It's all Bush's Fault

Has been the standard mantra from Democrats since 2004.  It actually helped them when they took over the House and Senate in 2006 (then it was rejection of Bush to change governments, and now if you want to do the same it's all fear and anger).  In fact, Obama has made it the centerpiece of his plan to deal with the economy, energy, finance, hangnails, bad thoughts, and whatever else is out there.
And it had to happen.  There is now a new version of how to explain the inexplicable, especially in the political world.  "I think that they addressed this issue in the new healthcare bill."  This answer was given to explain the disappearance of the five and a half minutes that were lost during yesterday's game due to a lightning delay.
Maxine Walters, Charlie Rangel?  They were allowed to do it by the new healthcare bill.  Unemployment not coming down?  New healthcare bill.  Obama losing independents?
Definitely in the new healthcare bill.

Talk, Talk, Talk

President Obama gave his usual Saturday radio/Youtube speech, in which he promised to keep fighting for the middle class of this country.  What he doesn't seem to realize, is that the middle class is hoping that he will become a pacifist, since we can't seem to support all of the wars he has entered on our behalf.
But this brings to mind something I had read before, in that the Democrats are much better at communicating than they are at doing.  They managed brilliantly to portray the Republicans as corrupt in 2004 and 2006.  Of course at least two of those targets, Tom Delay and our own Conrad Burns, were exonerated, but that doesn't matter since the object is not the truth, but to run the Republicans out of office.  But the truth will not set them free, in fact, it is a mere obstacle to their eventual goal of being able to tell everyone how to live their lives.  They even admit their collusion with message shapers to present an image of the Republicans that they know isn't true.
I am becoming more and more sure that the general public is also aware that the Democrats talk a good game but they sure don't deliver.  Even the Left is disappointed in what the Democrats have managed to accomplish.  You sort of wonder what would have happened if the Republicans held filibuster proof majorities in the Senate and the House.
But the rest of us are not that happy with everything that the Left has done, except for Finance Regulation, which for some reason still remains popular.  My theory on that is the public doesn't know how their local banks are going to be forced to subsidize the mega banks that actually created the financial crisis.
The joke is always that the Democrats will promise you that if they are elected, you will be taller, better looking, and there won't be any crab grass in your lawn (Hope and Change).  And the Republicans promise that government doesn't work, and if elected prove that fact.
Whatever you think about Republicans and government, I think we all recognize we are better off with the Democrats on the outside of power and complaining, than if they have the power and we are complaining.

The Religion of Peace -

Muslim cleric calls for beheading of Dutch politician -

is being peaceful again. 

AGW Revisited

Travis had posted on Global Warming a little while ago and it turned into the usual supporters of the liars, versus those who support the other liars argument.  I have a problem with the methodology and this whole issue of "consensus" as promoted by the charlatan Al Gore. But now there is a group of scientists who are organizing the complaints against the IPCC  The lead sentence says it all:

"If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists."

 And if that happens, we are all in trouble.  For if science becomes nothing more than

" . . . a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other's papers -- and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train."

why believe anyone?

Addressing the Himalayan glacier disappearance, shows that the IPCC's claim of "peer reviewed" data is a total sham.  Normally, such an assault on someone's credibility would be grounds to discount anything that they ever said.  But because it is about Anthropogenic Global Warming, we have to believe it even if it's not true.

Read the whole thing, and think for yourself.

Presidential Speech Predictions

Wanted to get this out before he talks, but I am going to go out on a limb and make the following predictions about his speech:

1.  "We have ended the war."  i,e, He is unable to say that we won.

2.  "I was right years ago when I said that the surge was necessary."

3.  There will be no mention of GW Bush. He, who shall not be named, except for campaigning in safely Democrat districts.

4.  The troops will be praised for their endurance as "victims."

5.  Now that the war is over, we can finally afford Obamacare.  (No we can't).

He will fall back to his mantra "Let me be perfectly clear"  or in the alternative, "As I have always said" at least four times..  And no, he won't be perfectly clear.

It's an American Thing

And Chris Matthews and oh so many others, just wouldn't understand.  If you believe that America is a fundamentally racist, homophobic, sexist country, you cannot understand the rest of us.

Especially those of us who have been outside of this great country, and know it is their own arrogance that allows other Americans to believe such nonsense.  But as someone else said, "at some point you've done enough damage to the country."  .

Update:  Here is more, even better said.

Hobson's Choice

It has been an article of faith that the Bush tax cuts only went to the richest. Sure, the facts disprove that argument, but through their control of the media, the notion that only the rich received any benefit of the tax cuts has endured and prospered.

That is about to come to an end.

The Democrats are stuck.  They can allow the tax cuts to expire, and pretend to be fiscally responsible, even though the lowest tax rate is going to increase by fifty percent, child credits are going to be halved, and a whole raft of other middle class tax cuts are going to be removed.  And if they do, the economy is going to tank even worse.  If they don't, they are not supporting their prior complaint that tax cuts only went to the rich.

It sure is a problem when you get caught up in your own lies, isn't it?

Speaking Truth to Power

That phrase above has been used for as long as I can remember as a sort of badge of courage by the Left, in that they don't agree with the popular ideas, but instead want the true ones.  Skip forward to today, and the Left is now "The Man." 
Do they speak "Truth to Power?"  Absolutely not!  Instead, they shout down any who would disagree with them.  But the problem for the Left in shouting down "seditious ideas" is that they are not able to find the one figure to focus their minds on, or at.
For awhile, the leader of the opposition was supposed to be Rush Limbaugh.  Then, it was switched to Fox News, especially when the Tea Party took root.  Later, Sarah Palin was to be considered the leader, but she was inadequate for a bogey(wo)man, because she was operating out of Alaska with nothing more than a Twitter account.  Not to say that the Left was giving up on finding the object of their vilification.  When the lie spread that a black lawmaker had been spit on and called the "N" word, the Left harrumphed that the leaders of the Tea Party had to speak out against such vicious attacks.  But like the vapidity of their false claims, there is no one leader of the movement that is "an Army of Generals."  So, who is the Left left to attack?

America and Americans.

Yes, I am calling the members of the professional loony Left anti-American.  But it seems only fair.  And true.  After all, the Left which was so vigilant in finding any examples of McCarthyism, seems only to have learned how to apply that same tactic against their opponents.  And left to no other options, have decided that Glenn Beck is now the voice of their darkest fears (or is it dreams?).
In case you missed it, Glenn Beck is having a Restore Honor gathering at the Lincoln Memorial on the same date as that of Martin Luther King's I have a Dream Speech.  This act is sacriligious to many on the Left.  and left to their usual tactics, they attack the messenger rather than the message.   But not just attack, but to slander and defame. And finally, to bring out their version of the nuclear option, to declare him a "racist." 
The Ground Zero Mosque has allowed a further opportunity for the hypocrisy of the Left to be put on display.  Those who would swoon with vapors should a high school football team have a prayer, are now the most adamant defenders of the right to place a mosque near Ground Zero.  The tactic this time though, is to take what Obama does so well, and that is to set up an army of strawmen, and mow them down.  They say that opposition to the mosque is "anti-Islamic"  even though it's not Islam that is being objected to, but the sensitivity to the location.   The idea that the mosque is being built as a "bridge to understanding" is belied by the problems that surround the location and the refusal to move it.
Somehow, being lectured on religious rights by Mayor Bloomberg or Nancy Pelosi is not seen as the ludicrous assertion that it really is. But when Pelosi called for an investigation into who was funding opposition that was the chilling last straw for me.  Does she really believe that we cannot have an opinion without it being bought and paid for?  Screw her, and the constituents that keep electing her.
The underlying theme throughout this, is that the conservative will fight to the death for the right of the Left to say stupid nonsense.  The Left will fight to the death to stifle speech that they disagree with.
Now you know who really is holding the badge of courage.

Why is This Man Smiling?

Because he doesn't have a clue?  From Karl Rove:

In what will rank as one of the all-time presidential PR disasters, we're now well over half way through what the White House called "the summer of recovery." And what a recovery it's been.
Earlier this month, first-time claims for unemployment hit a nine-month high. The unemployment rate remains at 9.5% and 18.4% of workers are out of a job, can only get part-time work, or have given up looking for a job altogether. Sales of existing homes dropped 27% from June to July, hitting the lowest point since data were first collected in 1999. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index fell to 50.4 in July, continuing a slide that started in February. And the stock market is down 11% from its peak in April.

“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the healthcare bill,”

The problem I have with this, is that if Max isn't reading it, he sure as heck isn't writing it either.  Which may explain why student loans, and the requirement for 1099s for the sale of gold are in Obamacare.  And if he is farming out the writing, who exactly is doing it?  What are their motives, agendas, etc.?  Because if the health insurance lobby is writing this mess, what do you think the end result will be?? Good for their industry, not necessarily good for us.

Scary Thoughts

The Hill is saying that the latest awful news about home sales is more difficulty for the Democrats. Which reminded me of an interview with Rep. Debbie Wasseman-Schulz of Florida (Delusional) who was trying to put the best spin on the economy that she could.  She was asked if she thought the President's economic plan was working, since Florida has an unemployment rate of over 11%.  Ms. Debbie replied that she thought it was working wonderfully.
And then it hit me - What if she is right?  What if this is as good as it gets? 

Makes me long for the days of yore when the rich got all of the tax cuts and there were no regulations about anything,  Sure seems a lot more attractive than what we are experiencing now.  Of course, the Democrats like all people fascinated by command economies never had to live under one, until now. 
May just cure them.

Horror Movie

And it only goes through May.

Liberally Racist

Joe Conason continues to make an ass of himself by finding Boogiemen where there are none.  His premise is that not all conservatives are racists but all racists are conservative.  This  is a wonderful argument because it is absolutely impossible to disprove.  If you lined up all of your conservative friends and could totally and completely prove that they are not racists, Conason and his kind would just declare that all of the other conservatives were racists instead.  This is the same argument as the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  Its premises are flat out false, but that doesn't matter to Joe.  The truth is a minor inconvenience to the greater glory of silencing dissent through false accusations of racism.

But wait, Joe has proof!  Such as the right wing smear of Shirley Sherrod.  Too bad he didn't stick around to get the whole picture.  As Breitbart had said, it wasn't about Sherrod, it was a room full of people who make up the NAACP applauding her set up of being racists before she realized the error.  But the truth doesn't matter to Joe.

Next, he relies on Kieth Olbermann for proof that Glen Beck altered the transcript of his show.  Now, I have no idea whether Beck did so or not, but relying on Olbermann?  That right there is prima facie evidence that the claim is false.
But I am not necessarily going to disagree with Conason that there is racism in America, just not where he finds it.  For instance, Victor Volsky has a piece discussing the idea that Obama isn't really as smart as everyone says he is.   By itself, it isn't that much, except for the absolute gushing of praise by the so called "elites" over how smart Obama is.  But there really is no evidence of that fact.  In reality, the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review is also the first not to publish.  His transcripts are probably locked up the same as John Kerry's for the same reason, they show he isn't as smart as the claims that are made on his behalf.
Let me offer a reason for all of this gushing in support of how wonderful Obama is:  The elites don't have any African Americans among them.  They look around at their lily white world and the only dark faces they see are their servants.  True, the Left wants to be properly respectful to the Hispanic maid and the African American cleaning lady, but they didn't go to the right schools, you know, like Princeton or Harvard.  While there were people of color introduced to them outside of the domestic service platoons they employ, they were a rarity and confusing to the Left.  Condoleeza Rice who speaks something like seven languages and is a classically trained pianist Phd, Chancellor at Stanford, is a very accomplished woman or person for that matter.  But, you just know Conason would probably say in an aside, "She's not one of us you know."   And don't get me started on Clarence Thomas.  He may have been poor when he was being raised, but his and Rice's politics are completely antithetical to the Left's point of view and therefore invalid.
It's amusing how such tolerant and open minded people can be so narrow and bigoted at the same time.  But at least now they have someone of color that they can actually have a conversation that extends beyond ordering which rooms to be cleaned or what meals to be served.  At least, they can have that conversation until his teleprompter falls over.
Those of us here in the real world on the other hand, the ones who serve in the military or run businesses and need customers and employees, realize that the color of the person's skin doesn't matter as much as the content of their character.  Gee, what an interesting thought, I am just surprised no one ever thought of it before.

UPDATE:  More evidence in support.

Danger! Danger!

What do former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, Henry Cisneros and so many others have in common?  All have been convicted of the crime of Lying to the FBI, and nothing else!!!  No other convictions for theft, perjury, anything!  In other words, during the investigation of a non crime, a crime was committed that would never have existed if the first non crime hadn't been investigated.
I realize that the last sentence seems hard to wrap your head around, but it is an example of the problem.  This is not legal advice, and if you are approached by law enforcement, you should seriously consider getting an attorney before you answer any questions, but DON'T ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY!!!
The policy implications of the crime of lying to the FBI while they investigate a non crime are tremendous.  People normally want to have their side heard, and are sure that once it comes out, law enforcement will immediately recognize how reasonable they are and let them go.  Trouble is, the cops are probably lying to you throughout the investigation, and that is perfectly legal.  Just remember, anything you say, can and will be twisted and used against you later.
If people follow the recommendations of securing a lawyer before they answer any questions, the net result will be fewer convictions because the FBI won't be able to leverage statements made by the accused against them.  Their immediate greed will have long term ramifications that they won't want.

How to Get Montana Out of the Recession and Rich at the Same Time

California is thinking about taxing Internet transactions by requiring vendors to collect and remit sales taxes for all transactions that involve their citizens.  A natural enough thing, since they spend most of their time trying to find new revenue streams, having exhausted all of the rest.  But I have a plan!
Montana needs to pass the following law:

1.  All commercial transactions conducted by anyone within the State of Montana are considered private and privileged.  Montanans have a heightened expectation of privacy, and information related to commercial transactions enjoys the same privacy rights as any other such right.
 2. It will be a crime to release details of any such transaction to any other person without a specific court order for each transaction.  Application for such information shall be made in person before a court which will examine if there are sufficient grounds to breach the right to privacy.

Then we invite Amazon and Overstocked.com to move their call centers here and take orders for California from here to be shipped there.  What Delaware is to the world of incorporation, Montana could be to internet sales.

Where Do You Go . . . .

to get your reputation back?  Tom Delay has all federal charges dismissed.  He still has pending state charges, but that prosecutor is a partisan hack, and the complaint should be dismissed.  From the article: 

DeLay had harsh words for Pelosi for urging ethics probes of him during his time in Congress and then using him as a campaign punching bag. Pelosi recently defended her party’s ethics record, referring to GOP reign over the House during the DeLay era as a “criminal syndicate.”

“Nancy Pelosi said she wanted to drain the swamp — well, she was the swamp,” DeLay remarked on Monday.

The one lasting legacy though, has to have been his booking photo:

Speaking of the Mosque . . .

 Greg Gutfield wants to put a gay bar next to the proposed mosque near Ground Zero for the purpose of fostering understanding and appreciation of other cultures and to break down barriers that prevent our understanding of each other.
Along those same lines, I think that we should also consider building a cathedral at Abu Ghraib.After all, the people who committed those crimes were not true representatives of the US military.  It's only through these kinds of gestures can the people of the Muslim world see how we regret the actions of those who violated our principles.

The Good Thing About The Mosque Debate

At last, the Democrats have discovered Freedom of Religion and Property Rights.  I just don't think that their new discovery will last longer than the controversy.

More Democrat Stupidity

President Obama, after careful poll testing, has decided that all of the world's problems are Bush's fault.  While it is true, that Bush drags down the polls, the general ideas of the Republican's are more popular than those of Obama.  Where the Democrats really run a risk, is that people will begin to remember how their life was better under Bush, than it is now with 9.5% unemployment, stagnant economy, Trillion dollar plus deficits, and losing this administration's "correct war."

Don't Call Obamacare Healthcare

The good citizens of Missouri have spoken loudly and clearly that they do not wish to be victims of participants in Obamacare.  The Democrats figure the problem is that people just don't understand what a wonderful thing they have been given.  That through further education, everyone will come to know and love it as much as they do.
But they have this teensy weensy problem:  The Democrats can't be trusted, and they know it.  Whether it's "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"  or Congressman Dingell poo-poohing the notion of actually, you know, reading the bill, Democrats have proven that they have no real idea what it is that they passed, except it's got the happy name related to healthcare.  In the meantime, people are realizing that everything that they have been told about Obamacare is false.  And why is the sale of gold coins having to be reported to the government now in Obamacare?
The whole damned thing was a charade to reward Democrat constituencies and is an affront to the term healthcare.  The Democrats had better figure out right now, that they do not want more people to find out how bad it really is.

When the Republicans Say Hillary is Right . . .

Obama has a problem.

Stealing from Our Children Again

First, we stole their future by bankrupting the country.  Now, we are stealing our children's innocence by starting them out on sex education in first grade.  At least that is what they want to do in Helena.  Why is it that so many on the Left want only to make children into political tools?  Why can't kids just be allowed to be kids?

A Call To Action

Both Ten Miles and 2Helena  raise a legitimate point about an albatross in the State Republican Party platform about gays.  As noted in the comments of 2Helena, the statute in question was found to be unconstitutional as applied to homosexual relations, but remains on the books for all other forms of so called "deviant sexual behavior."  I commented on her site, and then lo and behold, as I am walking to the first tee last night, who should appear but Will Deschamps, chairman of the State Republican party.  Taking advantage of the opportunity, mostly because I consider Will to be a friend, and with his position, someone who could do something about the situation, I addressed my concerns to him. 
Will pointed out that if it is going to be changed, it has to be done at a platform meeting of a convention.  The conventions are only held on even years, and the one for this year is already passed, but he said that what we need to do is to get the platform committee to eliminate that section.  It is anachronistic, and an affront to small government conservatives in any event.
So, ladies and gentlemen, set your calendars and start writing your local Republican reps to inform them that we need to have this insulting language removed.  While some may say that it should be in there, please explain to me how that is any different than a  Democrat saying that I have to embrace someone's lifestyle.  I reject all forms of coerced social engineering, but especially social engineering done under the auspices of the government.  But mostly, everyone needs to remember that gays are people, and they have friends and family who are straight.  To attack them with snide remarks or insults as we did when I was in junior high is unbecoming of mature human beings, and hurtful to them, their friends and family.  We need to accept that they are who they are.  And no, they aren't contagious.
Now, let's get to work.

Inequality and Iniquity

I see that Matt Singer has posted on Left in The West about an Yglesias article regarding the inequality of wealth and how that leads to situations like our current financial collapse.  Matt offers:

But what I found interesting was an explanation that inequality appears to be correlated to debt, which in turn may trigger economic collapse.

 Once again, we confuse correlation with causation.  While it is true that poor people are more likely to be stretched by their borrowing, it is a chicken or egg argument.  Do poor people have to borrow?  Well if you have to borrow to pay for essentials, i.e. for food or shelter, you are probably never going to recover, and will end up even poorer.  On the other hand, if you are borrowing to finance a new television, or furniture, that is a choice not a necessity.  And if you choose to act irresponsibly, why should the rest of us have to rescue you?
Oh yeah, that's right, we already did that with the mortgage bailout.  But when we do this, we subsidize bad behavior.  There is no advantage to taking out more debt than you can afford.
The other problem that I have with the whole wealth inequality thing is that it is a distorted view of the situation.  As the TaxProf Blog noted when it commented on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

A reason for the "wealth or income gap": Smart people keep on doing things that are smart and make them money while stupid people keep on doing things that are stupid and keep them from achieving.
People who get an education, stay off of drugs, apply themselves, and save and wisely invest their earnings do a lot better than people who drop out of school, become substance abusers, and buy fancy cars and houses that they can't afford, only to lose them.
We don't have an income gap. We have a stupid gap.

 Another distortion of the graph is that people can move between the differing quintiles. For instance, in 1979, I was a married college student with a baby on the way, living off of the $360 a month that the GI Bill paid, and student loans.  I would have been considered to be in the bottom 10% of all wage earners.  Today, I am in the top quintile of tax payers.  Why the change?  Sure, it was some luck, but most of the luck was the kind that I made.  I chose to go to school, get a job, stay off of drugs and stay married, paid my bills and avoided interaction with law enforcement.  It really wasn't that hard.
The problem is not that the rich have gotten wealthier, it's that the poor are starting out from a stagnant position.  Admittedly, that position includes access to many government programs that assist them in moving up if they want to take advantage of them.  But the disparity is more a recognition that hard work can now take you farther than it could 40 years ago. 
Is that really such a bad thing?

And Your Point Would Be . . . ?

A former Justice Department lawyer is saying that the case against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed for political reasons and that the Attorney General lied to Congress.  While this would make Fox News with no problem, does anyone really think that the rest of the so called media would be interested?  Of course not.
One of the things that irk me, is that so many conservatives blame the Lame Stream Media for bias.  Well, they are of course entirely correct, but it doesn't matter.  Those who purport to be the Fourth Estate have zero pride or sense of honor.  Theirs is a mission, and they will not let down their masters as directed by those who run the Journolist.  What the conservatives need to do is to call these people out individually.  With today's technology, it shouldn't be that hard to have a cell phone with all of the local journalist's biased remarks as backup.  Then when challenged by one of these "journalists," point out their past efforts that have demonstrated bias, and ask them why they should be considered seriously for an answer.  A turn the tables strategy that forces them to demonstrate their bona fides.

Cheap Shot

Okay, I know that it's not nice to speak ill of the dead, but I think that it should be noted that the Democrats have finally removed their last vestige of the KKK that is serving in the Senate.

Of course, they remain a safe bastion of racists.

He Has to Resign

Gen McChrystal is on his way from Afghanistan to Washington DC for his mandatory ass chewing related to an article in Rolling Stone magazine.  In the article, the General questions the civilian leadership above him and their commitment to success.
Whatever the merits of his complaints, it seems as though we have already forgotten the lessons that were gleaned from the aftermath of Viet Nam.  Gen. Maxwell Taylor is still reviled to this day for his willingness to cooperate with the dysfunctional strategy of Lyndon Johnson, rather than to resign in protest.  While Taylor may have felt that he was doing the right thing, he ended up enabling the failure.
Now we have McChrystal, who also seems to want to be involved in the politics more than the war fighting.  If McChrystal really does believe that he cannot effectively communicate his needs or concerns to his civilian authorities, he needs to resign.  Once he resigns, he is just another citizen who can freely criticize the government.  But until then, his duty and his oath require him to obey and support the leaders appointed over him, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits him from speaking ill of the President, the Vice President, the governor of the state in which he is serving and the Secretary of the Treasury. (Art. 88 UCMJ)
There is no other option, resign sir!  You have reached the pinnacle of your career, don't do any more harm to your reputation than you already have.
UPDATE:  I just saw this piece by Byron York that is also very telling.  If you are going to deploy soldiers, they need to be allowed to do their jobs.  If on the other hand, you are telling them not to do anything, then, why are they there?  Get them out!  At least make up your collective minds.

Have They No Shame?

California is planning for a license plate that also sells advertising. The idea is that when you are rolling, it would function as a normal plate, but when you are stopped for more than 4 seconds it switches to advertisements.  The reason is to help reduce the budget deficit.
But what if the driver has an opinion about what is being advertised on their car?  Should the driver receive a share of the revenue?  This stuff has simply gotten to be too ludicrous to even be funny anymore.

Our Potemkin President

The President's popularity continues to fall at an alarming rate. Much of the fall seems to be as a direct result of the lack of competence exhibited by the White House.  The most recent example being the Gulf Oil Disaster, for which the President has said that his administration has been on top of it since the very first day.  What the spinmeisters cannot seem to fathom, is that means all of the problem is his fault.
The reality of course, is that he was not in charge.  In other words, he lied.  But the administration is caught in a mess of their own making.  All of the usual fallbacks (It's Bush's fault) are no longer available.  Instead, the President who promised us competence is demonstrating how difficult that really is.
The usual solutions are trotted out of course: We need more regulations!  The only question I have, is what have you done with the ones that you already have?  But Washington's solution is always going to be more control, more bureaucrats, more money in order to once and for all eliminate the problem.  Never mind that the regulations were ignored by the MMS, that is just a continuation of the inefficiency of regulations.  Remember Bernie Madoff, the Ponzi scheme guy?  He had the SEC supervising his activities, at least as long as those activities were on a porn site.  Same with the MMS inspectors who were wined, dined, and given access to prostitutes in order to approve the BPoil drilling.
If Obama really wanted to make regulations work, I would suggest that he quit trying to threaten BP with criminal protection, but instead, prosecute the bureaucrats who failed in their jobs.  At the least, you should be able to prosecute them for felony theft for taking their paychecks under false pretenses.
Come to think about it, Obama may be guilty of that as well.  But I guess he can pronounce nuclear, even though he can't pronounce corpsman.

Happy Flag Day

And the Army's birthday.

Some Pretty Incredible News

Instapundit had a link to this page in reference to a good cancer news.  While the main article is very interesting, the related articles are also intriguing.  The amount of progress is simply amazing in what can be done to treat the treasonous cells of one's own body.  I am sure that it is not that far off that you will go to the doctor who will tell you that your diagnosis is cancer.  Then she will take a vial of your blood and tell you to come back in three days where they will reintroduce the genetically modified blood back into you to remove the cancer.
Sure would be a heck of a lot better than right now, where it's pretty much all bad news.  And thank goodness for Obamacare's direct support of this kind of research.  Oops, that may be the sort of thing that the budgeteers are going to cut if there aren't immediate results.

A Pretty Good Question

I read Arthur Laffer's essay in the Wall Street Journal where he predicts that because humans are rational, they are going to kill the economy next year when the Bush tax cuts are eliminated. Laffer shows that growth was limited for the first two years of Reagan's Presidency because Reagan agreed to delaying the effect of the tax cuts until 1983.  It's at that time that read GDP took off.

Although many on the Left complained that this was the start of massive deficits, they are only partially correct, in that revenue did go up when the tax cuts were implemented.  It's just that spending went up even faster.  If spending would have held steady in the Reagan years, there would have been a surplus, but that fact is always lost on those who see Reagan as the incarnation of the Anti-Christ.
We are now in a position where we are spending even more than GW Bush spent.  In fact, Obama is something like three times the spending per day that Bush had spent, and there is little that seems to be done about the problem, except to create a commission to study the problem.  Of course, the first thing the commission does is to declare that they need more funding.
So, it seems inevitable that there will be tax increases.  As I have always said, the idea that the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes means that people should demand a rate cut for the wealthiest individuals.  As noted in this article:

The results of such a system can be plainly seen in the U.S. tax system. According to Congress’ official and nonpartisan tax estimator, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the top 3.7% of filers earn 27.1% of the nation’s income. Yet they pay 54.8% of the total income taxes—more than double their income share. In contrast, the bottom two-fifths of earners (39.9%) earn 7.7% of the income and pay negative 2.1% of the income tax (due to government spending in the form of refundable credits).

Our tax code is a mess.  We pretend to make it fair by calling it progressive, when the only thing progressive is the rate of confiscation at higher levels.  Which leads me to the question in the title.  At what rate does an increase in the "progressive tax rate" become unfair?  According to Obama, there is a point at which you can supposedly earn too much.
So, what exactly is that point, and why?

More Crony Capitalism

Another Example of How Not to Write

Earlier, I had used a Left in The West posting by Cowgirl as an example of shoddy writing.  Little did I know, that she was following in the footsteps of "real" journalists.  For example, take this story which describes an aide to former Gov. Palin.  The actual title of the article is especially fun:

Sarah Palin aide Fred Malek helped former President Richard Nixon dump Jews from government

Now, from this it would appear as if Mr. Malek is an unrepentant anti-Semite, someone more akin to Rachel Corry, or the Gaza flotilla brigade than any decent human would want to be.  Except if you actually read the article, you find out 

"As Mr. Malek has said before, he has made mistakes in his life for which he has apologized, atoned and learned from," Malek's spokesman Mark Corallo said.. . . . .

Many prominent Jews have rallied behind Malek, a successful GOP businessman and philanthropist, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), The Washington Post reported.

So the question has to be asked, why is this newsworthy?  Again from the article:

The Democratic Party fired off at least 13 e-mails to reporters blasting Malek - who ran George H.W. Bush's 1992 campaign - and forwarded unflattering stories about the new tape.

And the answer is- it is only newsworthy to the Democratic Party.  And the FTC wants you to pay a tax to maintain this kind of "journalism?"

Chris Matthew's Swan Song

With apologies to Don McLean


(Sung to the tune of American Pie)

Long. long time ago,
He made a tingle run up my thigh
and I had the man who made me sigh
For I knew if he had the chance,
He would make the politicos dance
and America would be happy for awhile.

But he really isn’t that great
the destiny will have to wait
he broke my heart with health care
and so many things he wouldn’t dare.

Them good old boys tried to cover his lies
Hoping that the faith in him could never die
but I feel so lonely in my pants
saying give the homeboy one more chance.
Let’s give the homeboy one more chance.

So it’s bye, bye my tingling thigh
with the oils in the levy and I can only sigh
He had the House and Senate ooh,
But there was nothing real that he could do.
There is nothing real that he can do,

When he gave a speech, he spoke so well
at least until the prompter fell
His use of language with elan
hit a snag at the word “corpseman”

I don’t remember if I cried
when I realized my faith had died
but nothing stopped the steep steep slide
of people who lost trust in him
Of people who lost trust in him.

So it’s bye, bye my tingling thigh
with Obama owning Chevy and I only can cry.
He had the House and Senate ooh,
But there was nothing real that he could do.
There is nothing real that he can do,

I knew a girl who sang the blues
saying why did I ever have to choose
the one guy who couldn’t get it done
If I had my chance again
my vote for him I would not spend
but maybe go with Hllary for a while

But this November is just the start
Come 2012 we’ll have a part
In tossing Obama to the side
With comments from me oh so snide.

I’m for anyone who is not him
I’ve had it with picking on a whim
And the next time my leg twitches or tingles
I'll see the Doctor for treatment of shingles
                               
So it’s bye, bye my tingling thigh
with the oils in the levy and I can only cry.
He had the House and Senate ooh,
But there was nothing real that he could do.
There is nothing real that he can do,

New and Improved Access

Cong. Rehberg has a post up at Electric City Weblog where he is introducing America Speaks Out.  I have already added it to the Blogroll, and have just begun to investigate its potential.  What I like about it so far, is that it seems to allow interaction from constituents with their elected representatives and each other.
While Obama did great things with the Intertubes during his campaign, (although most of it seemed to be a way to bypass campaign finance limits) and his Organizing for America is still extant, that site seems to be more of the directive nature.  This new site may actually make the truly national public square with kiosks oriented to interests.

Could be interesting.

An Example of How Not to Write

I have given up on Left in the West ever since Matt Singer moved on.  I really do wonder sometimes if he regrets passing it on to Jay Stevens (who is no longer in Montana) or now, Montana Cowgirl.  But like a bad car wreck, every once in a while, I will look at what they are writing.  Most of the time, it is innocuous partisan, unthinking tripe.  Red meat for the masses who have decided that they are the self appointed elites of the State.But then, we have the clearest example of crap writing I have seen in a long time.

To begin with: Even Montana's small conservative papers have acknowledged that the drunken boat wreck in which Montana's lone Congressman Dennis Rehberg got wasted, let a friend drive drunk, and ran up an estimated $1.5 million tab for health care and work comp claims for himself and his staff is a campaign issue.(Emphasis added)

So, let's try this a little at a time.  Cong. Rehberg got wasted?  And your evidence would be . . . ?  'Let a friend drive drunk?'  Feeling a little passive aggressive are we? At least you do put "estimated" in front of the bill.  Not that it really matters. Why not say an estimated $15 Billion?  It would certainly be based on the same amount of facts as the author used here.

In the next paragraphs, the author used the old strawman argument.  Specifically:

So, Montanans don't want us to do anything about drunk driving and boating?  I beg to differ.

Actually, if you look at what Denny said:

I believe that folks should be held accountable for their own actions, and not punished for the actions of others. That's the Western style of individual responsibility that has made Montana such a special place to live.

 Again, there is nothing there, but Cowgirl marches blindly forward into the machineguns of facts.  You could admire it if it weren't so pathetic.   Next, Cowgirl used pseudo-science to try and extrapolate what Rehberg's blood alcohol was at the time of the accident.  Aside from the fact that retrograde extrapolation is perfectly useless for substantive information, she proceeds forward nonetheless.  But she forgets one important point:  Even assuming that she is correct, what is the legal limit of being a passenger? 

Finally, Cowgirl closes with this:

Rehberg is telling us here that if we don't believe his version of the story, that we aren't smart enough to know better.  We deserve better than a Congressman who can't take responsibility for his actions when responsibility is called for, or even own up to his mistakes afterword.

Trying to count the logical fallacies would certainly consume more time and effort than I wish to expend here.  But once again, I appreciate that she has reminded me of why I don't spend any time at her site.

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?