They've Gone Off the Deep End

The Left, both nationally, and now apparently locally, are mystified by the reaction of those among us who resent being accused of complicity in the Madman's Murders in Tucson.  Perhaps a brief recap of the situation may make this clearer, Dear Reader:  After the election of President Obama, the American people held him in high esteem, proud of the fact that we had elected the first black President ever.  This seemed  to be a repudiation of our racism, and recognition of the American Dream that anyone could grow up to be President, because he did! But then, he started to ram through policies that were not acceptable to the public in general.  As the President's poll numbers began plummeting, the Left, searching for a reason, decided that anyone who didn't support the President's polices must be a racist.
Of course, that didn't sit well with those who had an honest disagreement in policy with the President and his party.  So the opponents began to push back and rejected the false accusation.  This of course, promptly flummoxed the Left.  "How dare those we accuse of racism not sit quietly and take it like they always have!"  We went through a long period of accusation followed by anger and disgust at the accusers and for the most part, that false charge has been relegated to the trash heap for now.
The President's poll numbers continued to plummet even with the passage of ObamaCare, and still the Left was flummoxed.  "How can the peasants reject our munificence?"  After the November election, when the public totally rejected the Democrat platform, the next thing to happen was Mark Halperin in Time magazine hoping that some terrible tragedy would occur like the Oklahoma City Bombing that Obama could use just like Clinton did for political purposes.  And lo and behold, we have a madman in Tucson who has obliged him.
Within less time than it took to even find out how many shooters there are, we have Paul Krugman blaming it on the Tea Party.  No really, the first reports were that there may have been more than one shooter, and Krugman has his villain, damn the facts, the narrative is just too good to pass up.  This was followed by the Daily Kos offering up "Mission Accomplished Sarah!"  A twofer, both the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, they simply couldn't resist.
Curiously for them, like the false allegations of racism, those on the Right did not roll over and begin apologizing as expected.  In fact, they hit back.  The Left through their mainstream allies and aided by a political hack of a Sheriff in Tucson redoubled their efforts, claiming that even if it wasn't directly Sarah's fault, there is a "climate" (my how they love that word) of hate out there.  Violent rhetoric!  Hate speech!  All of the tools were thrown into the fray to shut up their opponents, and still they did not quit their scorn instead of cowering as they should have.  And still the peasants refused to take their rightful places at the foot of and staring adoringly into the eyes of our Leftist betters. 
Now we have the newest tactic, which is to claim that recognizing the excesses of the Left in the past is old hat and irrelevant to the argument, since only the Right seems to have the megaphone.  Pardon me while I regain my chair after having to look around on the floor for where my ass fell off from laughing so hard.  No, the problem is not hate speech, it's not Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Fox News, the Koch family nor any of the other imagined bogeymen that is causing their failure.  Their programs fail all on their own, and the transference of blame to the above list is the mark of desperation.  The Left cannot understand why they are being rejected and they are lashing out at the rest of us.
It is sad in a way, it really is.  They want so much to tell us what to do and to have us thank them for all that they have done for us, and yet, we don't.  Instead, we look at them with clear eyes, seeing them for the shallow pathetic excuses for human beings that they are.  We see that they have exhausted their armory and are now defenseless.  (Notice the violent rhetoric?)

You Can't Have a Civil Discussion With Idiots Like This

Rep. James Clyburn, who holds the highest ranking spot in the Democrat Party that is absolutely meaningless (okay, to be fair, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are down there as well) has decided that the Arizona shooter was motivated by the reading of the Constitution.  No, really, that document which is the framework of all of our government (okay, it doesn't say anything about health care or abortion, but that's because it was written by dead white men) is an apparently subversive document. 

“All [of] this stuff taking place in the Chambers the other day, when the Constitution was being read — all that stuff is uncalled for,” Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) told the Ed Schultz radio program.
Clyburn says there may be a “direct link” between Sharron Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies” comment and the reading of the Constitution with the attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords over the weekend.

 Really?  And what would be your proof?  Heck, what would even be an indirect link?  In fact, what would it have to do with a madman at all?
Of course, this is the guy who actually said: 

the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what's acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.

Oh, that's easy, if Clyburn doesn't like it, they need to keep their mouth shut.  But so long as it is class warfare, or just anti Republican, well, that's just clean fun.
No, their anger is not at heated rhetoric, since the Left is quite comfortable with it. The difference this time, is that we aren't just laying down and taking it.

And that is our real sin.

I've About Had It Updated

I regret the casualties of the loner loser who needed to display his madness by killing innocents.  But I have had it with the idea that this is all the fault of the Right Wing, talk radio, Sara Palin, or whatever.  This is truly disgusting.
For the most part, I do believe that the people who occupy the Left side of the spectrum are decent people who want to help others, but are sadly misinformed and ignorant of what they do.  I could just as easily say that the Left is intent on the destruction of my country, ala Cloward-Piven, but I don't.  On the other hand, when I listen to Joe Klein, Kieth Olbermann and others on the TV today, their vitriol is simply dripping as they rub their little hands with glee that they have a hammer with which to silence all of their enemies, I am forced to reconsider how malevolent the Left may actually be.
There seems to be a concerted effort to demonize all things not Democrat using this loser, pothead, stoner, madman as the vehicle.  Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein and Markos Moulitas display their contempt for facts and logic here.  Even a member of Congress as well as Andrew Sullivan are only too quick to take advantage of the situation.  And it's not just individuals acting recklessly, the "news" services are jumping on as well. 
Of course, when it was Major Hassan who opened fire killing twice as many innocents at Fort Hood, the call was for everyone to not overreact.  Or the guy who was the Discovery Channel shooter, he was also given a pass.
Let's face it, this is not an example of the Right making anyone act a certain way.  This is a boon for those on the Left to attack and try to silence those who disagree with them.  It is wrong, and it is un-American to use these sort of false accusations when you can't win the public with your argument.  It is tempting to sink to their level and act like the Islamist bastards and start to make snuff videos of innocent Leftists being beheaded.  Apparently, that is "legitimate" violence that must be appeased as opposed to the idea that belief in limited government and fiscal responsibility should ever even be discussed.
As angry as I am with the slander/libel of the leading lights of the Left, I do realize tthat there are some who would deplore the violence without limitation.  Lanny Davis is the only one that comes to mind at the moment.  It's possible that there may be one or two others.  But for the most part, their deliberate use of the tragedy for political purposes is beyond contempt.  If they don't denounce these sort of baseless accusations, I will no longer hold their opinion worthy of consideration.

The Olbermanns, Krugmans, and Kos kooks can all just go to Hell until then.

UPDATE:  I had forgotten about the Holocaust Memorial shooter and the guy who flew his plane into the IRS office a while ago.  And don't forget the murder of two soldiers in Arkansas.  All of these were committed by leftists.  In order to stop the violence, we need to silence the Left immediately.  Anything that they say can and is being used by these deranged lunatics as an excuse to murder people.  When, oh when, will the Left finally acknowledge that their hatred is so dangerous?

UPDATE 2.  As bad as it has been, now a Democrat group is using the Giffords shooting as a fundraiser.  Have they no shame?

Understanding Their Logic

Logic, as a study, is a method of analyzing problems through a structured reasoning process.  i.e. If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.  But in politics, what is called logic is anything but.
For instance, in the man made Global Warming nonsense, if it is getting warmer, it's because of global warming.  And if it's getting colder, it's because of global warming.  Are you starting to see a pattern here?  Also, make sure that you say that the scientists have formed a "consensus" that the "science is settled."  Of course, no real scientist would say that a consensus is science, nor that it is settled.  They would say that the facts prove the theory, or disprove it, or that the facts support the theory, but haven't been proven conclusively.  In any event, none of the rhetoric or ad hominem attacks that have taken place by those who want to keep the poor people of the world in their penury, without any hope of improvement for them or their children could be considered to be logic.
And then, we have violence.  In case you didn't know it, a Democratic Congresswoman from Arizona was one of a number of victims who were senselessly attacked.  Perhaps because she is a Democrat, the first allegations were that the shooter was a deranged Tea Partier.  Paul Krugman immediately blasted that without any other evidence, it had to be a Right Winger.  Of course he wasn't the only one.

Did liberals like Congressman Raul Grijalva, Arizona Democrat, Markos, Moulitsas, and Andrew Sullivan speak too soon for the sake of hoping that the Tucson shooter could have had a tea party or a right of center affiliation? From all of their statements today, both said and written, it sure seems like it.

In the parlance, this is known as making lemonade out of lemons. Someone is shot? Well, let's just use it to demonize our "Enemies" because opponents is too civilized. But it's too much fun to be a demagogue as shown in the same article about the founder of the Daily Kos:

The Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas hit Twitter at around 2pm making such statements like:

If Palin's crosshair effort was excusable, why has her PAC scrubbed her site of that page?

Arizona sheriff investigating assassination went on rant about right-wing hate radio rhetoric. He shouldn't have gone there?

How dare people "politicize" a political assassination!

F***ing American Taliban

Sharron Angle's first amendment remedies, in action. That rhetoric MATTERS.

Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin,http://is.gd/knNgl

However, Twitter followers began to point out to Mr. Moulitsas that a Daily Kos blogger by the name of "Blue Boy" posted a blog on Thursday on Mr. Moulitsas's website with the headline: "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!"

The headline was referring to Ms. Giffords's vote against now Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, for Speaker of the House. Rep. Giffords instead voted for Democratic Georgia Congressman John Lewis. After Mr. Moulitsas was bombarded about this blog on Twitter, the blog disappeared and so did a number of Tweets from @Markos for a number of hours, when the alleged shooter was later identified as Jared Lee Loughner, an obviously disturbed individual who enjoyed reading:

Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

Additionally, Moulitsas's Daily Kos placed a "bulls eye" on Rep. Giffords as well as a primary target in 2008. (h/t Hillbuzz).

Of course, he has since scrubbed the site. Can't have such obvious hypocrisy that can't be covered by the usual suspects, er, I mean the Main Stream Media.
It must be really disappointing to them that instead of being a Tea Partier, he is just a classic Democrat.

Interesting Take on Elections and Race

As we have been told, we are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to all matters of race.  But National Journal does an interesting analysis of attitudes towards Democrats based on race.  Some of it I knew anecdotaly, such as the high percentage of blue collar men and women who are Republicans.  I had explained that in the past because so much of the Democratic Party emphasis is on being a victim, and if you are white you are not allowed to be a victim, so you can't participate.  Also, I think that the blue collar workers who are white are more likely to see a future that is bigger than their present situation and circumstances.
But the article is fascinating for how the breakout of votes by races goes.  Unquestionably, minorities are going to go for Obama in 2012, and whites are probably going to continue to give the majority of their votes to the Republicans.  I think the fight is going to be over the college educated white vote.  If Obama keeps the same percentage as before, he should be able to cruise to re-election.  On the other hand, if enough white collar college educated white voters feel that the government has become too powerful and intrusive, the Republican Party should be the direct beneficiary.
The emphasis that the article puts on Colorado is especially telling.  There, the original Republican senatorial candidate was a Mr. Buck, who was a Tea Partier and a social conservative at the same time.  Interestingly, by the time the election came around, he was almost irrelevant, as Mr. Tancredo who was also of a Tea Party philosophy, but running as an Independent was the second place vote getter.   The difference was that Tancredo was less about social issues such as abortion as he was about illegal immigration.  And if Buck had bowed out, it's quite possible that Colorado would have been added to the Republican pickups.
The whole article is kind of long, but well worth it.  I suggest you read it.

I Wonder How Schweitzer is Going To Deal Wih This?

The Obama administration is going to make a new Internet ID for all Americans.  I wonder if our good Gov will be as interested in stopping this as he was the Real ID program.  Of course, I agree with him on the Real ID objection, I am just afraid that this new Internet ID coming from a Democrat will be something that he will support.
Especially since he isn't going to be re-elected.

Montana is involved in a big time scandal

Edra Blixsewth who recently came into ownership of the defunct Yellowstone Club is now being reported that four years ago, she was licking the breasts of Rep. Mary Bono of California.  Tell me that isn't reason to be reelected!

Litlle by Little, the Truth Comes Out

Even on MSNBC

Throw Me Into That Briar Patch!!

I realize that I am not necessarily the smartest person, but I am obviously head and shoulders smarter than Senate Democrats. After having had a filibuster proof majority until Scott Brown was elected, the Democrats are now saying that it was the filibuster that kept them from getting anything done. Sure they had to waste all that time buying Senators from Louisiana and Nebraska, but they could have done it if they wanted to. But after the election, the Democrats are in a lesser majority and are seeking to improve their opportunities to destroy the country er, I mean pass legislation to support their owners, George Soros and the unions like SEIU.
They want to do it by changing the rules for filibusters.  Just think, the Democrats will be able to pass legislation without the input of any Republicans whatsoever!  Joy and merriment flows throughout Lefty land.  Now they will be able to get things done!!!
Have they any cognizance of a period of time when they are not in control?  How long has it been since Democrats were in the minority?  It'll never happen again can it?  And yet, in two more years, our own Jon Tester will be replaced along with about ten more Democrat Senators, leaving the present majority leader who once said

"Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power," he said then. "They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that's true."

Good old Harry, always available for a laugh. Even if he doesn't intend it. I am sure that he will regain his reverence for the founders after January of 2013. So, go ahead and muscle through the change in rules. just be aware that what goes around comes around, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may begin his acceptance speech by noting: "I couldn't have done it without Harry."

I Wish I Had Said This

This is just exactly how I feel, and he says it with humor and wit. To simply cite to it would not do it justice, so in the spirit of spreading the word, here in its entirety is this:

Nancy Pelosi Might Just Be Insane
Democrats cope with an openly delusional Minority Leader.
by John Hayward
01/05/2011
Trackback Link


Nancy Pelosi gave her farewell press conference as Speaker yesterday. I’ll pause while the wave of relief and euphoria passes over you, grateful American. In fact, I’ll start over, just so we can enjoy that sentence again.

Nancy Pelosi gave her farewell press conference as Speaker yesterday. It was full of the expected boasting about achievements – it’s not as if she was going to admit she was the most catastrophic failure of a Speaker in recent American history, or that her successor faces the incredibly difficult task of repairing the damage she’s done. There wasn’t even much chance she would apologize for her dereliction of duty in failing to prepare a budget for 2011, leading us into the lame-duck roller derby in December. A thank-you to America for paying vast sums of money to transport her royal family in regal splendor aboard Air Force planes would have been nice.

In the middle of shaking her own hand, however, Pelosi said this: “Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”

That’s just jaw-dropping. Pelosi presided over the greatest expansion of the national debt in history, and when I say “history,” I mean the history of the planet. Our debt soared from $9 trillion to $14 trillion on her watch. It swelled by a trillion dollars in just the past seven months.

As for Pay-Go, that ridiculous lie has been debunked so many times that even the press must have been stifling gasps of astonishment. Does the name “Jim Bunning” ring a bell? He’s the senator from Kentucky who was tarred and feathered for suggesting the Democrats stick to their Pay-Go commitments, when they were bleating that extending unemployment benefits was a super-duper emergency that could not be paid for by cutting a single nickel from our titanic federal budget. They said the same thing anyone had the temerity to remind them about Pay-Go.

This is disturbingly different from the usual spin and rally-the-troops flapdoodle a political leader is expected to shovel out. Not even the skewed perspective of a Representative-For-Life from a far-left district can explain it. As John Boehner gently takes the gavel from her hands and backs away slowly, the Democrat minority in the House must face the possibility that their new Minority Leader is insane.

These People Should Not be Trusted With Sharp Objects

Much less governance.

Steny Hoyer thinks that Tea Party protesters just don't want to go home to their families. From the article:

There are a whole lot of people in the Tea Party that I see in these polls who don’t want any compromise. My presumption is they have unhappy families. All of you have been in families: single-parent, two-parents, whatever. Multiple parent and a stepfather. The fact is life is about trying to reach accommodation with one another so we can move forward. That is certainly what democracy is about. So if we are going to move forward compromise is necessary.

Mr. Hoyer also managed to assign all of the blame for the deficits to Reagan and Bush. There is just one problem with his accusation - Congress is the one who appropriates money, and he was in Congress the whole time. The blame may fall at the feet of those who cut taxes, but it also belongs at the feet of people like Steny who spent anyway. If you don't have it, don't spend it.
Otherwise it is known as theft.

Getting Old

As I approach my 55th Winter Solstice, I find that I am liking winter less and less.  In fact, I find myself dreaming of warm Summer afternoons in a baseball park, talking with friends, and waiting for the crack of a bat to direct our attention to a long fly out.
And I don't even like baseball.
Damn, where is Global Warming when you need it?

A Disturbance In The Force

Watching NBC"s Meet The Press,  I see VP Joe Biden in his own unique way claim that the Democrat's electoral losses last month are because the American people want Republicans to work with Democrats.   WTF?? What is the color of the sky in Biden's world?  That kind of rejection of Republican obstructionism could result in their total control of both houses if they keep refusing  to cooperate. That'll teach them.
But Biden's self delusion is not his alone.  If you read Michael Barone's piece about the impact of the bad choices made by Reid and Pelosi, it explains better than Biden's wrong assertion what happened.Those who persist in their failed delusions will become as relevant as the blow up dinosaurs at my grandson's birthday party.  Amusing for a moment, and quickly forgotten.
This kind of delusion cannot exist in a vacuum.  I think the reason it has lasted as long as it has is that they don't see where the power really lies.  If you think that our Senators and Representatives are our "leaders," you are confused as to what the heck is going on.  Basically, you are confronted with the notion that the peasants are revolting in spite of all the wonderful things that you wanted to do..
Let me posit another view that they are not grasping - Those in Congress have the wherewithal to realize they are in deep shit.  Especially Republicans. who used to represent Utah as Senator or the hand picked choices of the so called elites in Deleware who lost to a witch.  Not to mention the choices in Nevada and Kentucky.  The folks sitting in office can see the picture that the partisans can't.  The true power is no longer on K Street, or J Street, or any of the usual places.  If you are going to be up for election in 2012, you have to consider that if you are a Democrat you are already in deep trouble.  And if you are a Republican, you had better pay attention to the Tea Party issues or you could be primaried successfully.
Lobbyists have less power in the present Congress than angry letter writers from back home.  In the past, a  politician could make enough off of campaign donations from special interests (like Big Pharma, BP, Labor Unions) to offset the disjointed anger of the electorate.They used the money to barrage the uncaring and uninformed with advertisements to overwhelm their opposition to the politician.  Plus the politician could bring home enough in earmarks to tout what a wonderful job they are doing.
No longer.
The rules have changed, and if politicians can't figure it out, they will quickly discover they are expendable.  Just consult with Congressmen Oberstar and Obey for an example.  And all of this is taking place with a disorganized and disjointed group of Tea Partiers who are only going to get stronger at the current rate.

The End of Sen. Tester's Run

Byron York has a piece about how our junior Senator has managed to alienate the very people who got him elected.  Markos Moulitas of the Daily Kos has just declared Tester an a-hole and is not going to support Tester for re-election.  So if you take the Daily Kos crew out of the picture, who does Tester have left as a base?
The problem that Tester has is that he was elected under a false assumption that Montana was becoming more Democratic in politics.  That is the result of entirely too much drinking, and Bush fatigue.  By 2012, we will have all sobered up, and be asking George who? and what does he have to do with this guy who claims to be a Montanan?
Karl Rove used to work under the theory that you get out your base and you win, since most people don't care.  That is way out of date now, as there are Tea Partys and an aroused Independent bloc who reject the Democrat excesses of the last two years.  Tester doesn't even have a base, and the Independents are associating him with Obama and Pelosi no matter what he does. 
He should have stayed with the ones who brought him.  The rest of us don't care.

Solving DUI Problems

Gregg at ECW has a piece about the defense of an accused drunk driver that he was able to rescue from the jaws of pre-trial conviction and return his client to normal citizen status.  DUI is the new crie de couer for the obsessively over controlling of our society.  In one way, it is way too easy.  Mothers Against Drunk Driving doesn't have a version on the other side.  No one is going to advocate for drunk driving but in our search for witches to burn (otherwise known as drivers) in our new crusade, we also catch up people who are innocent and force them to prove that innocence.  Usually we do this by binding them up and throwing them in a pond.  Because water is pure, if they are guilty the water will reject them, and if they are innocent they drown.  Okay, maybe it is slightly more technical, but that is only if you believe the government.
So, here are my solutions to reducing the drunk driving rates in Montana.  First, we lead the country in DUIs per mile traveled.  Let's take the third Saturday of every month and require everyone to drive to a police station where a breath test will be administered and if you are clean, you then have to drive 500 miles that day.  This has the advantage of increasing the numerator so that we won't be leading the country any longer.
Next, I propose that we cut DUIs in half by giving all the cops in the state Saturday off.  No cops means no arrests.  Ordinary citizens would be instructed not to drive on Saturday night because we surrendered the streets to drunks. But, just like in the '70s when we quit picking up hitchhikers because they all seemed to be serial killers, and people quit hitchhiking because the only people who picked them up were serial killers, eventually with only drunk drivers on the road on Saturday night they will only kill each other.  Win-win, and no costs for incarceration or treatment.
Lastly, you need to understand that drinking and driving is not necessarily such a bad thing.  For instance, Montana has found that one out of three highway fatalities has alcohol involved.  Not necessarily under the influence, as for example the driver who is texting, runs a red light and kills a driver of another car who had two drinks.  If you think about it, this means that you are twice as likely to die if you and the other driver are both stone cold sober, than if one of you has a drink.  Therefore, in the same spirit of you should always bring a bomb on board any plane you fly, because what are the chances that there are two bombs, we should all have a drink or two and go for a drive.
This solution to a vexing problem is offered gratis as a public service.

With Apologies to Pogie

Earlier, Pogie had accused me of Limbaugh economics, if I remember right.  Of course, since I work, I don't get to listen to Limbaugh, but the accusation is always thrown around as an attempt to preemptively discredit someone by guilty through association even if there is not association.  And while I am sure that Pogie is smarter than me, I just had to marvel at this fun exchange:

Chickens Coming Home to Roost

I had written a piece about my objections to earmarks earlier, in response to Tester and Baucus' support of them. Now we have the ultimate earmark: $48 Billion to

funnel money into the inner cities to give money to the poor and thereby produce a much larger consumer class to buy the goods and services produced in this country.

Why try any of those anti-poverty programs that have been around for 45 years? They apparently take too long. Sure there aren't any specifics on how to do all this, but it's an earmark people. We do it all the time. Although why it took this long before some enterprising politician figured out the power of earmarks is the question of the day.
While we're at it, let's use the power of earmarks to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability for all time. Jon could get in on this and pump up his foreign relations cred points.

Budgetary Kabuki

Color me confused at the moment. After the House Democrats freaked out about allowing the top tax bracket to remain as it is, rather than jumping the tax on the so called wealthy, Democrats in the Senate decided that millionaires need unemployment insurance. The measure to eliminate millionaire benefits was brought as a small token to pay for the continuation of the tax cuts and the extension of unemployment benefits. And it was small, very small, saving an estimated $100 million over the next ten years. Was it purely theater, absolutely. But it is fun to see Democrats now standing up for millionaires.
Also note that Jon Tester voted with the Republicans against the measure. I am beginning to think that Jon needs to get a name change. After all, for the next two years he is going to be called "endangered Democrat" Tester. But after 2012 he can go back to just plain Jon.
Or "the former Senator."

Lies and Lying Liars

I had posted about the absolute hatred the Left has for the so called "rich,"  and asked the question

Why is it that the extension of the middle class tax cuts is supposed to be stimulative, but they claim research shows that tax cuts for the wealthy is not? Is the money of the rich marked differently than that of the middle class? Does the size of the cut matter if you have enough to go to McDonalds one more night a month than before, versus somebody who buys a car and all the workers that helped manufacture the care?

to which Pogie offered

I think the only reason you haven't seen an answer about why tax cuts have more stimulative value for the middle class is because you haven't looked. Try Google. I hear it provides information with just some typing and a few clicks.

I also wonder how the Right can maintain that the Bush tax cuts stimulated the economy, given the evidence of the past 8 years. What did they do exactly?

My response to Pogie was perhaps unfair, in that I argued that he was relying on Democrat talking points, and that I wouldn't do that. So, lo and behold, we have Reason's Hit and Run by Nick Gillespie showing that the Bush tax cuts (although it was really the Bush tax rate cuts) actually provided more revenue to the treasury.
Well, how can that be, we have been told for the last ten years that only the "rich benefited from the tax cuts. Lie! If you look at the tables provided by Nick, you see that

In 2000, for instance, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 37.42 percent of all income taxes collected. In 2008, they paid 38.02 percent. That's down a bit from the peak of 2007 and reflects the recession hitting. The bottom 50 percent of filers saw their share of the income tax burden fall from 3.91 percent to 2.7 percent. Two groups in the upper half of the income distribution made out, it seems: Folks coming in between between 10 percent and 25 percent of income and those between 25 percent and 50 percent. Each saw their share of total tax collected decline a bit (like the share of taxes paid, this reflects the recession).

Now, the Left at this point will usually say that this is due to the accumulation of wealth by the top earners. Okay, so what? It is not a zero sum game. Everyone can get rich, and some can get richer than others. But that is not the same argument as the rich don't help the economy.

The Recovery is Coming, The Recovery is Coming!!!

The only good thing about the Great Recession is that there has been a significant reduction in all of those junk mail credit card applications.  Apparently, that is about to end. 
It makes sense since companies have been hoarding cash in anticipation of a more favorable business climate once the Democrats were finally restrained.  With a Republican House, which is where all the spending bills originate, the hopes being that Republicans will stick to their promises about deficit reduction.  The Republicans should take note, because if they don't, the blood bath from last election will look like a burbling fountain in comparison.

Hatred is an Ugly Thing

House Democrats are throwing a hissy fit over the extension of the Bush tax cuts that they had excoriated for so long as only benefiting the wealthy.  But their rhetoric is running smack dab into reality with the coming expiration.  When that happens, the middle class is going to be creamed in a way that they will understand what the real effect is of those tax cuts.
But the Looney Left would rather see the rates rise on the Middle Class than to extend them to the so called "wealthy,"  Think about that for a minute.  The Democrats would deny an extension of unemployment benefits to people out of work in order to punish their nemesis "the rich."  Hatred of this sort is honestly refreshing, in that they are no longer even pretending to be on the side of the "little guy,"  Nope, this is all about social engineering..
But I do have one question that I just have not seen answered, and I really wish someone could explain it to me.  Why is it that the extension of the middle class tax cuts is supposed to be stimulative, but they claim research shows that tax cuts for the wealthy is not?  Is the money of the rich marked differently than that of the middle class?  Does the size of the cut matter if you have enough to go to McDonalds one more night a month than before, versus somebody who buys a car and all the workers that helped manufacture the care?
The absolute dishonesty of the Democrats is only matched by the Republicans who think that the agreement with the President is a good deal.  What in the world do wind subsidies or money for ethanol or Nascar have to do with tax cuts?  The fact that they couldn't keep those out show the Republicans are either not serious, or they are easily rolled.

Letter to the Editor

I sent this off to the Missoulian, and figured I might as well post it here as well since blogging has been slow.

The guest columns of Sen. Tester and Sen. Baucus explaining why earmarks are good have clarified what the problem is.  The problem is us.  We are the enablers of a dysfunctional set of elected officials.

Like any addict, they are quick and quite clever in validating their source of addiction while at the same time blaming the enabler for allowing the addict to keep using.   “If only you loved me more, I would quit using alcohol/meth/heroin/earmarks.  It’s all your fault that I haven’t been able to give them up.”  And don’t we love our addicts when they are happily using?  Isn’t it easier to deal with them when they are high, than when they are scrambling around trying to find a fix?

But eventually the money runs out, having been consumed by the addiction.  And boy has the money ran out in regards to earmarks.  The two Senators argue that if they don’t allocate the money via an earmark, some faceless bureaucrat will allocate the money inappropriately (might go to New York City or somewhere in California rather than here).  Well here is a novel thought – Don’t allocate money that is not specifically in the whole bill.  That is, if it isn’t important enough for the whole Senate to consider the allocation, then it isn’t important enough to be spent.  The net result will be less appropriations, and yes, less skate parks, or improved parking lots, but that isn’t such a bad thing when we are basically a hair’s breadth away from bankruptcy.

Rethinking Waterboarding

Yes, I know, all nice people are in agreement that waterboarding is bad. But this article has some interesting points:

This twitchiness has been made worse by the consequences of President Bush's claim in Decision Points that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed prevented terrorist attacks on Canary Wharf and Heathrow Airport.

One of the reasons the left have been so taken aback by Bush's statement is because it gets to the heart of the use of waterboarding. For too long the left have been trying to squeeze waterboarding into their definition of torture. In part because of this, the debate over waterboarding has become dictionary-centered in that in order to debate whether waterboarding is acceptable in certain circumstances, you first need to define exactly what you mean by "torture." This has drowned the debate in tedious exchanges of definitions by bureaucrats, academics, and elected officials on both sides of the Atlantic.

Consequently, it has been simply assumed by a large section of the public (especially with Obama declaring it to be an illegal weapon of torture) that waterboarding equals torture, and therefore, if we allow "torture" on just one person, then we are legitimizing torture on everyone. As a result "that makes us just as bad as them." Every logical step in this argument is flawed, and yet it is still widely believed.

Therefore, waterboarding, along with softer techniques such as sleep deprivation, have been abolished on the basis that "we must stay true to our principles," as if America and Britain were somehow founded on the principle that no terrorist must be kept awake past his bedtime.

What President Bush's claim has done is cut through the theoretical niceties and the dictionary definitions in order to present a solid fact: waterboarding was practiced on three people, and it prevented attacks on Canary Wharf and Heathrow Airport. These attacks would have been devastating and would have almost certainly led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent British citizens.

In the face of this terrifying reality, the lefties flipping through their dictionaries for the correct definition of torture and debating the meaning of the words "necessary" and "force" look quite pathetic.

What President Bush is doing is presenting a choice. The title of his book is Decision Points, and this moment is a decision point for the citizens of both America and Great Britain. The first choice is about what we would prefer to have happened in the past -- thousands of British deaths in a terrorist attack that may have dwarfed 9/11, or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed experiencing a sensation of drowning.

Yet it also asks of us a more pressing question for the future.

The fact is that hardened criminals such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will not give up information just by having a light shone in their face (although not too bright -- we wouldn't want to permanently damage their eyesight!) These people are well-trained to resist interrogation and are ideologically motivated. They do not fear death, and they do not fear pain. In the future, there are going to be more cases where vital information can be attained only via waterboarding and similarly strong methods.

Read the whole thing.
When the next attack comes, and it will, I wish that it could confine its harm to those who want to prevent this interrogation tool. But it won't, and it will kill as many people who would have used it as those who would not. And the shame of it all, is that the victims never really had a chance to voice their opinions.
Of course, we could just subject them to a TSA search. That is too degrading though.

Why Obama Won in '08 and Why He Won't Win Again.

It is common to look top history as a template for evaluating current situations. While helpful, it is not exclusive, and sometimes, the wrong lesson can be learned from the exercise. For instance, supporters of President Obama often cite to either President Clinton after the 1994 elections, and how he was able to be re-elected or even Reagan after the 1982 election and the damage done to his chances of re-election because of the economy. But I believe that neither of these examples is a good road map for Obama's re-election.
But first, we should look and see how it was that Obama was elected in the first place. As a junior senator from Illinois, he had no significant accomplishments aside from a key note address at the 2004 Democrat convention. During the 2008 campaign, he must be given credit for manipulating the system that should have provided Hillary with the nomination in his favor. He was able to overcome the superdelegate problem by basically co-opting those who weren't for him to begin with. During the campaign, the motto was always "Hope" and "Change." But it was the non-specificity of those two words that were both their genius and his downfall. After all, can Obama really be blamed for what we understood Hope and Change to be? If you look at his speeches during the campaign, there were zero specifics. Everything that we imagined him to promote, he never did. We simply imposed it on him.
Now honestly, it is our fault that we elected him in spite of his lack of accomplishments. After all, during the campaign, he pointed to running a campaign as his most significant accomplishment to date. Otherwise, he was a "community organizer." Now just what the heck is that? And how is that qualifications to become President?
Again, it is our own darned fault that we elected him, but when it comes to 2012, will we fall for it again? Will the silver tongued orater be able to use his teleprompters to inspire us, or will we simply look at him and think "he doesn't mean a word of what he is saying." My thinking is that in 2008 there was a high degree of Republican in general, and Bush in particular fatigue. Whoever won the nomination for the Presidency from the Democratic Party was going to become President. But there won't be Bush fatigue in 2012. In fact, some surveys actually show GW Bush to be more popular than Obama at the moment. Additionally, Obama lacks the political acumen to do a self assessment that is honest. So far, the President seems to blame his failure to inspire with his policies on poor communication skills (irony alert) and that we are all scared, so we don't think clearly. Nowhere in that assessment is the idea that his ideas aren't popular. In fact, that is his Achilles heel. He can't believe that people wouldn't agree with his assessment of the situation. There has to be something that is obscuring the ability to explain his message. Fox is often used as the villain, but it cannot explain the vast majority who reject Obama's policies. The administration's inability to fathom that Americans are not another special interest group to be bought off with give aways is going to be the reason that Obama doesn't win re-election.

Will Your Lawyer Fit in the Overhead Compartment?

Next time you go to the airport and decide that you are not interested in increasing the amount of cumulative radiation so you opt out of the X Ray vision run by perverts, you will then have to go through a manual groping including your most private spaces. Don't feel like getting a hand job, even though it's free? Well buster, you will just have to sit there and like it, even if you do decide that rape is a pretty good reason to bail on your airline tickets.
Yes, you will be held against your will by armed agents of the federal government and questioned until they are satisfied. And if you don't, you will be subject to possible arrest and a fine of $11,000. Now never mind how bad the whole bargained for acceptance aspect of contracts with regards to flying is, you now have a completely new third player in the deal. And they won't take no for an answer. You will be either sexually assaulted, or wrongfully imprisoned without even the merest of proof to detain you.
We say we are doing this to prevent terrorism. Seems to me, they have already won.

Giving Them the Respect They Deserve

From Reason:


The most amazing thing about the TSA is how absolutely stupid they are. It's almost like America has been punked and we haven't woke up enough to say WTF? Every one of their areas of searching are for some previous attack. How long ago was it since the shoe bomber? And yet we still pull off our shoes for inspection. More than three ounces of a fluid? Can't have it, so four or five of you are going to have to get together to bring on enough for a bomb.
Everything that they are doing is purely reactive. They justify it by saying that they are just "following procedure." That is the excuse they give for not thinking. But watching this will have to make you think that we are not doing it right.

Relooking DADT

The administration is plowing ahead with the fierce moral urgency of now, to deal with gays in the military. Not. Instead they are waffling around, waiting on the 9th Circuit to try and figure out what they are going to do since the district court in California just ruled that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is unconstitutional. But is it unconstitutional?
There is no right to join the military. You can actually be denied for being too tall, or too short, too skinny or too fat, too young, too old it doesn't matter. Missing a limb? Highly unlikely that you will be able to serve. Have asthma? Good luck in some other endeavor. Of course my favorite is the criminal history one. Have you ever used a gun in the commission of a crime? Well just keep on moving junior. We only want moral killers here.
The point of all this is that the military selects its own replacements. And the biggest issue is that the new recruits can fit in and adapt, and yes they can. The military has over 200 years in figuring out how to get young men and now women to fit in. Now some may say that this is no different from when women were fully integrated into the military. But that is a rather poor example. For when women were first integrated they were held to the same standards as the men, and when they couldn't compete equally, there were new standards created that were less difficult. This just caused an increase in the resentment of men toward women and an increase in their harassment. It took close to 15 years for acceptance of women, and even then it was with a recognition that not all women were going to compete equally with men in feats of physical performance.
Sure, some of it was ridiculous, for example, a 175 pound male carrying a 120 pound rucksack and gear is going to be under tremendous stress. But a 120 pound woman carrying a 120 pound rucksack won't be able to move. And they don't make scaled down rucksacks, rifles, bullets, meals or anything else for that matter so that she can carry on the same as a man. This is not to say that there aren't women who could do it, but they are in the distinct minority. Overall, the idea of legislating equality through the military is not a good idea.
Besides, the one thing that no one takes into consideration is the young enlistee who realizes that the military life is just not for him or her. All they have to do is to tell their superiors that they have feelings for members of the same sex, but haven't acted on them yet, and they will have an Honorable Discharge in weeks.
Eventually, the military is going to have to let gays in who will serve openly. But that is a matter for those who are serving to deal with, not social engineers. Until that date, let's just keep the current system which requires everyone to mind their own damned business.
It's really not that hard to do.

Just Wait Until They Are Unionized.

A TSA worker pulled down a woman's shirt, exposing her breasts to everyone in the screening area. And the workers who missed the escapade could always review it on closed circuit security cameras.
None of them have been fired. Apparently, this is just fine for TSA behavior.

Another Great Headline

Rangel ethics trial finished in one day — jury of peers mulls verdict on charges

Jury selection must have consisted of asking the question "Who else here has cheated on their taxes?"

Killing Entrepreneurship

Cutting the Deficit

So many times, we are told that tax increases are the only responsible way to reduce the deficit, never cutting because it is too difficult. And to show how hard it is, the New York Times has included a handy calculator so that you can test your plan. I tried my hand at it and came up with this version.
But they didn't have a lot of choices that I wanted to do. First, end all subsidies. No business subsidies, sugar, peanut, ethanol, solar power, anything. The government should not be helping anything, because as soon as it does it distorts the market, and it's usually distorted in the direction that the lobbyists wanted, not in the direction that is good for everyone. I know a lot of people will be screaming that the "Green Revolution" can't happen without subsidies, and they are probably right. Which is just my point. If it makes sense economically, the government doesn't need to help. If it doesn't make sense, then we shouldn't be doing it.
I would also eliminate the Depts. of Energy and Education. So far, their track record from before their existence to now shows that they have failed in improving the situation. In the business world, these are defunct and defective organizations. Spin them off and sell them off to private investors. I would also direct the Dept. of Agriculture to look at selling public lands. It is true that Montana takes in more federal dollars than it pays out, but that is partly because the feds own so darned much of us. Take and sell it and you have the immediate effect of cash plus the long term benefit of not having to maintain the property. It would also open up land for private development which raises income which can be taxed.
Now for the fun part, the military. I know my friends in Great Falls might object, but we need to get rid of the land based missiles. Their cost versus their probability of use cannot be justified. The B-2 at least has a dual use capability, and if we kept about a third of the Trident class, we would still have enough to remain a credible deterrent without as much costs. We also need to address the major challenges to our interests are going to be terrorists and the Chinese. The terrorists are going to continue their low level of conflict, much like a bad infection, and it will require light and flexible forces that can go anywhere and fight anywhere. Probably 8 divisions of light or medium weight (Stryker units) divisions, and four heavy.
The Chinese on the other hand are a much more conventional force and would require higher levels of what we used to call "heavy" formations of armor and artillery. But we couldn't take China on right now in any event. Their Hundred Million Army is too much to engage directly, and luckily, they are a predominantly continental based force, so the greatest threats are going to be Viet Nam and Siberia.
There is the possibility of a sea borne invasion of Taiwan, or even possibly Japan. for that reason we should have four carrier groups. We only need to control the seas of one ocean at a time, not the current seven, and of that force you need one on station, one going to station and one returning, with one more as a backup.
The Air Force should be cut back to enough F-22 and F-35 wings to create air dominance in one theater, and sufficient heavy lift aircraft to move a light division in seven days. The need for future fighters has to be set aside until we get the budget under control.
Overseas bases should not be eliminated. Everyone of those was paid for in American blood, and it would be too expensive to have to reclaim them if we needed them again in the future. Their staffing should be reduced to enough for caretaker status only. But we cannot give up access to bases in Germany because they are a quarter of the world closer to anywhere East than the CONUS units are. Same with Okinawa.

Well, these are just a few ideas for cuts. I would also redo the tax code by making it a flat tax and exempt income under $30,000. The many loopholes and exemptions are just rife with the possibility of corruption. And I think I will put the rest of that idea in another post.

Things That Make You Go Hmmmmm.

This is the no kidding headline:

Castro: Far-Right Takes Over U.S. After Midterms

So, if Castro calls you Far Right, and the Democrats call you Far Right, does that mean they are at the same point on the continuum?

Barkus Justice?

Well, not really. As you may or may not be aware, Senator Barkus is going to plead guilty to one count of Criminal Endangerment and the dismissal of two counts of Felony Vehicular Assault.
This is one of the interesting examples where who you are matters when it comes to the administration of justice. Only not like you think. In this case we have a prominent Republican state Senator who was driving a boat that crashed into the rocks on the East shore of Flathead Lake, injuring our Rep. Denny Rehberg and others who were passengers. The fact that it is on the front page of the Daily Interlake is proof of the uniqueness of the prosecution at this level. Believe it or not, this was not the only boat accident resulting in injuries. In fact, it wasn't the only boat accident involving alcohol and injuries, but there it is, on the front page. And the worst thing is, that the Senator may actually receive a higher crime and punishment than if it had been Joe Montanan, normal citizen.
I am not going to pretend that I know better than his attorney who has a good reputation, but I think I would have challenged the original charge, since it seems to contemplate more the victims being innocent bystanders, and not passengers, but I am seeing this being used more and more nonetheless.
The charge that he is pleading to, Criminal Endangerment, is also known as the "Prosecutor's Best Friend." The relevant portions of the statute are as follows::

A person who knowingly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another commits the offense of criminal endangerment.

MCA 45-5-207.
But I have a problem with this charge. First, "knowingly engaging in conduct." The prosecutors like to say that by driving drunk, you knowingly engage in the conduct. But Criminal Endangerment is unique in the knowing element because you have to deliberately engage in the conduct.
As a clarification, I will use Justice Nelson's explanation of the law. Three men stand in a field, One aims north and fires a gun into an open field. The second fires into a grove of trees, but he doesn't know that there is a house there, and the third fires at a group of houses. All three men engaged in the same knowing conduct - Firing a gun, but only the third man engaged in conduct that he knowingly created a substantial risk of serious injury or death. The second shooter did not know there was a house, and that is more akin to Barkus' condition than the third shooter.
For if you want to believe that Barkus does meet the standard for Criminal Endangerment, you have to believe that Barkus was trying to kill himself as well. For how could he predict that anyone, least of all him have escaped harm if that was his intent. No, his better charge was the misdemeanor of Negligent Endangerment which only requires that you acted Negligently, not knowingly. But because he is a celebrity of sorts, and the Left is out for scalps, they will get his.
Which is too bad, and just another example of the wrongful application of justice.

It's Fun to be a Victim!

Don't you want to be a victim too? After all, if it's not your fault, why should you be held responsible for changing? And the legacy of the statists is to make sure that everyone can be a victim. Of course we have to have some oppressor, so we will use the evil bastards known simply as the "rich." This is so much fun, because probably only five people in this country would say that they are rich. But if you are making $20k a year, someone making $40k a year has to be rich. And if you are making $40k, then someone making $80k definitely is rich. Unless you are making that amount, in which case those making $125k are rich, and so it repeats itself ad nauseum. But each person at the level of being "rich" as considered by someone else does not consider themselves to be rich.
During Obama's campaign, we learned that the rich are those making $250k a year. A nice neat definition, but why are they the ones who have to be rich? Why not the ones making $125k or those making $500k? It is an arbitrary and capricious number designed to inflame the masses who make less than that, more than a statement of policy.
I bring this up because the site Left in the West is being restored at least as some level by Rob Kailey of Wulfgar fame, and a commenter JC said the following about the loss of the middle class,

Put that story together with a few others:

* the Chamber of Commerce's promotion of offshoring;
* the rise of China to soon become the world's leading economy, and growing military might to match;
* the Deficit Commission's proposal to raise the retirement age, which will result in middle and low income workers having to work longer, in essence paying for the retirement of healthier and richer persons (reports show that the richest americans live on average 5-7 years longer than the unrich once they reach 65);
* the widening disparity in income between the rich and middle/lower classes;
* the different treatment the rich and powerful politicos get (Bernie Madoff excepted) vs. the unrich and minorities get in our criminal justice system;
* the rise of corporate personhood to a level commensurate with the flesh and blooded citizens and their right to free speech;
* the rise of corporate personhood in the guise of "defense contractors" as our country turns to mercenary corporations to fight out wars and clean up our messes when (Halliburton/Xe et al.) the military is unwilling/unable/unready to do so--the forewarnings of the coming of the "military-industrial complex" have been realized;
* the triumphs of ideology and religion over science;
* and among all this gathering doom, defense spending is on a rocket course upwards, ever building more bases, and expanding our empire;
* ad nauseum...

It truly is twilight in america. And when the fireworks come out, I will be watching them from afar...

The dire warnings of this dark image are sure to make us leap to action and call for - More government! After all, the problem is always going to be solved by government. The Chamber of Commerce promoting "Off shoring"? Well, let's raise the corporate tax rates here at home, and tax their overseas earnings as well. That will certainly keep those corporations at home.
The Deficit Commissions proposal to raise the retirement age comment is concerning to me, because it looks like this person is advocating privatization of Social Security. After all, if it was privatized, the individual contributor would be able to pass on their accumulated savings to their offspring, instead of having them roll over to fund the wealthy who live longer. I am not sure why this comment is here except to make people feel more helpless than they already do.
The widening disparity between the rich and lower classes is going to be helped how? Apparently by government intervention which will only serve to lock in everyone at their station and keep them from advancing. Again, I am curious as to why JC is advocating this system. Could it be that she doesn't want to be bothered by anyone who may become noveau riche?
The rest of her diatribe also seems to be one giant non sequiter. Except for the underlying theme that all of this would just be fine if only the government took over our lives. My favorite is how she fails to capitalize "america" as she talks about the upcoming fireworks.
I feel sorry for someone so young who is so sad about her future. Maybe she needs to go join a Young Americans for Freedom convention and get some hope that by working hard and taking risks, you can avoid be confined to a set spot on the economic continuum.
On the other hand, I kind of get the feeling that she enjoys her misery.

What is it With the Left and Free Speech?

I am noticing a disturbing pattern among the Left when it comes to Free Speech. What started this process was Ken Thornton at Electric City Weblog who said

My standard is the old fairness in broadcasting standard. All the mainstream media did fine and democracy did well under that. About 1988 was the death of that standard and the death of our democracy. Its death ushered in Right wing radio and Fox News and the false reality they create. The truth suffers and so does our democracy.

(Emphasis added)
The false reality is an interesting approach. Do those on the Left believe that anyone who watches Fox News thinks up is down and vice versa? Are the colors all reversed in their imagination of what those who watch would have?
Ahh, but Fox makes errors, there is no doubt of that. And if that were the standard there would not be a CBS News. Although to be fair, they did end up describing it as "Fake but accurate." And don't even get me started about the New York Times. The paper of record is becoming almost half the paper of corrections. And MSNBC? Their journalistic bona fides are best demonstrated here:
But it goes beyond just which news the Left is going to validate as being "accurate." Senator Bernie Sanders, (Insane, VT) wants to tell people who can own media outlets. This is a repeat of the canard that all news is philosophically conservative because it comes from corporations. This amusing logical fallacy has been refuted so many times, I won't waste your time here.
This is all part of the reaction of Citizens United decision and the removal of restrictions on corporate speech.Ironically, Democrats who keep tinkering with the corporate tax code, and as a result are driving business overseas, now don't want to hear from those same businesses when they are considering said legislation. The Left would be fine to allow unions free speech, but they demonstrate their ignorance when they think unions can exist without businesses.
The absolute lack of understanding that political speech cannot be regulated betrays the concerns that those of the Left are less likely to hold the Constitution in the honor it deserves. These are the same people who claim to protect constitutional rights. But it appears only those rights of abortion. All others are subject to suppression.

Leverage

Senator elect Manchin of West Virginia is being courted by the Republicans in the hopes that he will flip from Democrat to their side. The brilliant thing about this strategy is who is not playing.
While Manchin would probably fit in more with the Republican caucus than the Democrat one, it is still potentially viable. But if you are Manchin, think about what the message conveys - I am much more valuable than any other freshman senator. Harry Reid will be forced to offer some choice committees and support for Manchin's project for a plant that converts coal to diesel.
The Republicans in the meantime, can offer anything, because they won't have the necessary bodies to make a majority even with Manchin. Everynone wins, except for Harry Reid.

What Does it Require to Give it a Rest?

The Left is always fascinated by a poll that shows some people thinking that Obama is a Muslim. They usually conflate the ones who think he is a Muslim with those who say they don't know, just to jack up the numbers. They also do it as a vehicle to declare that anyone who thinks so must be a racist. Now, let's just put that to rest. Anyone who thinks that believing Obama is a Mulsim must also automatically be a racist, are in fact racists themselves and aren't worth answering.
But the resurfacing of rumors would only further inflame the racists who are looking for any excuse to deflect the blame from the Obama administration for their failures. It serves no purpose but to distract.
Myself, I have been in Catholic churches for services, and that doesn't make me Catholic. I have been to a fundamentalist church that actually brought out snakes and started talking in tongues. I left before the service got carried away, but that doesn't mean that I believe in that variant of religion either. Can we give old Barry a rest on this subject?
Please?

Because They Won

Shortly after he was inaugurated, President Obama told the minority Republicans that he wasn't really interested in their suggestions about tax policy because as he said "I won." Well guess what? Karma has a real sense of humor.
Because of the lack of interest by the last Congress, the first step for the new one is going to be to complete the authorization bills for the 2011 fiscal year. The easy thing would be to pass a sort of continuing resolution that covers the remaining 10 months. But what if the new Republican House decided instead to do an across the board 10% cut? Just say to all of the departments that you have the same budget as last year, just 10% less, and deal with it because we have to start work on the 2012 budget.
Of course there would be a hue and cry and reminders of the government shutdown of 1995, but this time it would be different. First, it's not the whole Congress against the White House, it's just the House. But the play of it is that the American people want government spending brought under control and they are going to do it. If the Senate fails to pass it (and because it is a budget bill filibusters don't apply) the Republicans can blame the Democrats in the Senate who didn't get the memo from last week's election. On the other hand, if the Senate passes it and Obama vetoes it, simply point out how the Republicans are busy doing the job of providing for appropriations for next year, and they will get to the President's veto when they can.
The Republicans House will also have to pass a repeal of ObamaCare, but I think it is better if they wait on doing that until February or March of 2012. They will reinvigorate the base, and set the Democrats the unenviable task of defending anew the crappy piece of legislation.
For those of us who are fans of chaos and gridlock when it comes to the encroachment of our individual liberties, these are really good times.

Fearing the Government

When we were children, and even now with our children, they learmn that the police are your friend. That if you are lost or scared and can't find your mommy or daddy, you should go to a police officer and they will help you. And I am sure that most of the time that they do. But sometimes, officers who are not as professional as the old guys become far too much the cowboy, and rather than relying on the force of personality, they prefer the gun to settle things down. And it works, to a point.
Except if you want to have a friendly poker game at your house. Then, you better be prepared for a battering ram followed by gunfire.

A relatively routine raid of a low-stakes poker game in Greenville, South Carolina turned bloody yesterday night — as police tried to gain entry to a poker house. The game host, now known to be Aaron Awtry, 72, shot through the front door, striking sheriff’s deputy Matthew May with a bullet that went through his arm.

A vice squad in SWAT gear returned fire, hitting Awtry with multiple rounds in his arm and thumb … which was followed by a 20-minute standoff between cops and players, according to a spokesman for the Greenville County Sheriff’s Department. Both shooting victims were taken to the hospital where they are in stable condition.

There were 12 people and Awtry in the house at 502 Pine Knoll Drive when police arrived at about 9:20 pm last night. According to frontline witnesses, they had just finished a small buy-in dinnertime tourney … and a 1/2 cash game was just getting underway when someone saw 5-0 approaching on a security monitor. Before he could clearly vocalize an alert, a battery [sic] ram begin slamming the front door and players froze. Awtry, who players say has notoriously bad hearing in his senior years and presumably believed the game was being robbed, began shooting at the door with his pistol, firing “at least once” according to a player, “multiple shots” according to police. At least four officers returned fire at the door with at least 20 bullets from their higher-powered assault weapons.

As Awtry fell back into the poker room entryway, he balked, “Why didn’t you tell me it was the cops?”

But that was South Carolina, and we know that they are all crazy there. It wouldn't happen in Montana.
Except. Now I am relating this from hearsay of people who were there, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of anyone other than the people who told me are very reliable. Apparently, one of the legal assistants of the Office of the Public Defender in Kalispell lived across the street from a house that a friend of hers owns but is letting her young son live there. The legal assistant got a call from the son, saying that the police were wanting to come into the house because they suspected an underage party. The kid told them that they had to get a warrant (smart kid), so they left. Apparently, they didn't have enough information for a warrant, because unknown til later, the officers came back to the house, crossed onto private property in order to look into the windows of the house where they saw a young girl asleep on the bed in a bedroom. Naturally, the officers thought that she must be drunk. Now they had the information they needed to get a warrant (not really but this is Kalispell, where the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures doesn't apply).
The legal assistant had gone over at the request of the mother to see what was going on, and yes, there was an underage party going on. The assistant called an attorney she works for and was on the phone when the cops started banging on the door again, saying that this time they had a warrant. The assistant was still talking to the attorney (who can run on at times) when the cops entered with guns drawn. Luckily none were so clumsy so as to trip and fire a warning shot through some drunk kid. A cop approached her and ordered her to hang up, which she was trying to do by ending the conversation. When she didn't hang up, the cop smacked it out of her hand, where it landed still transmitting to the lawyer the entire unjust entry and arrest. To make a long story short, the legal assistant was arrested and charged with obstructing justice.
She pled not guilty and had to go to trial, where the cops lied about hitting her, and the amateur hour judge allowed in so much extraneous bs it was a miracle that the jury reached the right conclusion and found her not guilty. Now, I am not saying that officers have to be placed in jeopardy when they are doing their jobs, but trespassing, lying to get a warrant, then lying in court are not going to be justified by "officer safety."
What it really does, is instill a distrust of law enforcement by the people who's rights they abuse, and their friends and family. And yes this is Kalispell, but I know that similar things have happened in Missoula and Hamilton. Don't think it hasn't happened in your town. Or maybe some night, someone could be smashing your door in and start shooting at you, and it will all be perfectly legal under "officer safety."

Making Every Vote Count

I was talking with a woman who works at Boulder where we keep all those with mental deficiencies, and she told me something shocking. Apparently, the staff there take advantage of the residents by telling them who to vote for. This is disturbing enough, but apparently, Boulder isn't the only place that happens.
So, if you want your vote to really count, go work or volunteer at a facility for the mentally handicapped. You could make your vote count over a hundred times more than it would otherwise.

I am sure that the Commissioner of Political Practices will get right on it. Snark.

One More Good Reason to Vote

Defeat the dominant paradigm.

The Price of a Man's Soul

Everyone has a price is a constant refrain, and I used to say that mine was $250,000 until I was given a cashier's check for that amount to bid on a sale on behalf of a client. Then I figured out that I would need a lot more than that if I was going to abandon my family friends and country forever.
I bring this up because Cynthia Yockey has an excellent discussion of stuff you know, but just never put together so well as she has. The Reader's Digest version is that conservatives are inherently optimistic. They believe that anyone can become president, just like Obama did, only we won't point out that he did. But conservatives as a rule do not believe in stultifying stratification of your economic condition.
Liberals on the other hand (and I really mean Leftists, but they stole the good name of liberals) are pessimistic.

The first fundamental idea of Leftism is that particular identity/grievance groups are members of a permanent underclass, which entitles them to pity and unearned privileges and money. This idea has been particularly attractive to black Americans and led to the Great Society welfare state, the destruction of marriage and the black family, the rise of race hucksterism and racial protection rackets and a holocaust of ambition, talent and genius in the black community because welfare rules punish these traits ruthlessly.

and secondly,

is that there is a privileged overclass who owe their pity and earned privileges and money to an ever-expanding list of identity/grievance groups in the permanent underclass.

Ms Yockey points out that the primary purpose of these beliefs is not to remedy the ills but power. The power to control others through the allocation or confiscation of wealth. They need the poor and repressed minorities for without them, the Left have no moral authority.
But the real cost of the Left's perfidy is that we now know the price of a person as determined by the government wage. At the present time if you are disabled you will receive the princely sum of $674 per month providing that you are disabled and unable to do ANY WORK at any place in the country. Six hundred seventy four dollars a month, and if you have too much in assets, you have to "spend them down" before you can draw the benefit.
The truly sad part of this inhuman trade in humanity is the government bureaucracy that would try at every turn to deny them benefits, and those pathetic people who actively seek out such a small pittance as a way to avoid work even though they aren't really disabled. The fact that the government would make a truly disabled person's life miserable by the delay and denials of their claims is justified by those pathetic people who would seek this benefit as a source of income for the rest of their lives is a testament to the failure of government sponsored largesse.

The Religion of Peace is Being Peaceful Again

Check it out.

A Man of No Consequence

No, Not Mark T. Though he would certainly qualify. No kids, today's answer is Barak Obama! That's right, the Leader of the Free World is going to meet with the host of American Idol and do an interview. What a stroke of genius! Think of all the untapped voters who can't be reached any other way.

Makes me start to long for the quiet competency of GW Bush.

Campaign Ads

Just saw the ad questioning McDonald's judgment because his client was Jimmy "The Weasel" Frattiano. Associating McDonald with his client is intended to wrongly portray McDonald's interests as the same as Frattiano's. This is unfair and should be stopped. Instead, the Republicans should just show the picture of McDonald with President Obama. Don't even have to say anything.
Now that would be a scary Halloween commercial.

Fighting Election Fraud

Democrats are getting very nervous and are starting to cheat. The best way to cheat is to allege voter intimidation in having them prove they are who they say they are. Although the Help America Vote Act actually does require proof of who you are in order to vote. But many people who want to exploit the dead, the elderly or the invalid by using their votes are fighting the requirement to provide proof. They claim that it unfairly burdens the poor who do not have identification.
Okay, then let's do this - Instead of requiring photo ID for those who don't have it, let's take their picture at the polling place with their name prominently displayed. Afterwards, we can go back and verify that they are who they say they are, and if they are not, post their picture in every precinct in the state to show who has committed a felony. And if they are found, sentence them to a minimum of seven years in prison with no parole so that they have to miss a few more elections that they won't be able to defraud.

Astroturfing on Display

The Tea Party is often accused of being "Astroturf" in that their accusers don't accept that people can be upset with the way Democrats are trying to ruin the country.  As a response, the Daly show and Comedy Central have decided to hold a "Rally to Restore Sanity" as an antidote to Glenn Beck.  But because this is being manufactured by a commercial enterprise they are attempting to limit who can make a video recording.  It's true that you wouldn't be able to record the show with your own camera while sitting in the audience and then sell it outside, but this is being held on the National Mall.

Maybe there is something to this whole corporate profits over getting the message out.

"We were just people who didn't really know what we were doing."

The Wall Street Journal had donned its anthropology gear and rendered a report on the actual birth of the Tea Party.  It's an excellent read and very informative both for those of us who support their issues, and those who oppose it.  Mostly, it's an interesting tour through a spontaneous uprising that the elites couldn't predict, and still don't really understand.

Yeah, We Miss You

Apparently, after all the good that Obama has done for us over the last two years, more people think that GW Bush was a better president than Obama is now.  By a rate of 48-43% Bush is rated higher than the present incumbent. 

So much for the blame Bush strategy.  It will more likely result in people remembering that for them personally, times were better back then.

Predictions

At this late of a date, there is really not a lot of challenge in saying that the Republicans are going to take over the House, and will be within striking distance of the Senate. Watch for LIEberman (as his friends on the Left like to call him) and Ben Nelson to suddenly have tremendous influence if the Republicans are within two of 51 votes. Nelson in particular seems to be the best choice for a reverse Arlen Specter.
I will be sad to see Russ Feingold leave. Although I never really agreed with his positions, I have to give him credit for having integrity, and not just following the party line. Not so with Harry Reid, and I hope Barbara Boxer.
Locally, the only question on the ballot will be if McDonald actually breaks the 10% of the vote threshold. I am giving him a 50-50 chance.
I also think that the Tea Party candidates are going to do better than expected. Part of the problem with polling is guestimating who is going to turn out. For the most part, pollsters use historical analysis to predict who is going to show up and vote. Those analysis may not be valid this year. But even if Sharon Angle doesn't defeat Harry Reid or O'Donnel doesn't defeat Coons, the fact is that the Tea Party candidates are just version 1.0. Wait until 2012 and version 2.0 comes along. That version will completely rid the Republicans of the legacy failures like Murkowski, Bennett and Castle for example.
It won't be your Father's Republican Party after this election.

The Dog Food Sucks

There is a story told of a dog food company that was spending millions on advertising but couldn't increase sales. They fired companies left and right after trying out new campaigns and still the results stayed the same: no increase in sales.
Finally the company figured out it had to start from the beginning and understand why their advertising campaigns were failing. After extensive research, a memo finally explained the ineffectiveness of their efforts: The dogs didn't like the dog food.
Such is the situation for President Obama, where he has decided that the reason we don't like Obamacare is because the marketing hasn't worked. Memo to the President: The dog food sucks.

Seditious Speech

The Left has always fashioned themselves as defenders of Free Speech. Whether Voltaire's "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." or the defense of Lenny Bruce and Larry Flynt for speech that was deemed offensive to others. It is of course a noble cause to defend free speech. But claiming to defend free speech while stifling speech you don't like is evidence of hypocrisy most foul, especially when it is politically motivated.
Whether it's the dismissal of Juan Williams from NPR or the firing of a father of a sailor who serves on the GHW Bush the Left has now ascended (or is it descended) to the ranks of all of the other totalitarian powers that they used to disparage.
I am sure that the Mullahs in Iran and Hugo Chavez are only to willing to embrace them with open arms and say "Welcome to the club."

There Won't be a Republican Party to Leave

Sen. Jim DeMint is threatening to leave the Republican Party if after the election they fail to follow through with their professed limited government agenda. If the Republicans do take over the House, they will have immense pressure from those members of the Tea Party who are less politically motivated than they are ideologically motivated.
I know that many on the Left think that the Tea Party is a Republican creation and tool, but they misunderestimate the anger of people with the direction of spending. And that anger is centered around people like me, older, established and fearful for our future generations.
Keep an eye out. If the Republicans fail to act, after 2012 there won't be a Republican Party.

This is Farkin' Hilarious

Thanks to Don Surber.

When Will the Left Apologize?

The Tea Party which is based on the Constitution and the principles of limited government is called a racist organization because their "leaders" won't apologize for supposedly unpleasant behavior by one or two of its supporters, even though the allegations are not documented. I just want to know, when will the leaders of America's Left apologize for this? And by leaders, I mean you President Obama, you Harry Reid and you Nancy Pelosi, and you Max Baucus and you, oh wait, never mind, Tester doesn't do anything.
Much less anything to have to apologize for.