What “commonsense” really means

First, I see that left-winger Jeff Sharlet retweeted Congresswoman Yvette Clarke:

She claims to want “commonsense gun legislation.”

The latest scheme is to stop gun-sales to those on no-fly lists. It’s a dumb idea, seeing as how no-fly lists usually affect honest flyers more than terrorists. It can be justified for air travel, but barely. There is no due-process. We put up with it because flying isn’t actually a right.

Then Sharlet allows a little bit of the truth to slip in:

He knows it’s crap that would accomplish nothing. The word “commonsense” means nothing at all to these people.


Via Ed Driscoll at Instapundit:

Congressman John Lewis, who took part in the sit-in, was
“Once Erroneously Placed on No-Fly List He Wants to Use to Deny Due Process.“

Gun control is all a sham.

Advertisements

How I would close Guantanamo

Camp_xray_2007
Camp X-Ray in 2007, five years after it closed.

My plan for closing Guantanamo would be rather different than President Obama’s.

I would first restrict the detainees’ access to news, and then stop their lawyer visits.

Then I’d feed them fake news. Make it look like Hillary wins the election, and that Al Qaeda is winning the war on terror. Make them think the war is ending, and Al Qaeda is victorious. Give them better food, and more benefits, as we’re ostensibly remorseful.

Tell them they’ll all be leaving soon, now that the war is ending. Promise each of them millions of dollars in reparations upon their return to the new Caliphate.

Our guards will need to audition so that they can act suitably humble.

Park a 747 at the airfield with a black-and-white color scheme suitable for an Al Qaeda airline. They’re going home in style. Some would surely have tears in their eyes. This is everything they dreamed of.

Finally, tell them the truth. Guantanamo is not closing. They’re not going home. Maybe, if we’re lucky, President Trump can deliver this news personally. Take away all the new benefits we gave them. Make Guantanamo worse than ever before.

Like Trump, I see no reason to close Guantanamo. The war’s not over yet.

The critics can whine all they want, but my idea isn’t really all that much worse than telling people you’re going to “close Guantanamo” when you’re really only planning to move it to a prison in the U.S. — the Obama plan.

It’s a pity they don’t do stuff like this in real life. Not precisely, anyway.


I am aware of one trick they did, reported in the file of detainee Jamal Al-Harith (ISN 490):

[D]uring a recent PSYOP/JDOG experiment in Camp Delta called “Dining Out” (where ethnic food was prepared for a select group of detainees), the detainee was noticed calling out to other detainees in other blocks that the food tasted just like that from a restaurant in Jedda, Saudi Arabia. According to the detainee’s story, he has never been to Saudi Arabia.

Al-Harith was released to the U.K. in 2004. He told stories of being served old food and dirty water — and the beatings. The human rights movement repeated those stories without a hint of skepticism. The British government gave him one million pounds for all his trouble.

The money must have run out. His last reported location was in Syria, where he now resides as a member of ISIS.

Peace protesters not so bright

But you knew that. Not exactly headline news.

I spotted an article today about a peace protester couple in New London, Connecticut.

Her parents were also peace protesters, then against the U.S. side of the Vietnam war. So’s her husband:

She’s married now, to Patrick Sheehan-Gaumer, who was raised in Norwich by parents Rick Gaumer and Joanne Sheehan, who founded the New England chapter of the War Resisters League in 1985 and are still active in the cause.

Here’s the funny part:

They are “purposely poor,” Sheehan-Gaumer, 34, said, explaining they are “a family of five living below the taxable income level on purpose, so that we don’t pay federal taxes.”

Asked why, he said, “Because about 50 cents of every dollar paid in taxes goes to the Pentagon.”

It’s really only about 16%, plus a portion from an additional 8% if you include veterans’ benefits — although that number includes retirees from other federal departments.

But they didn’t entirely make their number up. Left-wing groups like to play games with the number, first pulling the Social Security surplus from the budget (not unreasonably), then (very unreasonably) allocating all the debt to Defense.

Assuming we were going to take them seriously (always a big mistake), there are several problems with this. First, health and welfare alone are enormous (and we’re not even counting the portion paid through state taxes). And to lump all those debts to Defense simply forgets the fact that our budget has been almost entirely in the red since the Great Society. We used to spend a much larger portion on Defense in the 1950s.

If you think the government spends a lot on health care, that’s not even all of it. The state budgets come out to a similar amount.

Regardless, I’m not so sure they have to be that poor. It sounds like they work at non-profit charities. If the Clintons didn’t teach them how to skim money off of that, they’re missing out.

Then again, I said they’re not so bright.