These Guys Are Something Else

Bill Clinton is ripping on the "Birthers" and is claiming some sort of moral superiority, which is really just pure old partisanship.  While I believe that the main objective of the Birthers is to deligitamize the Obama administration more than anything else, I wonder where Ol' Bill was during the 2000 election, when Bush was accused of stealing the election.  No, then Bill Clinton remained quiet, because it was in his Party's interest to do so. As an example of his perfidy, consider this:

“But 45 percent of registered Republicans still believe that he is serving unconstitutionally,” Clinton insisted, though he did not identify the poll.

Clinton made up these numbers because he knew that he would not be held to account like Bush.  Remember all of the Bushisms?  It was all part of the organized plan to discredit the legitimate President of the US. For Clinton to now complain would be hilarious if not for it being so cynical.

Now, we also have as an example of perfidy, Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachussets.  The Good Gov. has decided that opposition to President Obama is "bordering on sedition."  What happened to the idea that it is every American's right to oppose the President?  Or does it only go one way?

I am becoming more and more convinced far too many Democrats confuse patriotism, or love of country with love of party.  Opposition to Democrat Party values is a greater crime than working to destroy the country.  Just think about the New York Times and all that they have done in the past when a Republican was President.  That was okay because Americans made a mistake in who they selected to be President. 

Makes me wonder why anyone with a sense of honor would identify themselves as a Democrat.

Foolish Writings

When you are drafting a contract or just about any legal document that could be challenged, it is customary to put in what is called a "severability clause."  This magic clause says that if any part of the contract or document are found to be legally inoperable, then those parts that remain will still be in force.  It is one of the first things that a law student learns in contract law.

Guess who must not have gone to law school?

That's right, the folks that brought you the monumental health care bill apparently didn't bother with that saving clause.  This is truly stupefying, and explainable only in that they were in such a rush to get it through after the Scott Brown election, that they didn't do their homework.

The Democrat Party has long been advancing the idea that passing ObamaCare would be the same benefit to them as Social Security and Medicare.  It is instead becoming a laughing stock of legislation, proof positive that government is inept at the least and incompetent the more likely explanation.

What in the Hell?

The Supreme Court now says that if you are sentenced to a certain amount of time, and if you are designated a "sexually dangerous offender" then you may be held without bail, or without punishment after your sentence is over if the court wants.
Setting aside the dangerous sexual offender aspect, how in the world do we justify keeping someone locked up?  Seems to me the courts should just do what our state court does, and give them 100 years without parole.
Might be easier for you if you are a terrorist, and trying to kill Americans.  At least then you would be presumed to be eligible to be released.

The Democrat's Conundrum

It's too long to paste the entire comic here, but if you follow this link to Day by Day, it does stimulate discussion on how much the government is involved in our lives. But it raises the problems in the Democrat's message:
"You have to be smart to vote for us, but too stupid to take care of yourself, so we will do it for you."


Heckuva job Barry!

Heckuva Job Barry!

While I have long felt that Barak Obama is nothing more than an empty suit who can read a teleprompter, it seems as though some on the Left are starting to feel the same thing.  Chuck Green who is reported to be of a Leftist bent, has the following to say about the job that the President is doing.
It’s all George Bush’s fault.

George Bush, who doesn’t have a vote in Congress and who no longer occupies the White House, is to blame for it all.

He broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.

He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.

He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.

He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent.

He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.

He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.

He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.

He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.

He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.

He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

He broke Obama’s promise to have chosen a home church to attend Sunday services with his family by Easter of last year.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.

If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.

I find this particularly amusing since Obama has now decided that the Gulf Oil Spill Disaster is also Bush's fault.  Never mind that it was his department that was permitting without appropriate review.
I also know that there are those who believe that all of the above is true, or at least are willing to mouth the assertions even if they don't believe it.  Obama can do no wrong.  It has to be something or someone else who is obstructing him from bringing Hope and Change.
I feel sorry for them.

Libertarian Community Action

Loved this.  Thanks to Reason.

My Condolences

Greg Smith of Electric City Weblog has announced the death of his father.  He has also turned off comments so I couldn't offer my sympathies directly.  But Greg, our thoughts and prayers are with you, especially now in your time of grief.

Even The Stupid Can Get Lucky

Rep. Alan Grayson, (Clown -FL) is usually a blowhard partisan without anything useful to offer.  And then he goes and does this:



I am not big on conspiracy like some are about the Fed, but I don't think it would be a bad idea to audit it anyway.

TheWorld Turned Upside Down

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Senator Robert Bennett has been denied renomination for his senatorial seat from Utah.  The culprits in this theft seem to be members of the Tea Party:  Some may see this as the purging of the impure, much like the Democrats did to Joe Liebermann.  But I think that those who argue this are missing the real truth of the matter.
The Tea Partiers are not solely Republican.  But what they are could be fairly considered as small government activists.  While Liebermann was chased out of the Democrat Party for consorting with Republicans, it was done by the followers of Markos Moulitas, a committed and fervent "progressive."  Members of the Tea Party are just as likely to be Independents as Republicans, and there are even some thinking former Democrats thrown in.  This difference is the reason why the Tea Party will have a much longer lasting impact on politics then the "Friends of Ned."
Senator Bennett may feel that he has been treated unfairly, just because he voted for TARP and other expansion of the state without the ability to pay for it.  But he is just the first, and if the Republican Party is smart (not a given in any event) they will recognize that this group will have more influence than the usual get out the vote of the base in coming elections.  In fact, it is probably worse for the Republicans, because their base is more likely to sympathize with the goals of the Tea Party.
But the secret power of the Tea Party is that we are broke.  Not just overspent, but flat busted, make Greece look like Scrooge McDuck broke.  Some may cavil that the Tea Party never complained when Bush was spending, but they are absolutely wrong.  In fact, it was the general disgust with his overspending that led to the Democrats gaining control in 2006, and increasing their margin in 2008, as they cited their "fiscal responsibility bona fides.  Unfortunately, it was all just a lie.
The country is at a crossroads.  On the one path, we increase taxes in order to maintain what is now considered to be the minimal level of government.  This path will lead to higher unemployment, stagnating wages, and zero growth or innovation.  People will recognize that it is in their interests to not produce, but to relax and enjoy the results of those who do produce.  A sort of reverse Marxism, where the productive have their wealth stolen, only not by the capitalists, but by the non-productive. 
The other path is no more comfortable either.  It will demand a complete reodering of what we are to expect from the government:  National Defense, secure borders and a court system.  Everything else is going to be off the table until we get our debt under control. 
But if we do get our debt under control, we have the potential to unleash human productivity like the workd has never seen before.

The Real Problem With Immigration Reform

Apparently, wearing an American flag in a high school in California is now considered to be inflammatory.  I guess this makes sense only if you think that California is a part of Mexico and not one of these United States.  Maybe that is why all of the ruckus about illegals.  They are the legals, it's just those people who call themselves American who are illegal.

There He Goes Again

President Obama gave the graduation address at the University of Michigan.  In spite of his flaming rhetoric, luckily no one was moved to violence.  Yet.
Some of his lies cannot go unanswered.  For instance, he said

But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad.

Why is it troubling? Government, as presently constituted is immensely powerful, and to ignore that power, or to believe that it will only be used for good is delusional,  Waco Ruby Ridge, and others being just a small sampling of the government using force against their citizens.  But maybe worse than government being bad, is that government is incompetent.  It's not that they mean to destroy your life, they do it without thinking or meaning to.  While there is a difference in motivation, there is no difference in results.

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It's the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

Okay, but it is also the DEA, NSA, IRS, Border Patrol, Forest Service rangers who are armed and so many others.  It is the petty tyranny of anyone with a badge and a gun telling me what to do. And that's not even counting the bureaucrats who make your life miserable, all the while proclaiming they are doing it for your own good.

The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little government, he said, "when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy."

What he fails to mention is that the financial meltdown already had layers of laws and bureaucrats to prevent the meltdown, and yet, they still failed.  Why is the answer to all government failures, more government.  "We didn't do it right before, but with more money we will do it right. Just like before, um, er, I mean, I am sure there must have been at least one time."

Obama urged both sides in the political debate to tone it down. "Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style takeover,' 'fascists' and 'right-wing nut' -- that may grab headlines," he said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise...

So, saying that Bush is a liar and a terrorist is okay, but don't use the S word?  Don't get me wrong, I admire that he has finally come to realize that a level of civility is necessary.  Better late than never.  Just would be a lot more effective if he acknowledged the past.

"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."
Passionate rhetoric isn't new, he acknowledged. Politics in America, he said, "has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. ... If you enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up."

Okay, another example might be that suppressing dissent is more likely to lead to violence, since the mentally unbalanced are less likely to think that it is their only venue.  Just like the Left did to Bush for eight years.
Sorry, but Obama has become a parody, even when he doesn't mean to be.

Understanding Proof

Gregg has an interesting discussion going on about illegal immigration, and one of the problems is that so many people don;t understand the differing levels of proof.  Here is something that I cobbled together, and hope that it will fit as formatted:

Presumption of innocence only exists in the courtroom.  The State is allowed to proceed on the basis of probable cause, which is enough to get you into the court.  I try to demonstrate it graphically using the jury bar, and I will try to do it here starting with unknown and going to known.  This is not strictly linear, except that preponderance of the evidence is considered to be 50% plus a smidge.




---  Total Unknown  Don't know, never can know.
|
|
|
--- Particularized suspicion, Enough for a cop to ask for your ID, look into something that could be suspicious.
|
|
|
--- Probable Cause, enough to arrest, get into court.  All that the state has proven prior to trial
|
|
|
---  Preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not.  Enough to take your money
|
|
|
--- Clear and Convincing - Amount of evidence for DPHHS to take your kids away.
|
|
|
--- Beyond a reasonable doubt - Enough to take your freedom, or your life in a capital case.
|
|
--- Total known  No question, no doubt, no way, no how.

Dealing with False Charges

John Hinderaker at Powerline has a good piece lambasting those scurrilous people who maintain that if you support the Tea Party movement, you are a racist.  He mentions that there is the same amount of evidence that TPers are racists as there is that those who make the baseless charge are themselves child molesters.
If you think about it, those who allege racism are homo sapiens, just like child molesters.  And they are also likely to deny that they are child molesters, just like real child molesters do. Why the more I think about it, there are unlimited similarities between those who make false charges and child molesters.
How dare these child molesters impugn the good and decent folks of the Tea Party.

An Existentialist Dilemna

Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot raises an interesting point:  Did the Democrats have to pass ObamaCare even though it was so widely unpopular?  Specifically, he said:

In a way, Democrats had to pass it, even knowing that it greatly endangered their House (and for all we know, Senate) majorities; if they looked at their own proposal and concluded it more harm than good, why on earth would the country need them?

Although many promises had been made that there would be a jump in approval ratings after the bill was enacted, because the people would finally get to see what was in it, just the opposite has happened.  Whether there are just general misrepresentations of its benefits,   or the fact that Congress cut itself off of all healthcare in their deliberate and careful approach to writing the bill, people are not happy.  And that's without even answering the question of its Constitutionality.

But what if this is all there is?  Do the Democrats honestly believe that the public are going to reward them with accolades?  If so, I want some of those drugs that the so-called "reality people" are taking.

And we still have three more years before the benefits kick in.

A Very Interesting Question

One should always try to think of the question not asked, and then ask why it wasn't.  The question in this article is one of those.  Why are there no glaciers in the Bob Marshall and Missions, nor are there proportional glaciers north of Glacier Park?
If the glaciers in the Park are the last remnant of the last Ice Age, isn't it more interesting that any glaciers remain rather than that they are disappearing?

Could Someone Please . . .

Show me an example of where people in positions of authority are actually urging violence or sedition by the Tea Party?  Not counting lunatics like Joel Klein, Frank Rich, or today on CNN where Gov. Granholm is claiming that certain speech is out of bounds.  Can you show me any unambiguous call for violence?  Not Palin's urge to "reload" because if that was all it took, I am sure that someone responsible would have objected to calls for Bush's assassination, or Cheney dieing of a heart attack.

If on the other hand, this is just a cynical effort to squelch legitimate public discourse, well then, you can just go to hell.

It's My Blogiversary

Five years ago, it all started with this.  What a long strange trip it's been..

That Was Quick

Doug Schoen has a piece where he tells the Democrats how they can save their bacon in November. Since the anticipated "bump" from the passage of Health Care Reform (or is it Health Insurance Reform?) never materialized, Democrats have to be standing around wondering what happened.  Especially after they felt so confident, they were predicting 40 years of Democrat dominance.
So, what actually did happen?  I will propose a few suggestions, confident that Democrats will never actually consider them, since they seem to lack the intellectual ability to examine an issue dispassionately.
First, Democrats, especially liberals (read Left, since some people who claim to be liberal are anything but) are really a minority.  They are outnumbered two to one by self proclaimed conservatives.The Democrats were also very successful in painting Republicans with a very negative brush, resulting in Conrand Burns losing his seat to Tester as an example.  The problem here is that the Democrats are not more honorable or moral than the Republicans.  Remember Nancy Pelosi was going to drain the swamp, except of course for Charles Rangel, John Murtha, Morin, and so many others.  In fact, the Democrat leadership has done yeoman's work in protecting these people rather than rooting out corruption.
Next, in 2008 the Democrats ran on the platform that they weren't Bush, just like in 1976, when they ran as not being Nixon.  You can run against someone only so far,  As it is now, the electorate is about evenly split between Obama and Bush as to who they would prefer.  Also in 2008, Obama ran on the solid platform of "Hope and Change."  It wasn't really his fault, but he did exploit the ambiguity of the mantra because everyone could project just what they thought they wanted onto Obama.  The downside is that Obama could never meet their expectations after he was elected.  Although the evidence seems to be that he never intended to do anything but to repay his Democrat allies in the auto industry and financial industry.
Then, believing their own propaganda, (I am wondering if Bill Clinton isn't deliberately trying to sabotage Obama by declaring an improvement in public opinion after the bills passage) led them to ram through a massive social program that the public was opposed to.  Nancy Pelosi claimed that all would be better when the public got to see the bill, but just the opposite happened.  A good part of their problem is that to even pretend it's fiscally solvent, they had to defer benefits for three years.  And in the process, because they rushed the bill through, in spite of all of these promises, they managed to cut themselves out of any health care until 2013.  The irony alone is delicious, but as a metaphor for being too complex, it is without equal.
Then, just to top it all off, the Tea Party arose, and the Democrats got it completely wrong.  First they claimed it was astro-turf, mostly because they are very familiar with astro-turf counters to anything that Bush did.  Since Soros paid for all of their projects, they assumed that there must be someone on the Republican side who was being the yin to Soros' yang.  Except there isn't anyone.  Next, the Democrats through their state controlled media tried to denigrate the Tea Party by asking where the leaders are, or what is the message.  They fail to grasp that this is a completely self organizing group who are angry with the direction of the country.  Then, the schtick is that the TPers are just ignorant rubes and hicks.  Which was shown to be false by the NYT  But still they persist in trying to denigrate and diminish TPers.  Some do it by falsely accusing them of racism, a most despicable tactic, because it minimizes actual racists.  And once the truth came out that the TPers were actually better educated and older, the new spin is that they are just spoiled elitists. 
I am sure though, that the Democrats are particularly frustrated by the fact that the usual tactics of social control that they have used these many years are not working.  How dare these people publicly disagree with their supposed betters.  Except they do.
Finally, I would offer this bit of solace to the Democrats - if the Republicans fail to act in a fiscally responsible manner, they won't be in officer for very long either.

The Original Libertarians

In honor of Tea Parties across the country, a reminder of our first Libertarians.

Of course, they did turn violent and shot at people later.

The Tax Day Cometh

Just wrote the check for $10k to pay for the taxes and the quarterlies, and that hurts.  Sure, my wife (The Good Democrat) did a land office business in helping people get on disability, so we reaped the rewards for her hard work.  But with the check that was written, I also had to wonder, did our accountant get every tax exemption that we were entitled to?
In fact, can any of us who use anything other than the 1040EZ actually be certain that we paid what we were supposed to, and not more or less?  And if we did use an accountant, how sure are you that you won't invite an audit?  Apparently, Money magazine sent out a sample tax return and asked several different accountants and tax attorneys and none of them did it right.
The problem is made worse if you are upper middle class because you don't know for sure that you are in full compliance, while the uber-wealthy can simply make the appropriate contribution to Rep. Charley Rangel and know that their problems are taken care of.  The tax code ceased to be an instrument for raising revenue, and is now used as a method of social control.  Regulating behavior that we don't like, and encouraging behavior that we want.  Of course, like everything that the government does, the actual results never match up against the success of the law of unintended consequences.
Just as a quick example of some of the headaches we suffer there is this:

Great One Liner

From a business show:  Congress is the only entity that when given an unlimited budget, can still exceed it.

Birthers

For the most part, I find "Birthers" tiresome.  Their claim is that Obama is not a legal native born American and without that he is ineligible to serve.  While I recognize there is always going to be a question of validity, since the Democrats seem willing to break any rule they can get away with, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are cheating this time.
But now, we have a LTC who is claiming that Obama is not his Commander in Chief, and is therefore refusing to follow orders.  While I disagree with him, I can appreciate his reasoning.  But one thing that I forgot, was that the Obama campaign demanded proof of McCain's birth certificate to show that he was eligible since he was born in the Canal Zone.  Would be kind of fun to remind Obama, Goose meet Gander.

A Radical Proposal

Government spending is spinning out of control. Yeah, I know, you are probably thinking what else is new. But one of the key problems with government spending is the explosive growth in wages of government employees.An example from the Cato institute shows that federal workers are making more than double the average for the private sector.

Montana public sector employees average $60,435 in average total compensation which is still more than the average earned by non-government workers.  So how did this imbalance come to pass?  It used to be that government workers were compensated less but had more job stability.  Some of the benefits of course were paid health care, but more than anything else, it was a retirement package that is pretty darned good.
The unfortunate thing about this is that the accumulation of retirement obligations by the government have to be met by the taxpayer.  And it doesn't take long before the obligations get so far out of hand that the rest of the state budget is put in peril.
As a state employee, I am going to make a recommendation that appears to be against my own interests but the alternative is having the state go bankrupt, which is an even bigger harm to my interest.  But I think we have to do two things.  First, freeze government wages until the average government worker is paid the same as the average private sector worker.  Second, we are going to have to change the way that the annual adjustment to retirement compensation is made.  My proposal is to give 100% of the CPI cost of living the first year, followed by 95% the second, and 90% the second and so on reducing the annual adjustment by 5% per year,  The net effect is that after 20 years, there will be no adjustment for inflation, but there will probably be less need as well when the retiree is 80 or older.
Putting a pay freeze is not going to be very popular when inflation starts to take off.  But the good news is that with inflation, it won't take that long for the state worker wage to come into line with the private sector pay.  As a flip side to this, the government would have to make a commitment not to let anyone go, except for job performance problems. Some workers may feel that they could be better served to leave government service and make their way in the private sector.  And I salute them.

If we do not take steps now, there won't be any retirement for anyone.  We have to recognize that state spending is a liability that has to be paid, but the workers have to recognize that killing the goose that laid the golden egg isn't going to work either.

Humor

Some examples of really bad ads for lawyers:



A really bad example of courtroom presence:

And this one, but don't say the name of the law firm out loud:


Finally, maybe not funny, but I still enjoy it nonetheless, Warren Zevon and Lawyers, Guns and Money:

Examples of Hate Speech by Tea Partiers

This kind of speech only leads to violence, and it cannot be tolerated:



Oops.

They are Liars

As was noted in the Corner of National Review OnLine, and elaborated even further for its falsity at BigGovernment the whole controversy over supposed "racist" Tea Partiers is a complete and utter sham. Throw in the Rev. (ha!) Sharpton claiming to have actually seen video of the use of the N word, and then backtracking when caught in such a lie is even more evidence of their desperation. These outrageous and false accusations are a made up tempest designed to marginalize concerned citizens.
It's clear that making an accusation of someone using such a disgusting word, that the burden immediately is shifted to the accused to prove that it didn't happen. And because proving a negative is impossible, the accuser can get away scot free. Well, not anymore.
The next question has to be, why do these people stoop to such despicable tactics? In part, it's because they fear those in the Tea Party movement. Not from any actual violence, but because the Tea Partiers are no longer to be herded like the cattle they are considered to be by their accusers. They are standing up to the tyranny of the minority that claims the mantle of moral superiority even though that mantle is undeserved. In fact, not just undeserved, it has been stolen.
There is greater similarity between the Tea Partiers and the Civil Rights movement and the reactionaries like Bull Conner and the Al Sharptons in this world than people are willing to admit. The only difference is that Bull Conner wielded the "N" word as a coercive tactic to remind African Americans of their proper place (at the back of the bus, or not at the lunch counter) and Rep. Cleaver who wants to remind the Tea Partiers of their place (shut up and pay your taxes and do as we say).
Oh yeah, one other similarity between Bull Conner and those who falsely allege racism on the part of the Tea Party: They're both Democrats.

What Are The Limits On Power?

Neil Cavuto is interviewing the blogger who got Cong. Hare to admit that he didn't care, and obviously doesn't know about the Constitution.

While the Congresscritter's sentiments may be altruistic, they are not based on any understanding of the concept of limited and enumerated powers.  Which begs the question:  Under the concept of ObamaCare, what powers are not given to the federal government?  Is there nothing that is beyond the pale for them to control, regulate, tax, ban or demand?

I ask the question, what the government cannot do, since it seems to be more constrained than asking what the government can do.

Some are predicting already future demands by the government of we the People.  How about, every home must purchase an American flag and pledge allegiance every morning.  Whatever you may think about it, how is there any limitation on this requirement.  Or, with sufficient majority in both houses, Congress bans abortions under the Commerce Clause theory because we need more future workers,
Where will it end?  Can it ever end?

Is Tester Going to Run for Reelection?

Tester's term doesn't come up until 2012, but I found this interesting.  Admittedly, it's from December of 2009, but having less than a half million in the bank for an incumbent seems to be pretty short.  Especially since he has no major chairmanships, and his signature bill, the land grab in Montana, is only affecting locals, one has to wonder,

Enforcing the Law

The Law of Unintended Consequences of course.  More rigidly applied than the law of gravity, more strictly observed than Newton's laws of motion, unintended consequences are a given any time that the government sets its mind to solving a problem. ObamaCare being just the latest in a long line of proofs of the law.
As Dave Budge noted, there will be a gazillion IRS agents added to the rolls of government teat sucking to make sure that we are all in compliance with obtaining health insurance under ObamaCare.  Just one problem, they will have zero enforcement capability.  As a result, there is no disincentive to avoid getting health insurance until you actually need, you know, medical care.  As a result, insurance companies are going to be faced with all of these non rejectable applications for insurance coverage which was filled out in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.  Since insurance coverage is based on probabilities, the new method of deciding on when to buy insurance means that there will be a 100% payout with a probable 1% pay in of premiums.  Since you could go to the hospital, have your surgery, stay for a week, and as soon as you are out, cancel your insurance, it is unlikely that insurance companies are going to survive.
The irony is that in attempting to cover the 30 to 47 million people without insurance, we just may be sending the numbers of uninsured into the 300 million realm.  Tell me that was what the Democrats wanted to do.  No, I really believe they just plain failed to think it all the way through, just like always.
The other amusing thing, is that while the Democrats admit that the bulk of the benefits don't take effect until 2014, they were using the selling point that as of passage, you couldn't be denied for a pre-existing condition, and your children would be covered until they were 26.  Except they won't.
Democrats. proving that good government is a myth.  And yet, they persist.  What is that definition of insanity again?

Obama: "Get Whitey"

Just as valid as claiming some Tea Partier used the "N" word, or spit on you.

Commerce Clause and Chaos

The passage of ObamaCare has brought joy to those on the Left who seek to have equality by pulling all others down to the lowest common denominator. The basis for this intrusive act by the government is said to be the all powerful "commerce clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) of the US Constitution, giving the Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The clause didn't pack a lot of power until the Depression when the FDR administration determined to artificially keep wheat prices high. Without geting into some esoterica about the "dormant commerce clause" or other issues of limited application, suffice it to say, that the Supreme Court determined in Willard v. Filburn that any activity that exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce could be regulated. While Filburn's growing wheat to feed his chickens meant that he wasn't buying wheat on the open market (and thereby supporting government mandated prices) was only of small impact, the reasoning was basically that if everyone did it, the impact would be large.
I am sure you are asking how a wheat farmer's horticulture has anything to do with ObamaCare. First, ObamaCare requires mandatory purchase of health insurance by everyone in order to subsidize those who will need medical care. And what is the basis for this "substantial impact on interstate commerce?" Apparently, it's breathing. If you are consuming air, then you are somehow having a substantial impact on interstate commerce?
The real question is, what is now the minimal activity that a citizen can do to avoid triggering the commerce clause in their life? If there is nothing that cannot be regulated, then why do we have the 10th Amendment?
The real fun for those of us who prefer chaos to organized governmental activity, it is quite possible that the US Supreme Court could rein in the commerce clause to such an extent that the powers that Congress has been usurping will finally be removed.
And I can hardly wait.

I Just Don't Believe Them Anymore

Rep. Andre Carson, Indiana Democrat, who is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, claims that "tea party" protesters hurled racial slurs at fellow CBC member Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat. Mr. Carson said that "hundreds of people" were chanting, "Kill the bill," and he heard "at least 15 times" the "n – word" being thrown around.

But the video doesn't show any such thing.
They have used false accusations for so long, their credibility is zero.

Tell Us What You Really Think.

You have to really love this piece. From the article:

“I have three simple questions Ms Pelosi,” said Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga. “Are you so arrogant that you think you know what’s best for the American people? Are you so ignorant that you are oblivious to the wishes of the American people? And are you so incompetent that you are going to ignore the Constitution of the United States, use tricks, deceptions, bald faced lies to try to ram down the throat of the American people something that they do not want and is going to be absolutely worse for their healthcare?”

And, They're Off

The filing deadline is now over, and a whole bunch of people decided at the last minute that they wanted to run for office after all. Good for them, and special acknowledgment to Matt Stevenson who is running against Carolyn Squires for HD 96, (the same one that I ran for in 2008).
Good luck to all of them, and may they always remember they are representatives, not leaders. Do what the people want, not just what you want.

This is Sort of Disturbing

And yet, mildly amusing.

Another Double Standard

Remember Scooter Libby? Or Martha Stewart? Both of these high profile people were prosecuted for making false statements to federal agents. As a general rule, I would never ever talk to the FBI or any other federal investigator because if I made a mistake, I could still be prosecuted for that innocent mistake, even if it isn't intentional.
Apparently, if you do the same thing in your senate confirmation, well, it's just not that big of a deal. Combining this, with the DOJ dismissal of the Black Panther Voter Intimidation case and the dismissal of the ACORN investigation, and you realize that there are two kinds of justice in this country. One for Democrats and their friends, and one for the rest of us.
Guess which one goes to jail.

Schweitzer as the VP in 2012?

The Washington Examiner thinks that Obama needs to get some populist help for his re-election run in 2012. No mention is made of Biden, although it is fairly well known that the former Senator from Delaware offers little to help Obama's chances, since his whole attraction before was foreign policy expertise. But interestingly. the Examiner seems to think that our own Gov. BS is prime material for the spot.
Personally, I think Obama needs someone with actual, you know, competence. Maybe Bayh, but I am not so sure that he wants to be associated with the coming train wreck.

Obama and the Political Equivalent of Jonestown

Presidents in the modern era tend to develop an image even if it is one that they don't want. Think George Bush and you have a variety of preconceived notions by the public in general: Amiable dunce, or war criminal. Clinton as the prevaricating philanderer, GHWB (Bush 41) Yankee patrician who said "read my lips" like he actually meant it, even though he didn't. Reagan, maybe amiable dunce, but I think most on the Left so loathed him, that they saw him as the evil precursor to GWB. Carter of course, was the incompetent busybody technocrat, Ford the uncoordinated dunce (which is interesting since he was probably the best athlete president of this century). Tricky Dick says it all, and LBJ as the rude, crude, Texan who escalated the war in Viet Nam and gave us the Civil Rights Act, even though it was against his party's interests. Barak Obama is starting to develop his own image, and it probably isn't what he wanted. Originally, the narrative was that he is this wonderful orator who could transcend party, race and the pettiness of politics and give us all a new America that could be proud of itself once again (although most of us always were proud).
Then, reality set in.
The Great Orator who enthralled the journalists who covered him, is revealed to be a captive of his teleprompter (remember corpse-man?) who is deeply narcissistic ("I won" and "the difference between 94 now, is that now you have me.") The great statesman is shown to be an indolent victim of Reid and Pelosi on the major legislation of his presidency (health care). Using the evidence of his actions, it is not unrealistic to think that Obama believes his own press. His explanation for the lack of public support for his plan is that the administration has failed to communicate it clearly. This in spite of the fact that he has given more speeches on health care than there are days of his presidency. Could it possibly be that he has communicated his plan, and the public rejects it anyway? That thought seems to be incomprehensible to the divine One.
But what about all of the polls that show the public support the elements of his plan, even if they don't support his plan? I am curious what the pollsters asked about the Louisiana Purchase or the CornHusker Kickback. Or, for that matter the entire process, which was supposed to be on CSPAN for all of us to see. Instead, it was done in the back of Harry Reid's office, pressed to the floor for a vote when the members never had a chance to read it, much less understand it. And now, in spite of the polls Obama vows to press ahead unilaterally with reconcilliation to put it into law. The theory is that the Democrats will be rewarded by the public when the law is enacted.
The foolishness of this plan can only be attributed to self-delusion. But the mania is being abetted and enabled by other members of Congress. The fact that they can say with a straight face that the plan will reduce the deficit and not raise costs is simply absurd. If they know it and ignore it, they are criminally complicit. On the other hand, if they really do believe this pap, they are a pretty good argument for making a test of sanity a requirement for federal office.
Obama seems to be orchestrating the political equivalent of Jonestown. Demanding fealty to his signature work, he is telling Democrats that they need to throw themselves on that grenade for the good of their party. Never mind that due to seniority rules in the Democrat caucus, the old bulls with the most seniority are the ones from the safest seats. The ones who will actually pay the price for this miscue are going to be the Democrats that were recruited to take over moderate and Red State seats.
Forcing this monstrosity through in the face of adverse public opinion will probably wipe out all of the gains that the Democrats have made over the last four years. Although Congressional districts have varying degrees of fluidity, the trend for the last two elections has been to the Democrats. Abetted by Republican fiscal idiocy and trumped up ethics charges, the Democrats are now showing that they can top even the Republicans at that game. In fact, I think it wouldn't be all that unreasonable for the House to return to the same number of Republicans and Democrats as existed in 2004. With such a mandate in opposition to the Democrat plan, its reversal is almost assuredly guaranteed. Then all the Republicans will have to do is proffer their simplified plan, and the public will recognize that the Democrats talk a good game but do nothing of importance.
This could very well mean the end of the Democrat Party except in isolated regional areas (the coasts and major failed metropolitan areas), representing the die hard leftists.
Quite the turnaround from a year and a half ago, dontcha think?

A Liberal Democrat I Would Support

Micky Kaus of the Kausfiles has taken out papers to run in the Democrat Primary against Barbara Boxer. I like Micky and read his blog often. He has good sense and is intellectually honest. Unlike SENATOR Boxer.

A Twist on the Nigerian Minister Who Needs to Transfer Money to Your Account

An American woman is accused of bilking Nigerians? The irony of this simply won't quit.

Self Ddelusion Is a Wonderful Thing.

The ability to fool yourself is a necessary tool for many people. Otherwise we would be running from our jobs, screaming, just to try and give actual meaning to our lives. Nonetheless, it is always a good idea to every so often take stock of your assumptions and test them against your opponent's views to see if they are really valid.
For instance, I honestly believe that the Tea Party movement is a valid expression of rage at government gone mad. That it manifests itself in Tea Party get togethers and in the election of Sen. Brown in Massachusetts for crying out loud. But what if I am wrong? What if the Tea Party movement is nothing more than an Astro-Turf minimal impact media creation that does not reflect current public opinion? If I am wrong, the Democrats would certainly be justified in ignoring the movement. But the idea that it is Astro Turf is certainly not going to be proven by the high quality of professionally done signs. Maaybe if they hooked up with SEIU they could get some well made ones. But the bottom line comes down to, if the Tea Party movement is really inconsequential no one would pay it any heed. Instead, Democrats under the direction of Organizing For America are slandering them. Opponents of the Tea Party movement are calling them violent when all of the violence comes from Obama supporters. Tea Party members are also accused of being racists for opposing the policies of a black President. Never mind that the opposition to a white president is just good civics.
The reason I bring this up is related to the Democrat's suicide mission to pass their monstrosity of a spending bill that they call "health care reform" Or "health insurance reform" or whatever they seem to think will get a greater chunk of control over one sixth of the economy.
I had said last August that the Democrats would be well served to have Health Reform fail. Sure they had 60 votes in the Senate and enough of a majority in the House that they could let many vulnerable Democrats vote against the bill for self preservation. But passing the bill would only raise taxes for years before the first benefit was paid. And we all know how well delayed gratification plays in this country. But as Senator Alexander has said, the Democrats are on a Kamikaze mission to pass this monstrosity. Democrats are justifying it by saying how polls show tha tthe individual aspects of the bill are popular. I just wonder how poplular were the individual parts of the Louisiana Purchase, or the CornHusker Kickback? Or for that matter, the entire bill being slapped together and voted on before anyone ever read them? In a way it makes sense. The Democrats have the largest majorities that they have had in years, and if they fail to do this, how can they ever argue for a leadership role again? Now the question becomes, what is the price that they will pay for trying to ram this through? Democrats and especially President Obama feel that the American popular opposition to his plan is based on his failure to communicate what the plan is. But what if they do understand what the plan is? I don't think Democrats are able to grasp that concept.
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barak Obama see this as a mission that needs to be done in spite of public opposition. They are apparently willing to sacrifice their majorities in both houses of Congress this year to make this happen. But in reality, they aren't making sacrifices themselves. Most of the Democratic leadership is coming from solidly Democratic districts that would bever vote for a Republican in any event. Just think about Michigan, where government policies have driven the state to disaster, and yet Democrats still retain control. Or California where they ostensibly have a Republican governor but a gerrymandered setup of districts that will guarantee the Democrat seats are safe. No, the seats that are at risk, are those gained over the last two elections and are made up of mostly moderates. Those people are going to be the sacrifice for the egos of Obama Reid and Pelosi.
Now, if any of these moderates and Blue Dogs actually examine their previously held assumptions, they just may figure out that their only hope for survival does not lie in being a sacrificial lamb for someone else's political expectations.

Calling Out Keith Olbermann

The best thing about the Internet is that demagogues are not allowed to prosper for long.



Although, as Instapundit notes: There will be more people watching this YouTube video than watch Countdown.

Mike Huckabee is a Fool (Or is it Tool?)

So, it seems that Mike Huckabee has skipped the CPAC convention because they are "becoming more Libertarian than Republican?" Good for him. And may he take his decaying version of the Republican Party with him. Remember, this is the guy who wanted to remake the Constitution into a more biblical document.
Huckabee has a smooth presentation that works on those who are unable to think. For that reason, I feel he is really a Democrat in disguise, in that he wants to have the ability to tell us all what to do.
It's time to send a message and continue to drive him and his outmoded ways out of the party of limited government if they are unwilling to go along with that very simple and basic principle. Limited government accomplishes all of the objectives of the social conservatives without the need for their legislation. The rule should be to lead your life as an exemplar to others, not use the punishment of the law to inflict your mores on someone else.

Honoring t.he Victors

David Bellavia pens an absolutely awesome piece about what the War in Iraq means, now that it is effectively a victory. I know that it is not popular at the moment to say so, but the fact is that through their efforts, and theirs alone, the American fighting forces have changed Iraq forever, and definitely for the better.
You can quibble if you want about whether it was right or wrong, but the fact is, it doesn't matter anymore. What you cannot quibble about is that the Iraqi people themselves respected the change that was given to them.

My squad runs through the searing heat and forms a wall of flesh and Kevlar between the incoming fire and the citizens standing in line behind us. They’ve turned out in their finest clothes to wait for the opportunity to cast a vote. For most, this moment is a defining one in their lives. They’ve never had a voice before. This means something to them, and they have used the moment as an object lesson for their children. They appear nervous and take photos. The kids stand with them in line, viewing first hand this revolution in Iraqi civics.

As they came to line up earlier that morning, the men thanked us and clasped their hands over their heads, striking a triumphant pose. Some of the women cried. The kids were on their best behavior.

The gunfire began that afternoon. Insurgents started to shoot them. My unit ran to the road and formed a protective position between the killers and the citizens going to the polls. As we scanned the palm grove in front of us, bullets cracked and whined, then mortars start thumping around us. My squad pushed into the palm grove. I stayed on the road, overseeing their movement and coordinating the heavy fire from the Bradleys.

The firefight ebbs. The mortar fire ceases. A few last stray rounds streak past. A cry from behind causes me to turn. Lying in the road is a young Iraqi woman. I run over to help. She’s caught a round just below her temple. Her stunning beauty has been ruined forever.

She cries, “Paper! Paper” over and over until the ambulance arrives to take her away. An old lady emerges from the schoolhouse-turned voting site, sheets of blue paper in hand. She gives one to the wounded girl, who clutches it to her like a prized possession even as the ambulance carries her away.

The ballot was her voice. All she wanted was a chance to exercise it, just once, before she died.

The old woman returns to the school house, but drops another ballot along the way. It drifts in a gentle breeze across the bloodstained asphalt. I stoop down and pick it up. It is all in Arabic, and I have no idea what each set of candidates advocate. That’s not my place, and it doesn’t really matter. I helped make this day happen. This ballot represents the reason why we’re here, why my friends had to die.

If you won't recognize the sacrifice by those who made the difference, remember the sacrifice of Iraqis like the young woman who only wanted to vote. Compare their actions with out present day political class, and you wonder why our soldiers even bother.
Thank God that they do.

Ouch!!

Seems that President Obama offered to meet with Las Vegas Mayor, Oscar Goldman when Obama is in town. Goldman has snubbed the offer.
So let me see, the President is snubbed by the political hack and former mob lawyer? It just doesn't get any better does it?

Native American Tea Party

Just came across this story about a Tea Party resistance to bad government and wasteful spending. The Billings Gazette has this photo as part of the story:

I work on the Confederated Salish and Kootenai reservation which is far more successful than the Crow or Blackfeet, and I attribute most of the difference to the levels of corruption. Until the Crow, Blackfoot, Assiniboine and for that matter all of the rest of the tribes in Montana get their act together and realize that government spending is not a trough for corruption, there will be no improvement in their people's lives.
Good luck to the Birds and Plains Bull Mountain in trying to recapture their elected "representatives."

The Definition of Chutzpa

Obama says he is a "fierce" free market advocate.

Give A Little Folks!

Craig Sprout is doing the right thing and is going to subject his poor mortal shell to the excruciating terrors of the frigid waters of Billings all in a good cause. Go give him some support.

MILFs and the Montana Blogosphere

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Another Addition to the Montana Blogosphere

We the People of Montana, just showed up. Seems to lean more to the Dextra side than that of the Montana Sinestra. But you can find her here.

Theater of the Absurd

Press Secretary Gibbs is attempting to reassure the great unwashed hoi polloi that the accused planner of 9-11 will be convicted and executed. The reason that he needs to reassure us is that people are starting to wonder why on earth we are having these trials in civilian courts and not where they belong; military tribunals. The mantra has always been from the Left that we need to treat them as criminals to demonstrate the superiority of our legal system to their murderous methods. That Gitmo and the military tribunals were simply going to be used as recruiting posters for future jihadis.
I am sure that those same future jihadis will be less likely to carry out on their desire to get the 42 virgins now that they know the plotters will receive a fair trial and then be executed. Unless they are found to be not guilty, in which case we will hold them forever anyway. Yeah, that's fair.
Can't we just admit that this is nothing but show, a tool with which to bludgeon Bush and Republicans rather than any serious moral point?

Anybody Seen Mark T. Lately?

I would hate to think that he actually did follow his silly philosophy and do what this guy did.

Channeling Their Inner Democrat

Make a bone headed accusation, and then try to pretend that you didn't make it. I am sure that the Pullitzer Committee would be so proud.

Uniting the Republicans

Only Obama could have done it.

Best Line Evah

From Charles Krauthammer talking about Obama's assertion that the election of Brown was due to voter anger at GWB.

Let's get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that ... it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

Fear the Power!

Why Integrity Really Matters

So you never have to answer a question like this.

Irony

I don't usually watch MSNBC, but wanted to see how they reported the results of the Brown Coakley race. Watching Rachel Madow, she was interviewing former Gov. Dean "The Scream" who of course did the obligatory "It's Bush's Fault." But then, the conversation turned to the Democrats blaming each other for the loss, and Dean says "Blaming others is for losers."
For once, I agree with him.

Onward, Ever Onward

Into the Valley of Death Rode the 316 (Soon to be one less), looking neither Left, um, okay, looking only Left, they charged ahead, heedless of the cannonades from both sides:

In one way, I admire their persistence, but I think that their courage is owed more to a total lack of understanding of the situation, more than a willful choice. Heroes recognize the danger and act as needs be done. Fools are heedless of the danger and act as they want.

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

Apparently, they have managed to capture the heinous criminal, who disregarded the warnings from the TSA cop and went into an area that was reserved for departures. As a direct consequence of those actions, thousands of people had to be rescreened, and many missed their flights. People were forced to stand outside in the cold, denied simple accommodations such as water or bathroom breaks, in order to recover the security that was breached.
Sen. Lautenberg (Dementia, NJ) is very disappointed that the scofflaw should only be punished as a misdemeanant, instead of as a felon. What a strange world we live in, if you consider it all together, that because a Romeo wannabe wanted one last kiss from his girlfriend, we have to inconvenience and disrupt so many people, and the emphasis is put on Romeo, and not the governmental security system that is supposed to be there to protect us.
In reality, the TSA is nothing more than theater. They do nothing to reduce the probability of an incident in the air (Christmas BVD Boomer is but one example) but are supposed to reassure us, the traveling public that our government is looking out for us. As if. The truth is that the government is looking out for itself, and the citizens be damned.
And people wonder why resistance is growing to government interference with our medical care. But I am sure that in the latter case, they will do much better. Now, what is that definition of insanity again?

Never Having to Say You're Sorry For Being a Racist

From the Washington Post:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) apologized today for referring to President Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect" in private conversations during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Amazing isn't it, not just that he said something that stupid, but that it took almost two years for it to surface. Why so long?
My theory, is that the emphasis that the Democratic Party puts on race, is due to its own internal racism. No one I know would ever say anything like Reid's comments, and even if it was said, it would quickly be shut down as unacceptable in today's culture. But for two long years, it remained out there, festering, pulsing, and hidden by the very people who said it and heard it. At the highest levels of the Democratic Party.
Then, compare it to the treatment of Trent Lott when he was in the same position. The fact that Republicans drove him from his position while Democrats are now circling round their wounded leader says so much about who the real racists are.
The KKK would be so proud.

The WHO numbers in Context

Mark T. is famous for relying on the crappy numbers from the WHO study to point out that we are 37th in ranking for health care. Here is a short rebuttal of the nonsense:

What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about?

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.
OpinionJournal Related Stories:

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.

When my friend, cardiac surgeon Peter Alivizatos, returned to Greece after 10 years heading the heart transplantation program at Baylor University in Dallas, the one-year heart transplant survival rate there was 50%—five-year survival was only 35%. He soon increased those numbers to 94% one-year and 90% five-year survival, which is what we achieve in the U.S. So the next time you hear that the U.S. is No. 37, remember that Greece is No. 14. Cuba, by the way, is No. 39.

Read the whole thing.

I Admire the Democrats

This might be hard to believe, but I do admire the Democrats in one way: They have bet their future on what they believe in. Having demonized everything Republican for so long, they were rewarded with absolute power after the 2008 elections.
Now, there is no excuse for what they have done. No one to blame, not even Bush, and they are running the country into the ground. And still, the Democrats forge ahead, undeterred by polls or common sense, intent on remaking America, and hoping that we rubes will recognize them and their good deeds.
Maybe the Democrats are wrong.

"And I Won't Raise Your Taxes a Single Dime!"

Yeah, right.
From the article:

Let’s look at the new numbers for 2010 Biweekly, Single, Payroll Period, after subtracting withholding allowances

Not over $233: $0 in taxes
Over $233 – $401: 10% payroll tax
Over $401 – $1,387: $16.80 plus 15% of excess over $401
Over $1,387 – $2,604: $164.70 plus 25% of excess over $1,387
Over $2,604 – $3,248: $468.95 plus 27% of excess over $2,604 (Notice the large salary range is gone)
Over $3,248 – $3,373: $642.83 plus 30% of excess over $3,248 (Notice the substantial increase and 30% tax rate on these wages)
Over $3,373 – $6,688: $680.33 plus 28% of excess over $3,373
$14,450: pays $4,169.99 plus 35% of excess over $14,450

These patterns of additional withholding can be seen throughout the new charts for the 2010 tax year for single and married persons. It appears that everyone earning a paycheck is affected, not just retired military; social security payments will remain the same.

Why would the Democrats tinker with the withholding taxes and, ultimately, cause more stress on Americans and businesses? Why would the Democrats create more wage categories and deliberately target the middle class with a huge withholding increase and 30% tax rate? Are the Democrats trying to backfill the deficits they created in 2009? Because taxpayers will have overpaid the federal government payroll taxes, will they be eligible to get back this additional withholding money in a tax refund when filing in 2011? Do taxpayers in the hardest-hit wage categories even realize that their paychecks are going to be significantly lower, unless they make the necessary changes?

Read the whole thing.

Courage, Bought and Paid For

Baucus has responded to allegations that he was drunk on the Senate floor. Apparently, using someone's words as they are spoken by that person constitute

an "untrue, personal smear" designed to attack Democrats' health-care reform legislation.

Now, why would the senior Senator say that his words were an attack on the Democrat's "health-care reform legislation?" I was sure that he helped to create it. Maybe he is as disappointed in it as everyone else.
Oh, wait a minute, he is just using the standard "when you are screwed, attack the anyone else" method of mature political discourse. This has worked for years, and it is frustrating to the Democrats that those damned peasants of the electorate keep pointing out to them that they have been given the majority and it's their responsibility. The distraction method of the past doesn't seem to be working as well. Better fall back on the old tried and true: It's Bush's fault.
But the most amusing thing to me, was when Baucus was asking the question "Where's the courage?"

"I ask, where is the senator on that side of the aisle who has the courage to break from their leadership, break from the partisanship they are exercising on their side of the aisle, to work together to pass health-care reform?" Baucus said. "I ask, where is the courage?"

Doesn't Max understand that as expensive as this bill is, that Harry Reid couldn't afford to buy any more votes than he needed? The courage of the Democrats was to state intractable positions, then recant them upon a suitable doling of taxpayer largesse.
Me, I am just as happy that for once, Harry Reid exercised some fiscal responsibility.

This Explains Everything!

Pitiful, but at least he didn't call them Communists. That would smack too much of McCarthy tactics.

It's For the Children

Bill Clinton is calling the Tea Party Protesters "Tea Baggers" a juvenile slur, that is sure to titillate his many followers. It diminishes the protesters in their minds, not realizing that it actually diminishes him and the followers. For those Democrats who want to use the slur, please feel free, in fact I encourage you to continue to slander the citizens of this country who for the first time feel compelled to protest. I know that they are not as accomplished as the Left is at protests, but that doesn't mean that they aren't as passionate.
If the Democrats are right, and the Tea Partiers are nothing but a fringe driven by Fox News, Rush, et.al. then they will not have an effect on the future. On the other hand, if these people are ordinary citizens who recognize that the usurpation of power and wealth for the betterment of the Democrat Party (and that is what this about, not the country) the Democrats are not going to be in power much longer.
In some ways, it is easy to feel sorry for the Democrats, because they haven't a clue. They only talk to those that they agree with, and yell and deride anyone who doesn't agree with them. They claim to be for "the people" but they are as far removed from them as Marie Antoinette was from her adopted countrymen.
But if there are any intelligent Democrats out there who are actually interested, here is an example of some of the people who are Tea Party protesters. When you read the article, you will notice a common theme: We are doing this for our children and grandchildren. That is because we (the Lamest Generation) are going to be the beneficiaries of the government largesse about to be doled out, but it comes at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
A young guy told me one day, that my generation had basically bankrupted the country, and that his generation was going to pay for it. And I agreed with him. Is it too much, not to add still more debt to my children and grandchildren for nothing more than a partisan program that is not designed to solve the uninsured problem, but is instead an attempt to cement a Democrat majority for the future?
The funny thing: It will do neither.

Freedom of Speech?

Mark Toharski can always be counted on for hours of pseudo-intellectual babble, and is usually harmless, since even the Left seems to see him for a fool. But I think that he is onto something in his Orwellian world where "free markets" aren't free, but regulated ones are. At least he is as consistent as when he says that he is in favor of capitalism, so long as the government is controlling the markets.
The reason that I think that he is onto something, is that the Obama administration seems to be in agreement with him. Nothing like admiring that fine upstanding democrat Hugo Chavez when we are talking about political speech in this country.
Essentially, Mark and others' argument is that the public airways need to be controlled, not only for the prevention of interference of signals, but the interference of ideas. For that reason, so many are in favor of the so called "Fairness Doctrine" as a means to restrict Talk Radio, and its lack of support for the current Leftist administration. Those darned Right Wingers keep raising unpleasant questions and facts that are getting in the way of implementing the utopia for the workers that they seek. Of course, in this utopia, they would be the masters, but that would be okay, because they would be benevolent.
So, what exactly are we talking about here? What is being impacted by the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine? How about the Constitution?
The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The speech element of the Constitution has been litigated from the beginning of the Republic. While not all speech is protected, political speech is. And guess what Right Wing Talk Radio is all about? How about political speech?
The Left's willingness to sacrifice the Constitution for the sake of their agenda is frightening. Do they not realize that by controlling the airwaves, they open the door to the Right doing the same thing to them with the over the air broadcast news? I know that they claim it is already being done through the conservative owners who dictate what the reporters say, which is just plain delusional. As Obama himself said, "Most of you voted for me, and all of you supported me, apologies to the Fox table." It is not the ownership that drives their agenda, it is the agenda of the so called "journalists" who conflate punditry with news reporting.
The last argument that they use, is that the airwaves are public property, therefore the government has the right to regulate them. It is true that the government has the right to regulate who uses frequencies, and how they are used. But that is not the same as regulating what is being said. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
Thank God, that the Left has hit their high water mark, and will soon be on the way out. The threats they pose to the Constitution are too dire to ignore.

Fool Me Once . . .

Oh, hell, they'll probably fool me again. But the Republicans have seemingly stumbled upon the magic formula of fiscal sanity, and limited government as the touchstones of their 2010 campaign. I have always said that I believe in the principles of the Republican Party, even if they don't.
For those social conservatives, I would say to not fear the change. Limited government is less likely to force government mandated abortions or gay marriage, because that is not the proper role of government. A Win-Win for both fiscal and social conservatives.
Republicans always said that government doesn't work, and when elected proved it. The Democrats of today seem to believe that the government can solve all problems, and they promptly show that they are horribly wrong. Maybe we should stick with the ones who were right.
On the other hand, if the Republicans decide to revert back to the previous eight years, there will be a quick turnaround again. You get one more chance Republicans. Don't blow it.

Please.

Democrat's Civil War Begins!

Much has been made of the disarray of the Republican Party (the untimely reports of its demise being greatly exaggerated) but while not literally true, does show some serious problems: Lack of willingness to self identify as Republicans; The punjabs who would pick Scozzafava to represent their party in the NY-23 race, who withdrew and threw her support to the Democrat; and the last remnants of a PR campaign to demonize G. W. Bush. But if you think that they have it bad, consider the Democrats: Jay Stevens is disappointed in his Party's slight rightward tug, and is offering a solution:

In short Congressional Democrats - as usual? - will do the exact opposite of what they should do.
One way to mitigate this probable rightward shift is threaten primaries in key districts....

Earlier, Yellowstone Kelly put voice (or is it pixels?) to the disappointment felt by the failure of the Democrats to deliver on their many promises. I hope the Kelly doesn't think that it will get better, because we are talking about politicians for crying out loud.
Will we soon be seeing articles about how the Democratic Party is going to have to become more conservative in order to stay viable? Don't hold your breath. But by default, it does seem as if the Grand Old Party is rising from the dead. Just in time for Halloween apparently.

As Maine Goes . . .

So goes the Nation is an old rubric that has a certain element of truth. I suppose that is because Maine is the first spot in America to see the sunrise of the new day (never mind that the westernmost islands of the Aleutian chain are technically across the 180 meridian). Another example is when the voters of Maine rejected same sex marriage at the ballot box yesterday. This means that everywhere the vote has been put to the public, the public has rejected it. The only places where same sex marriage is allowed were put into effect by either judicial, or legislative fiat.
I don't really understand the desire for gay marriage, mostly because it leads to gay divorce. The other thing is, that the institution of marriage (and we should all be institutionalized) holds a meaning beyond the normal understanding of the word. But to say that it provides for a stable relationship between a husband and wife for the rearing of children, would mean that I shouldn't be married, since I had that whole fertility problem solved before I married my wife. And what about the fertile octogenarian, which is a legal fiction to screw with law student's minds for no purpose other than the amusement of the law professors.
On the other side, the heavy handed approach that the proponents of gay marriage make, turns people off who might otherwise be agreeable to their cause. Sexual orientation is really nobody's business, and should not be flaunted for that very reason, whether straight or not. Throw in the lawsuits that seek to force churches to condone gay marriage, and people become very uncomfortable with the notion and its adherents.
If the gay community is going to accomplish their goals, they will need to change their tactics. This issue is never going to follow the pathway of the civil rights movement of the '60s. Then, the majority of the population supported equality, but the legislators, (especially Southern Democrats) rejected it. A sort of reverse of the present situation. But this is not to say that they don't have a certain segment of the general population who do support their cause. Mostly, it is made up of straight friends and family who realize the disparity of treatment given to their loved ones because of their sexual orientation. I myself, have a distant cousin who is living in San Francisco with his husband, and a step-grandson, who the women in my family all agree is probably gay. Me, I can't tell, so I don't bother. But I am worried about my step-grandson, because he is just a great kid. Kind, happy, intelligent, and just fun to be with. I wouldn't want him to suffer from what I saw happen to people who were "different" when I was growing up. He has done nothing to choose his orientation, it was thrust upon him.
No, the future of gay civil rights will have to come from us straights (or "breeders" in the vernacular) who love and care for our friends and relatives. Keep the flamboyance out of the picture, and there will be greater success. If on the other hand, it becomes an "in your face, you must accept me" thing, it will continue to fail at the hands of the voters.
The choice is clear: Feel good about moral vindication that accomplishes nothing, or agree to let others lead the way and get what you want.

Why I No Longer Fear Obama Care (as much)

My wife (The Good Democrat) is disappointed in me that I am not that happy with the coming Health Care "Reform." Part of it is that it was originally supposed to insure the 47 then 30 million people who are without health insurance. Sure, the numbers were problematic, but there was at least 10 million people who desired health insurance but were unable to obtain it. Somehow, we have turned the problem around, and it has become greedy insurance companies that make 2% profit, and greedy doctors who are pulling tonsils or amputating feet just so that they can pay for their country club dues. The net result is that we will still have around 17 million people without health insurance, and most of us will lose ours as employers figure out that it is cheaper to pay an 8% payroll tax than to maintain employer based health insurance. Using the government to implement the new Democrat mantra of choice and competition, (which will result in neither) made me fearful that eventually we are going to have the equivalent of medical sick call for the military, but without the benefit of an abnormally healthy population that will be calling for services.
When I mentioned to my wife, that I had less trust that the government could perform these functions well, she accused me of having "no faith" that Obama would solve the problem. And she is right. I pointed out to her the government's failure to provide the H1N1 flu vaccinations, and that her experience working for a lawyer in getting workers social security disability claims. She always is complaining about the arbitrary and ridiculous rules that the government puts in the way of obtaining what is legally theirs. My wife just dismisses my complaints because this time, it will be different.
Definition of insanity anyone?
But the more I thought about it, maybe it won't be such a bad thing if Obamacare is passed. Think about it, We will have employers dumping employees onto the public option as soon as they can. More people will be showing up starting on the day of passage demanding their "free" healthcare, only to be told that it won't be available until 2013. Then, once 2013 hits, people will find that there are a whole bunch of doctors who will refuse to see them under the public option, because the reimbursement rates will be too low to make practicing medicine anything but a losing proposition. Sure there will be those doctors who can't make a living because they are terrible, and they will gladly accept the government checks, and with some careful padding, they will probably make a fairly decent living.
But honest and ethical doctors are going to drop out of the system.
So, you are asking, how is this a good thing? Easy. Assume for a minute that the conservatives take control of both houses of Congress by 2012, never mind the Presidency. If they do, the first legislation that they should pass would be to remove state by state restrictions on the purchase of health care. Second, they should also institute a law that says punitive damages go into the state coffers, not to the individual or his/her lawyer. Punitives are not necessarily bad, since they make it inefficient to do wrong. But it is in society's interest that the money go to the state rather than just the innocent wronged. Since the lawyer will no longer have a one third to one half interest in the amount of punitives, there will be less of them requested, and thus lower malpractice rates. By removing the restrictions on sales across state lines, I will be able to buy whatever policies fit my needs, and not those that are determined by some agency that knows nothing about me.
By enacting these changes, you will now be creating two classes of medical coverage: One that is substandard and free but riddled with ignorant and useless bureaucrats and rules and run by the government; and the other which would be a free enterprise driven system without the non-payers and the uninsurable, who will now be on the government dole.
While it seems selfish, rational self interest certainly would recognize that it is in no one's interest to participate in a government run system that is doomed to the level of quality of the IRS when they can pick another plan that suits their needs.
I realize that this is the "So long, Suckas" philosophy, but since so few people seem to be willing to look at the long term, it's every person for themselves.
So Long, . . . Oops.