurring worldwide for many centuries. The traditional stick or finger has always been one of the more popular “weapons” of choice, but today’s high-tech child is much more imaginative, bringing about such dangerous treats as the Pop-Tart assault weapon. Unfortunately though, in today’s PC world, it appears to no longer be acceptable for kids to have a little fun and act like — you know — kids.

I’ve always had a love for science and an extreme dislike (to be politically correct) for political correctness, so my son’s latest science project presented an opportunity to have a little bit of fun tinkering within both arenas.

I still remember back more than twenty years ago when IBM scientist Don Eigler became the first person to manipulate individual atoms and create Big Blue’s logo, using thirty-five Xenon atoms. His work was the inspiration for my son’s latest school science project — the nanoassault rifle.

Due to the sensitive nature of the inanimate object we chose to replicate, the AR-15, I thought it safest to construct it out of a recently discovered, highly toxic and difficult to contain element known as Obamium (doing so only partially caves to political correctness). Thus far, nothing seems to stick to Obamium and no matter what form it takes, it has the miraculous ability to remain stable within the press.

Our AR-15 replica (as highlighted below) was meticulously constructed from 56 individual Obamium atoms and the addition of a spare thirty-round magazine took a total of 18 Obamium atoms to complete. In support of a close friend of my son’s who recently found himself in a little hot water after using the phrase “pocket knife” at school (you would be wise believe this portion of the story), we also decided to construct an open pocket knife, which only set us back an additional 13 Obamium atoms.

Unfortunately we don’t possess the technology to provide a magnified image of the actual final products, so it’s difficult to prove the “deadly” nature of what we actually constructed. But if my son does end up getting in trouble over this, his punishment will hopefully adhere to the proper scale of the project. If so, he should only be looking at a suspension of no more than two or three nanoseconds for his “crimes.”

Update: 

For those who noticed a lack of bullets in this project, the original plan was to use a rapidly decaying element, Bidenium, for the ammunition but it proved to be much too dense and unstable.  The velocity and direction at which it would just start poppin’ off wasn’t predictable enough for use in this project. 


Bloomberg Should Demand Hand Control

no handsMy article as originally published in American Thinker:       

Following the second recent fatal subway shoving incident in NYC, this one allegedly involving a hate crime, Mayor Bloomberg was quick to throw up his hands in an effort to halt the public from jumping to any incorrect conclusions, telling them to instead focus on the “overall safety in New York.”

Ironically, it is Bloomberg who is usually quick to leap to wrong conclusions and call for the use of the heavy hand of big government to cure society’s ills. Whether he’s pushing people around with soda bans or trying to shove tougher gun restrictions upon them, his answer, like that of all statists, is to throw liberty onto the tracks in the name of security.

Why, then, should Bloomberg handle these brutal subway murders any differently? To remain consistent and put an end to this senseless slaughter by trains, Bloomberg should call for “sensible” restrictions on trains. Of course, doing so would pose a bit of a dilemma, as trains happen to fit in with the whole green agenda and as such are part of a protected class. Unlike evil guns, trains are inanimate objects incapable of any wrongdoing.

Because trains are off limits, Bloomberg would instead need to shift the blame to some other object. And since holding people responsible for their own actions is usually not an option for the left, it makes as much sense for Bloomberg to implement “reasonable” hand control measures to prevent these shoving deaths as it does to call for new gun control laws to prevent shooting deaths. After all, if these “weapons” weren’t so readily available, these train victims would still be alive today. Wouldn’t saving just one life be worth any minor inconvenience to the public?

While the left may scoff at the idea of concealed carry laws for guns, a similar law may be necessary to prevent all of this senseless hand violence. Eliminating open carry and requiring hand owners to keep their “weapons” concealed in their pockets within a hands-free-zone of at least fifty feet from any set of tracks would be a good start.

Or perhaps some sort of restrictive leash-like device that disallows an “unnecessary” range of motion in order to prevent the discharge of loaded hands (arms cocked and hands palms-forward at chest height) would be more practical?

Obviously having people voluntarily turn in their hands for the greater good of society or starting a government-sponsored hand buy-back program to get more of these dangerous “weapons” off of the streets wouldn’t be practical. This would only give rise to a “greedy” prosthetic industry.

Due to the racial element of this latest tragedy, it may also be a good time to look at reclassifying certain categories of hands as more deadly than others. Lighter-colored hands are clearly more dangerous than the darker ones and as such should be factored into any new hand control measures.

Having strict hand control in place would have helped to prevent even the latest subway incident — a perfect storm where a lethal combination of guns, trains, and hands all came together.

Mayor Bloomberg again quickly grabbed hold of the moment and, in an apparent swipe at the NRA, said: “In recent weeks, we’ve heard some people say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But sometimes the good guys get shot — and sometimes, they are killed.” And then he said this: “Tonight, thank God, three good guys — three New York City police officers, who acted heroically — are going to make it.”

I’ll let the reader contemplate the brilliance of Bloomberg’s statements, as it appears that the only thing that stopped this bad guy with a gun was — a good guy with a gun. One does have to ask, though: why is it okay for these plainclothes armed officers to be placed in trains and not in public schools?

But again, why blame guns when it’s clear that it’s hands that were involved in this carnage as well? These evil hands even appear to have been made for this type of destruction, as they contain what is called a trigger finger. Contrary to popular belief, these guns can’t just fire themselves, and proper hand control would put an end to these senseless tragedies.

Come to think of it, it seems as though hands are involved in nearly every brutal murder or violent act we hear about in the news, so why not demand strict hand control as a way to solve all of society’s violence problems?

Now if we could just figure out what it is that is controlling these evil hands…


Who Needs a Gun?

Pink FordMy article as originally published in American Thinker:      

After I picked up my son from school the other day we started to drive off but had to stop short of one of the crosswalks. I paused to think of the horrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut as the large group of children started to cross the road; many were of the same age as those who were brutally murdered by this deranged killer. While we sat idling in front of the “gun free zone” something struck me. In reality I was sitting inside one of the deadliest potential weapons imaginable; more powerful than any small arm.

I was driving a plain white Ford F-150 4×4 truck with a ‘high capacity’ V8 engine. I guess you could call it a ‘sporting’ truck. Fortunately, myself and the other drivers around me were of sound mind and there was no tragic incident on that particular day. But what if someone of unsound mind were to get hold of one of these deadly weapons? From where I was sitting, the only barrier to a disaster two, maybe three times the size of the one in Newtown was my sound mind maintaining control over my right foot. I shudder to think of the carnage that could have quickly been unleashed upon those dozens of innocent lives if my ‘weapon’ had been in the wrong hands.

Is it time to redirect valuable resources and initiate a national debate on this intolerable threat to humanity? Should all of these vehicular ‘weapons’ just be banned outright? Or should only certain types be banned? What if I were to make some cosmetic changes to my plain white ‘sporting’ truck such as a camouflage paint job with black accents? Should it then be reclassified as an “assault” truck? Should it then be banned as such even though it functions exactly the same as the plain white ‘sporting’ truck? Even if I were to add twenty horsepower to its capacity, would it really make a large difference in any outcome? By the same token, would the addition of Obama bumper stickers and a pink paint job make my ‘sporting’ truck any less lethal?

The more I look around the more I realize that short of abolishing the Constitution and living our lives in padded cells, we will never be totally safe from those who are truly committed to perpetrate mass murder. Perhaps if more of the known insane were actually kept in such a cell, we could worry just a little bit less about the welfare of our children?


Electoral College Review

Been hearing many complaints about the Elecrtoral College as of late.  Here is a good review from The Heritage Foundation:

Origins of the Electoral College and the Benefits of Federalism. The Founders sought a unique solution to two contradictory goals facing the new country: How could they allow the sense of the people to be reflected in the government, yet still protect the minority from the dangers of unreasonable majority rule? They accomplished their objective by creating a federalist republic in which majorities would rule, but minorities would always have opportunities to make their voices heard. The Electoral College fell into line nicely with this new governmental structure.

The federalist nature of the American presidential election system has an important benefit: It requires presidential candidates to build nationwide coalitions and to show that they will be good representatives for a diverse nation composed of both small and large sovereign states. Presidential candidates cannot succeed if they focus too narrowly on a handful of states, regions, or metropolitan population centers. Critics dispute the benefits of federalism in the presidential election process, arguing instead that state-by-state voting causes some individual votes to be “wasted” or encourages a focus on “swing” states to the exclusion of “safe” ones. Their arguments, however, do not hold up under scrutiny.

Read the rest at Heritage:     

Back to our Homepage


Nanny-State Ignites Taco War

My article as originally published in American Thinker:       

I’ve been highly critical of the ever expanding nanny-state that erodes our freedoms, whether in the form of soda bans, light bulb bans, plastic bag bans or even the new school lunch regulations, signed by President Obama. It’s this latter policy that is to blame for my eight-year-old son coming home from school hungry a few weeks back.

My son is a little picky when it comes to certain foods. He’ll devour steak, seafood and many fruits and vegetables but if you ask him to take a sip of milk or eat something with cheese on it — forget it. He claims that dairy bothers his stomach, but will then go and eat ice cream or a slice of cheese pizza and claim that “that’s different.” The point is, he’s eight, has some quirky eating habits and it’s the job of my wife and I to understand his habits and to make sure he gets the nutrition he needs within the parameters that work for him.

One morning during the first week back at school we looked at the new lunch menu and tacos were being served that day. He loves the school’s tacos and will only eat them because he has always been free to order them the way that he likes — without the cheese.

This time was different though. When he asked for his taco without the cheese he was told by the server that he had no choice but to have the cheese (no, he’s not an exchange student currently studying in Cuba). This was never a problem in years past and he was truly confused as to what to do and ended up eating only on an apple, which explains why he came home “starving” that afternoon.

My wife and I asked him if maybe the tacos were now pre-made with the cheese and told him that if so, there was nothing that could be done about it. Sometimes being picky will limit your choices in life. But this wasn’t the case as the cheese was applied just before serving, as it always had been, according to my son.

My wife put a call in to the principal and it turns out that the culprit was Obama’s new Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act. According to my son’s principal, the problem wasn’t that he wanted his taco without the cheese; the problem was (assuming she fully understands all of the new regulations) that it was, and is, virtually impossible for the food servers to be able keep track of the children who pay for their lunches verses the ones who receive their lunches for free or at reduced rates with a taxpayer subsidy.

The school could face disciplinary action if caught giving non-compliant meals to students who are in the National School Lunch Program. That meddling cheese was needed to meet the dairy requirements contained within the new law. I understand the principal’s concern given another school recently received a $15,000 fine for serving soda during lunch time, which is in violation of federal law. So how much would an illegal cheese-free taco cost the school?

Aside from the obvious government overreach, how is it “healthy” for kids to be forcefully offered food that they either won’t accept or just end up throwing it in the trash? And what about children who are lactose intolerant?

My wife raised a stink about it so the principal said that she would tell the servers that our son is allowed to get his food the way he likes it by giving his name. If more parents complain I can see where it would get too complicated to continue though. But thanks to my wife, the lunch servers now know who my son is and he will get his taco the way he wants it next time.

Does this “special” treatment now make my son a crony diner or will these now be considered black market tacos? In any case, comply-or-starve big government top-down control creates a wasteful, unnatural environment that even a child finds hard to swallow.


Happy Independence Day?

A collection of articles from around the web:

 From American Thinker:

June 2012 – and especially its last week – was ripe with ominous metaphor, all revolving around the Supreme Court’s decision on June 28th to uphold President Barack Obama’s signature health-care reform legislation, the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

For those not in the know, the highest court in the land – the historic mission of which was to guard against tyranny by ensuring that laws passed by Congress abide by the constraints imposed by our Constitution – has now rubber-stamped the most comprehensive expansion of federal power since the New Deal.

Read the rest at American Thinker

From Human Events:

The Declaration of Independence was America’s first foreign policy document. It proclaimed to the world in 1776 our intention to become and remain a separate nation, while also expressing America’s political philosophy and the basic aims of government.

Building upon a rich Anglo-Western tradition that fostered virtues of self-government, the Declaration recognizes the popular sovereignty of the American people — comprised of individuals possessing rights that no government can take away. That is the idea of liberty, and the Declaration says it exists and has existed for all time in all places for all people, in principle. Over time, with great sacrifice and determination, the U.S. constitutional order has been remarkably successful at delivering on the promises of the Declaration for the American people.

Read the rest at Human Events

From PJ Media:

Get out your firecrackers, ladies and gentlemen. This may be the last Fourth of July – at least as we know it.

Yes, I realize that’s a bit hyperbolic. But this is the year our national character is up for a vote. American exceptionalism is on the line. If we lose it, we may never get it back. History will have made the Big Turn.

Now to be honest, just like our president, I was embarrassed by the term American exceptionalism, when I first heard it. I mean why were we special? Who were we to be the boss of the world?

These were the obvious questions that rattled around my brain as a college student and later as a young leftist-type in the period of the civil rights and anti-war movements.

Yet somewhere deep down I was a patriot even then. I knew the free world would not have defeated the Nazis without us. I knew the fight against Soviet communism was a good fight and that we must win.

Read the rest at PJ Media

From Hot Air:

Two hundred and thirty-six years ago, a beleaguered but defiant group of men created the most magnificent declaration of liberty and human rights in history. It changed the world forever, and ended the heretofore universal model of a permanent ruling class in favor of self-government.

Read the rest at Hot Air

From Townhall:

Who but the boldest could believe that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were laying the foundation of the greatest constitutional republic in history? Now that republic has spread across the continent, and its influence reaches around the world. Its population has increased a hundredfold. Its Constitution has provided government to a free people constantly growing in size and territory, each new state joining the union as an equal, its citizens never subjects, its people ever free. There is no story close to it in the history of man.

Statesmen and thinkers have attributed the strength and goodness of the nation to the principles in the Declaration. Many others have denied this. Statesmen and thinkers have proclaimed the Constitution a just and beautiful implementation of the principles of the Declaration. Many others have denied this. These denials are more common in times of crisis in our country. They are very common now.

Read the rest at Townhall

Back to our Homepage


Democrats Keep the Race Fires Burning

Instead of waiting for all of the facts, Democrats, with the help of the MSM are adding fuel to the fire.

Lloyd Marcus in American Thinker:

…..Fast-forward to the Democrat-led Trayvon Martin rallies across America. If justice were their true motivation, they would allow the case to unfold. To demand that George Zimmerman be arrested without knowing the facts is absurd and irresponsible. The Democrats’ obvious purpose for their race rallies is to fuel the eternal flames of their well-nurtured “culture of anger.”

 

Read the whole thing at American Thinker     

Back to our Homepage


The Party of Racism

Why hurling charges of “racism” against Republicans doesn’t work the way it used to. 

Because of slavery (Democrats did it), KKK violence (Democrats did it), segregation (Democrats did it), Jim Crow laws (Democrats did it) and other historic abuses heaped on black Americans in our country by the Democratic Party and its supporters, America has been a bit oversensitive about race for the last few decades. Of course, the political party responsible for all of that racism is now the one shouting, “You’re a racist,” and trying to pit different racial groups against each other. That might seem ironic at first glance, but if you think about it, it’s actually par for the course. Since its founding, the Democratic Party has always tried to generate racial strife; it just uses a little different strategy today than it did in the past.

Read the rest at Townhall.com    

Back to our Homepage