Let's face it, this Legislature has been a tremendous disappointment. I am not just talking about the "Cowboy Code" or the need for an atlatl hunting law. But first, let me say what they have done well so far. Er . . . okay, they have done a good job of cutting spending, even if is against my personal best interests like in a pay freeze or cuts to the Public Defender Office. But I agree that we need to reduce the imposition of government on our lives, and reducing spending does that better than anything.
Now for the rest of their activity. I have just one question that I would ask everyone to inquire of their legislator: What have you done to expand, or at the least, protect freedom? Are we protecting freedom by keeping an unconstitutional law that bans gays? Are we making ourselves more responsible as individuals by repealing the popular referendum on marijuana? Sure twenty somethings may be gaming the system and getting cards for less than serious conditions, but how does that harm anyone?
Have we traded off the Democrat nanny state for the Republican nanny state? Are we better off with the new laws, or is it that the new (and probably temporary) majority imposing their versions of what they want us to be? I should have known that there was something wrong, when a legislator was saying that the Republicans in the House were "positively giddy" at their majority.
They should have been in awe.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Wowza
Just watched Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday say that he had reached out to the Obama administration for someone to officially comment on what's going on in Libya. From memory, Chris said Secretary Hillary Clinton and Secretary Gates were both on all of the other news channels, even though they have less viewers than Fox News Sunday but no one from the Administration would come on FNS.
Think about that, the administration has given up trying to explain to anyone who might not have the exact same view as they do. That is one helluva concession.
Think about that, the administration has given up trying to explain to anyone who might not have the exact same view as they do. That is one helluva concession.
Friday, March 25, 2011
The Libyan "War"
Professor Natelson does an excellent analysis of why the Libyan "War" is unconstitutional. But like any good lawyer, I have to find a way for the client to do what they want to that is legal. Some may consider it semantics and unfair, but the law has nothing to do with"being fair." Fair is where you go for cotton candy and rides, it has nothing to do with the legal universe.
Nonetheless, I think the way that the Obama administration can justify its actions in Libya is not to call it "kinetic military action" but a live fire training exercise that uses the entire Libyan country as a range. After all, if you are going to have a war, shouldn't it be two sided? Outside of a malfunction by an F-15E, there have been no losses by the US in our "Training Exercise." Therefore, it can't really be a war.
Of course, this is just further evidence that the feds are grabbing up land for their exclusive use left and right, but live fire training exercise just sounds better than kinetic military action.
Nonetheless, I think the way that the Obama administration can justify its actions in Libya is not to call it "kinetic military action" but a live fire training exercise that uses the entire Libyan country as a range. After all, if you are going to have a war, shouldn't it be two sided? Outside of a malfunction by an F-15E, there have been no losses by the US in our "Training Exercise." Therefore, it can't really be a war.
Of course, this is just further evidence that the feds are grabbing up land for their exclusive use left and right, but live fire training exercise just sounds better than kinetic military action.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Well, This is Scary
If you knew someone had organized a plan that would destabilize the country for the purpose of inciting a revolution, most people would consider that to be a criminal act. But Stephen Lerner who used to be a bigwig in the SEIU which of course has ties to ACORN, and through its head, Andy Stern have unparalleled access to the White House is planning just that. Lerner intends to lead a mortgage strike and to attack the offices of JP Morgan and their annual meeting. His intent is to so destabilize the economy, that the country will collapse, and from this, the poor will rise up and take from the rich. Classic Cloward-Piven.
I have always wondered why the SEIU isn't investigated as a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization, but now it seems that they have ties to the Center for American Progress and George Soros to provide the funding for this revolution of the proletariat. I would feel better if the Justice Department investigated this criminal enterprise.
Oh wait, it's Eric Holder. Nevermind, it will just go on exactly as Soros planned it. What do you want to be he has been shorting the dollar?
I have always wondered why the SEIU isn't investigated as a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization, but now it seems that they have ties to the Center for American Progress and George Soros to provide the funding for this revolution of the proletariat. I would feel better if the Justice Department investigated this criminal enterprise.
Oh wait, it's Eric Holder. Nevermind, it will just go on exactly as Soros planned it. What do you want to be he has been shorting the dollar?
Impeach Obama?
There is a small coterie on the Left who I have to give credit for being consistent, expecially Dennis Kucinich, in that they are calling for the impeachment of President Obama for the same grounds that they called for the impeachment of President Bush. Then there are the members of the Democratic press corps, also called the Main Stream Media, and MSNBC in particular who are bending over backwards to support this President in his use of force. Sure, Bush went to Congress and obtained a Joint Resolution for the Use of Foce in Iraq, but it wasn't an actual, you know, declaration of war. In technical terms, this is called pole vaulting over mouse turds.
But it is kind of fun watching the hypcrites of the Left who used to say that any criticism of Obama could only be because of racism. You might notice how that dull sword has been sheathed for now. It's also refreshing to note that Obama seems to be carrying George Bush's foreign policy forward, even if he won't admit it.
But is the President's actions really an impeachable offense? Jack Goldsmith, writing in Slate argues that the President's actions are completely constitutional. In addition to the examples that he cited, it is also ironic that I think Thomas Jefferson did not declare war on the Barbary pirates, now home to the quasi nation of Libya either.
But what about the requirement that the Congress is the only one that can actually declare war? True, but it has lost a lot of its meaning over the years as Mr. Goldsmith says. In fact, for Congress to declare war is an extremely significant action which implies the full weight of the country behind the destruction of an opponent. At the moment, we are using less than our full capability. But if Congress actually did declare war, would that license the use of nukes?
I am a traditionalist when it comes to the Constitution, but I appreciate that there have changes. For instance the Commerce clause being used to restrict growing wheat for personal use was never contemplated by the Founders, but it is the law of the land. In the same way, we have to acknowledge that through unopposed use of force without Congressional declaration of war is the norm, and it fits within the President's dual role of Commander in Chief and the primary director of foreign affairs.
Obama has made a lot of mistakes in how he got into this, and his handling has not been any better, but it is his call. And to those who still object to the fact that Libya never posed a threat to us, I will agree with you. But neither did Rwanda, and I am still ashamed that we stood by and did nothing when three quarters of a million people were literally butchered. There is no good answer, and in questions involving foreign policy, the default position has to be to support the President.
And I do.
But it is kind of fun watching the hypcrites of the Left who used to say that any criticism of Obama could only be because of racism. You might notice how that dull sword has been sheathed for now. It's also refreshing to note that Obama seems to be carrying George Bush's foreign policy forward, even if he won't admit it.
But is the President's actions really an impeachable offense? Jack Goldsmith, writing in Slate argues that the President's actions are completely constitutional. In addition to the examples that he cited, it is also ironic that I think Thomas Jefferson did not declare war on the Barbary pirates, now home to the quasi nation of Libya either.
But what about the requirement that the Congress is the only one that can actually declare war? True, but it has lost a lot of its meaning over the years as Mr. Goldsmith says. In fact, for Congress to declare war is an extremely significant action which implies the full weight of the country behind the destruction of an opponent. At the moment, we are using less than our full capability. But if Congress actually did declare war, would that license the use of nukes?
I am a traditionalist when it comes to the Constitution, but I appreciate that there have changes. For instance the Commerce clause being used to restrict growing wheat for personal use was never contemplated by the Founders, but it is the law of the land. In the same way, we have to acknowledge that through unopposed use of force without Congressional declaration of war is the norm, and it fits within the President's dual role of Commander in Chief and the primary director of foreign affairs.
Obama has made a lot of mistakes in how he got into this, and his handling has not been any better, but it is his call. And to those who still object to the fact that Libya never posed a threat to us, I will agree with you. But neither did Rwanda, and I am still ashamed that we stood by and did nothing when three quarters of a million people were literally butchered. There is no good answer, and in questions involving foreign policy, the default position has to be to support the President.
And I do.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Springtime for Hitler
On this the first day of Spring, when hope springs eternal, I decided to take a round of some of the Lefty blogs. First Wulfgar has decided to just move all of his posting onto the dead and dieing Left in the West. There I found out that if you are at all sympathetic to the Republicans, why you are a Nazi! Not only that, you HATE people and want to see them suffer.
Truly a comical piece devoid of anything but impotent (and I use the term deliberately) and pathetic anger. It's nice to remember, they aren't even worth considering.
Nazis? I hate these guys.
Truly a comical piece devoid of anything but impotent (and I use the term deliberately) and pathetic anger. It's nice to remember, they aren't even worth considering.
Nazis? I hate these guys.
On Libya
There are a lot of things to complain about in our involvement in enforcing the "No Fly Zone" over Libya right now, especially as to how President Obama has demonstrated his leadership on the issue. I could point out how he has dithered while civilians were being massacred, and then said that we weren't going to participate, which gave Ghaddaffi a free hand in suppression his own people. I could also point out how he ignored Sarkozy's calls for action, or those of David Cameron's as well. The fact that even the Arab League had called for a no fly zone, although, predictably, they are now reconsidering gave him authorization to help the rebels.
But the fact of the matter is that the President is the primary agent for the implementation of the country's foreign policy, and if he feels it is in America's best interests, that decision needs to be respected and supported. So I will not be like the many Leftist hypocrites who only attacked Bush because he wasn't a Democrat, and will instead quietly support the President and the forces in harms way.
However, I do think that his statement that troops will not be put on the ground is a mistake that he will need to readdress. Like most Third World Armies, the Libyan forces are predominantly set up to kill their own citizens. As such, they tend to be more rabble looking than professional. So how are you going to discern between pro Ghaddafy forces and the rebels? What happens when rebels capture tanks and turn them on the government forces? Are they then subject to attack because we can't tell them apart? What we need are the Special Forces troops in Algeria to come assist in the targeting and direction of air power to avoid friendlies. Without them on the ground, we are going to invevitably attack the wrong guys.
So here's to the President, may he be wise and decisive. He might even find that he likes it, since he hasn't tried it yet.
But the fact of the matter is that the President is the primary agent for the implementation of the country's foreign policy, and if he feels it is in America's best interests, that decision needs to be respected and supported. So I will not be like the many Leftist hypocrites who only attacked Bush because he wasn't a Democrat, and will instead quietly support the President and the forces in harms way.
However, I do think that his statement that troops will not be put on the ground is a mistake that he will need to readdress. Like most Third World Armies, the Libyan forces are predominantly set up to kill their own citizens. As such, they tend to be more rabble looking than professional. So how are you going to discern between pro Ghaddafy forces and the rebels? What happens when rebels capture tanks and turn them on the government forces? Are they then subject to attack because we can't tell them apart? What we need are the Special Forces troops in Algeria to come assist in the targeting and direction of air power to avoid friendlies. Without them on the ground, we are going to invevitably attack the wrong guys.
So here's to the President, may he be wise and decisive. He might even find that he likes it, since he hasn't tried it yet.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
A Thousand Words
On Obama's leadership:
I guess this explains why he said this:
I guess this explains why he said this:
# "I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future."--Barack Obama, Democratic National convention, Aug. 28, 2008Emphasis added.
This is What Democracy Looks Like
The Left seems to have a well developed sense of entitlement, so much so that they are happily sending death threats to Wisconsin legislators with whom they disagree. Outside of the criminal acts, and not to mention the poor spelling and grammar (Having people like this support teachers is not a positive thing) the willingness to disregard the ballot box and electoral results show what they mean to be democracy.
My favorite bit is how the law will force 300,000 to lose their jobs, their homes and into poverty. The reality is that if the union workers no longer have forced dues removal, they will probably not pay their dues. No dues means no massive campaign contributions to Democrats, which means less Democrats.
So in essence, the entire Wisconsin debacle boils down to a cutoff of forced extortion. And the extortionists don't like it.
My favorite bit is how the law will force 300,000 to lose their jobs, their homes and into poverty. The reality is that if the union workers no longer have forced dues removal, they will probably not pay their dues. No dues means no massive campaign contributions to Democrats, which means less Democrats.
So in essence, the entire Wisconsin debacle boils down to a cutoff of forced extortion. And the extortionists don't like it.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Random Thoughts
Life has been busy, so no posting for almost two weeks. I have had alot of thoughts for posts, but just haven't put them down, so here is the Reader's Digest version:
The snow came off the back yard finally, and we have been spending the afternoon picking up dog poop. We had offered free drinks and a prize to our friends who wanted to help, and whoever had the most amount of poop picked up. No takers, hmm I wonder why? Also, if anyone could figure out how to turn doggy doo-doo into a form of usable energy, I would be rich.
There is always that moment of relevance that you find when you least expect it. On Friday, I read in the paper that environmentalists had decried the passage of the big drums being trucked from Idaho to Billings. One even calling the permission to transport a "catastrophe." Then I heard about the earthquake in Japan, and you realize what a catastrophe actually is.
Wisconsin is still trying to stay relevant by having 100,000 people show up at the capital to take it over and chant "This is what democracy looks like." They may be right, but I don't think that is anything to be proud of.
I also get a kick out of the labor bosses saying that Gov. Walker's actions are in support of his corporate masters. Really? What is it that they are so programmed with terms that work, they don't realize that what they are saying makes no sense? There are no corporate masters over government unions. There are only tax payers. And in the end, there will still be schools and teachers, and workers in government offices, in spite of the supposed assault on worker's rights. But they should thank the Governor for saving them from themselves. As they say, anything that is unsustainable, will eventually fail to be sustained. If they keep demanding more from the taxpayers through the collusion of governing officials who are enriched by the unions that they are supposed to be negotiating against, is not sustainable as well.
President Obama is trying out his new "smart diplomacy" on Libya. Poor bastards. While I agree that it is a difficult choice, to simply stand on the sidelines is not a choice at all. If we did impose a "no-fly zone" it would be an act of war, but could turn the tide to the popular resistance over an autocrat. The difference between Obama and Bush is that the first muddles along, trying not to alienate the ones still in power and hoping for the best. Bush would have acted, and he may have been right or wrong. But a muddle results in nothing, while a choice to act results in either success or failure. Even in a binary system, the chance of success is still greater than doing nothing.
The snow came off the back yard finally, and we have been spending the afternoon picking up dog poop. We had offered free drinks and a prize to our friends who wanted to help, and whoever had the most amount of poop picked up. No takers, hmm I wonder why? Also, if anyone could figure out how to turn doggy doo-doo into a form of usable energy, I would be rich.
There is always that moment of relevance that you find when you least expect it. On Friday, I read in the paper that environmentalists had decried the passage of the big drums being trucked from Idaho to Billings. One even calling the permission to transport a "catastrophe." Then I heard about the earthquake in Japan, and you realize what a catastrophe actually is.
Wisconsin is still trying to stay relevant by having 100,000 people show up at the capital to take it over and chant "This is what democracy looks like." They may be right, but I don't think that is anything to be proud of.
I also get a kick out of the labor bosses saying that Gov. Walker's actions are in support of his corporate masters. Really? What is it that they are so programmed with terms that work, they don't realize that what they are saying makes no sense? There are no corporate masters over government unions. There are only tax payers. And in the end, there will still be schools and teachers, and workers in government offices, in spite of the supposed assault on worker's rights. But they should thank the Governor for saving them from themselves. As they say, anything that is unsustainable, will eventually fail to be sustained. If they keep demanding more from the taxpayers through the collusion of governing officials who are enriched by the unions that they are supposed to be negotiating against, is not sustainable as well.
President Obama is trying out his new "smart diplomacy" on Libya. Poor bastards. While I agree that it is a difficult choice, to simply stand on the sidelines is not a choice at all. If we did impose a "no-fly zone" it would be an act of war, but could turn the tide to the popular resistance over an autocrat. The difference between Obama and Bush is that the first muddles along, trying not to alienate the ones still in power and hoping for the best. Bush would have acted, and he may have been right or wrong. But a muddle results in nothing, while a choice to act results in either success or failure. Even in a binary system, the chance of success is still greater than doing nothing.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
This Just Is Not Right
Bristol Palin is joining Justin Bieber in writing a memoir. Boy, I can hardly wait to see what she has learned in her 21 years and he in his 17.
No I'm not.
No I'm not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)