As an Example

Jonah Goldberg puts out a weekly missive that is not linked, but in this case, I think that I need to include the entire thesis on how government is screwed up because it's run by people.

Dear Reader (and those of you who, according to the McConnell plan, will read this "News"letter only after 3/5ths of it has been approved by the president),

I was listening to the "This American Life" podcast the other day and heard a story. I will summarize.

A man is returning from vacation with his wife and kids and some neighbors' kids. They went camping in Texas. Towards the end of the long drive home in the family van, a Texas highway patrol car comes right up on the van, following like an "angry hornet," lights and siren blazing, forcing the driver to pull over. The man can tell from watching Cops that these guys are serious. From behind their car doors, the police yell through their loudspeaker, to turn off the enginge "using your left hand!" When the flustered driver uses his right hand, the cops shout louder. They make the driver get out of the car and get down on his knees on the gravelly shoulder of the Texas interstate. Some of the kids are already crying. The driver is terrified, confused, freaking out. One of the cops approaches with his rifle pointed at the man's head. The other cop, his gun drawn, is talking to the wife.

Finally, after an eternity, the cop who'd been talking to the wife comes over and says to the driver, "Sir, do you know what your daughter wrote on the car?"

It was actually the neighbor's kid, not his own daughter. But to make a long -- but very entertaining -- story short, what was written in the dust on the back of the van was: "Help. Please God. Call 911. I've been kidnapped."

"Well, son, for about fifteen minutes there, you were the most wanted man in Texas," one of the lawmen informed him.

The driver was so furious that, when the cops told him it was a crime to write that on the car, the driver told them, "Take her in."

But it turns out that the neighbor's daughter didn't write the whole thing. It was a group effort. And that's why I'm taking up your time with this story in the first place.

Apparently what happened is that the mother had written, "Help. Please God," several hours earlier because she so dreaded getting back in the car with all of the kids for even more driving. Then one of the other kids filled in after, "I've been kidnapped." And then the neighbor's daughter wrote, "Call 911."

It seems to me that this is a great little allegory for understanding how really, really, really stupid things happen in life, particularly in Washington. Person A has a harmless idea. Person B doesn't completely understand A's idea, but builds on it anyway. By the time you get to person Z, you're selling hundreds of automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

On both the left and the right there's a tendency to assume the other side -- particularly when it is running the government -- is both really evil and really competent. Most of the time it's closer to the opposite -- again, particularly when we're talking about the government. What appear to be conspiracies from the outside are in fact a series of dumb, innocuous, or even somewhat okay ideas that build on each other into colossally idiotic foul-ups, thanks to imperfect information and mission creep. If there's a human being out there who hasn't had some experience with this sort of thing I can only assume it's because you were raised in a refrigerator box and without human contact. And if there's a reader out there who doesn't think this capacity for screw-ups is an important part of the human condition, well, you're free to read this but you're not a conservative.

This is not -- or at least not entirely -- a road-to-Hell-is-paved-with-good-intentions point. The initial idea that gets the ball rolling can be cynical or crass. Rather, it's to note that the more humans you have in the decision tree, the more you multiply the human factor, and that can lead to some pretty inhuman results.

Which is why I would be fine with government control of my life as long as there are no people in government.

You Have Been Warned

If you load a page on this site and sit on it for awhile, you will start to hear music from the game Angry Birds. Go to the bottom of the site, and there you will find the game, just click on the icon, then click on the pause button, which will allow you to mute the game while you play it.
Or you could just back out of it, but what would be the fun of that?

I Am So Proud

One of the misfortunes of not learning history, is that you are apt to repeat the same mistakes that others had. For instance Phidipides, who ran from the battle at Marathon to announce the victory to Athens, died shortly thereafter. But not knowing history, also means that you do things that you don't know can't be done. As an example, my daughter, Annelise Hedahl, just completed the Missoula Marathon, and I am so proud of her.

Why We Need More Taxes

How else are we going to pay for all of the soon to be unemployed once employers start to let them go because they can't afford them anymore?

The most amusing thing to me, is how stupid our elected leaders are, or alternatively, how stupid they think we are. The Democrats need to punish the wealthy as some form of Calvinistic redemption, the economy and workers be damned. And Republicans seem to fear anytime someone calls them "racist, hater" or whatever is the term du jour to make them falter. When Obama wants to claim that busting the debt ceiling means that Granny won't get her Social Security check, and the soldiers won't be paid while serving in a war zone just to keep the wealthiest tax cuts, why don't the Republicans point out that the Democrats want to starve Granny just to keep money going to the National Endowment for the Arts, Planned Parenthood, whatever version ACORN is calling itself now, and subsidies for "green tech" that doesn't even come close to being efficient. We not only have a problem with spending, but we have no priorities when it comes to spending.
Someone please tell me the justifications for either the Department of Education or Energy, both of which have seen a continued slide in their benchmarks since their creation. How much worse off would we be without Pell Grants that encourage universities to keep price pressure higher and higher to the detriment of whoever has to take out a loan to go to school? Or how much money would we save if we quit giving ethanol subsidies and lifted the tariff on imported ethanol, or for that matter, just allowing for the expansion of energy development, even if it means coal or oil.
And the thing that ticks me off the most is the complexity of the tax code. How is it that GE managed to pay less taxes than I did? Oh, that's right, I can't afford to hire a lobbyist like they do, and oh yeah, I am not being nominated for Treasury Secretary, or Chairman of the House Tax Committee, yet those same people will demand that I pay more before they do.
The only solution is a complete rewrite of the tax code. I suggest a 10% Value Added Tax with a 15% income tax for all incomes over the national median. No deductions, (amazingly called "tax expenditures" in the Orwellian language of the Obama Administration) no shelters for investment or business development, nothing. Just a flat tax that would apply to everyone, no matter their station or if they are a corporation or not. Everyone over the median would pay the same and everyone who consumes will also pay the VAT, so we will all be involved in paying for the government we get, deserved or not. It would stand out like a sore thumb when the first politician decides to do the bidding of the person who bought him and pass through a tax break that wouldn't apply to everyone.
But by removing the deductions, we will increase the rate of unemployment as lobbyists, accountants and tax lawyers have to go find something else to do. But I am sure that as creative people they will finally find something of use to do.

Believe It Or Not

But the legal system actually worked in the Casey Anthony trial. Like Dave, I did not follow the case at all, but my family did, including my wife who gave me constant updates on the trial's progress. From what she told me, I did not believe that the prosecutors would get a conviction on the deliberate homicide charge, but because a child was dead, I figured the jury would at least go for whatever version of manslaughter was proffered. And then, my wife called to tell me that she was "Not Guilty."
I must admit that I was surprised, inasmuch as I usually feel that juries go with what they think is fair, then their common sense, and finally will look at the law. But in this case, the jurors actually found that the State had failed in its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the aftermath of the verdict, I did have a good time watching the talking heads like Nancy Grace have a complete meltdown on air about the jury's verdict. But she was not alone, and as noted here, the court of public opinion feels as if there has been a complete miscarriage of justice.
The reality is that the system worked. The State put on the best case that they could, which really consisted of pseudo science (a device to sniff decomposition? Give me a break!) and character assassination of the defendant, but no evidence of how the child died. And that is where the case failed apparently in the eyes of the jurors.
My wife and daughter both feel that Casey is guilty of something, and I would probably agree with them on that point. But if the State doesn't prove it, how can there be a conviction unless being a bad person is all the proof you need.
Now I say that the system worked because the jury found that the State hadn't proven their case. The reason that the system is set up this way is not to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent. If mass opinion is enough, there is no real need for evidence or actual proof. Simply take a poll and determine the accused's guilt or innocence. But if you are innocent and charged with a crime, don't you want the highest standard before the State can take your freedom or even your life? And if you are convinced that the State would never wrongly charge you or your loved ones with a crime that you did not commit you are living in a fantasy world, as prosecutors become more attuned to the political winds than they are in their pursuit of justice.
If nothing else, remember the people who have given you the right to make the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and honor their sacrifice.

Most Ironic Headline Ever!

Sharpton Claims Herman Cain's Too Racially Obsessed

Knowing When to Win

The so called "kinetic action" in Libya, where it is officially declared that we "lead from behind" has House Republicans saying that the President has violated the War Powers Act. As a result, they are seeking to cut off funding for the Libyan whatever it's called military operation. The fun thing, is how much the sides have flipped on the issue. Although to be fair, Boenher did support a Democrat President (Bill Clinton) when he used military force in Yugoslavia. But the flipping by Obama is to be admired for his deft acrobatics.
I have always felt that the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional, and the proof of that is that since its passage, many have railed that whichever President of the party opposite of theirs has violated the law, but no one goes to court. Primarily because they aren't sure they will win.
My solution for the problem is to have the Congress repeal the act. When you have Harry Reid saying that the act doesn't apply, you have to wonder why it's on the books. It's time for this law to go, and we have just enough crazy people in Washington to make that happen.
The advantage is that you can remove this partisan tool that has no real value except to claim that whichever president is in office is violating the law. If Congress feels that a future president's actions are illegal, they still have the power of the purse. In the end, win-win for everyone.

The Montana School of Law Makes an Ass of Itself

There are many things that I am proud of, but being a graduate of the Law School is not one of my top ones. And when it goes nationally that the school is so petty, it really diminishes the value of the name of the school even more.
The school has a good philosophy in that it is set up more as a trade school to provide Montana with lawyers than it is with training future law professors. But some of the personalities in the faculty are further proof of my thesis that "liberal" is not the same as Left. The faculty of the school is nearly completely Left, to the exclusion of any other form of thought.
When I went there, there was Rob Natelson, who was obviously conservative, and my hero and mentor, Larry Elison, who first made me aware of libertarianism. Otherwise, the faculty was carefully insulated from any thought that could be found more than 15 minutes away from the school. I am sure that the selection committee rued the day that they selected me, and of my class of 75, maybe 5 of us weren't Left/liberal.
So, I suppose that it was no surprise that they turned down giving Prof. Natelson the honorific of "emeritus." But the loss is not Rob's. It is the petty small mindedness of the faculty that would make that decision. I don't know all of the professors there, but I am sure that many of the ones that I had are still there. The one thing that I am certain of, is that they are proud of their narrow mindedness. And they can always turn to their left and right and find someone who agrees with them. Now, if they travel as far as Lolo, East Missoula, Frenchtown or Evaro, they would be confronted by a reality that they cannot comprehend. But the folks of those towns certainly understand them.
Which is probably why they avoid the faculty of the law school.

Debate Review

I started to watch the debate last night on CNN and the first question went to Herman: In one minute or less, what will you do to fix the economy? At that moment, I knew that there was no point in watching further and headed to the bar to watch baseball and play cribbage. One minute to address all of the issues that make up our complex economy? Only an idiot TV guy would propose to do that. Later, I saw some recaps where the moderator asked stupid questions like Coke or Pepsi. I would instantly have thrown my support to the first candidate who would have said "This is not American Idol, you either start asking serious questions, or get out of the way so I can talk to the American people."
On the same vein, King kept on the idea that tax cuts don't grow the economy. No, remember after six years of the Bush cuts when we had 4% unemployment, no inflation, people had jobs, yeah, that had to be the work of magic economic fairies, not tax cuts. Tax cuts are a part of the whole framework. If you combine tax cuts (although simplification works better) with a regulatory and legal framework conducive to business, you get a growing economy. But when you throw in panic (TARP) and regulatory excess (Dodd-Frank) and cronyism (Chrysler bond holder's jobbing) and you have an environment that no one wants to be in and are only too wiling to take their jobs off shore and you have the economy we have now.


For a more complete take on the debate, I would suggest Michael Barone.

Herman Cain is Making a Mark

Even before tonight's debate on CNN, Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic is calling for him to resign from his campaign for supposed anti Muslim bigotry. The fact that this is in the Atlantic shows that the Administration is well aware of how Herman is moving up with Republicans and are trying to preemptively knock him out. If he was inconsequential, you know that the Obama administration would just ignore him.

Good Luck with that.

Why Bother?

Peter Parisi, an editor at the Washington Times has this opinion piece which echoes something that I have been thinking about for a while. Why debate with Leftists? Now, Mr. Parisi uses the term "liberal" but I reject that appellation since so many on the Left have misappropriated the term for their own use while being decidedly illiberal. There are a few that I would consider to be true liberals (as opposed to classical liberalism of the Libertarian kind) and they are usually identified when you point out the problems with the Left's talking points, they at least deem those worth considering.
But too many on the Left have simply swallowed the Kool-Aid and repeat what they have been told to think. How many times have you been accused of being a Republican as soon as they find out that you aren't a Democrat? No subtleties, no appreciation for complex experiences and reasoning, you are either with them or against them. And they do defend their own against all crimes that would have been worth of the death penalty if committed by a Republican. See for example, tax cheats, Geithner, Rangle, and a host of others, or sex freaks such as Clinton, Studds and now Weiner. I have always said that you can get away with anything once in America so long as you publicly apologize. But if you are a Democrat, don't even bother with that. Your oblivious jihadis will defend you to their death just because you have a D behind your name. Comical, if you take them seriously.
But why take them seriously anymore? I have been mystified by the strange adherence to failed policies like Keynesianism, even when it has failed to provide any proof in support of its efficacy. In fact, there is even proof that it is a complete sham of an economic theory, but still it remains sacrosanct to the Left. Why pursue such failed policies? Because as someone said we don't believe the lies we fear, we believe the ones we want to believe. And if you want the government to spend money, then Keynesianism is just the right tonic for what ails you. Sort of like when Lewis and Clark would dose their comrades with mercury to treat venereal disease. Seemed like a good idea, but it tended over the long run to kill the patient. So much for the Hippocratic oath.
The economic nostrums put forward by President Obama and his party are the same as L&C's mercury. But the difference is that the President's remedy has been tested and found wanting. Yet still they persist.
Reading the letters to the editor in the Missoulian, we see more demand that nothing be done to change Medicare. Now a rational person would say that Medicare is going to implode in about seven years, and doing nothing is not going to make that problem go away. But that is apparently the position of the Democrat Party, which means of course that the Democrats are not rational.
Although, in a way they are. If you presume to play on people's fear and ignorance in order to maintain your political power, then it is completely rational to demonize Republicans. Besides, when the system fails, who will really remember that it was the Democrat Party that contributed the most to both its inception and its destruction.
So you see, the first point I made in this post is that it is unworkable to deal with these people. You cannot rationally debate and discuss anything with them that they won't try to turn into some sort of partisan advantage at your (and the truth's) expense. To discuss anything with them is to give validity to their positions, positions that do not merit validity.
But those few who are truly "liberal" and not just Leftist, we need to work together to solve some huge problems. Just remember though, if you are not part of the main body of thought of the Democrat Party, you will be called a Republican.

Well, This is Embarrassing

We like to think that Montana is one of the last bastions of freedom, and now we find that is nearly completely false. Montana ranks 29th on the State Freedom Index. You understand that that means that 28 states are freer than we are right? The recommendations for increasing our freedom are easy enough, but our last legislature seems to have completely ignored them. From the article:

Repeal health-insurance coverage mandates to reduce costs.
Reduce occupational licensing for epidemiologists, clinical lab technicians, occupational-therapist assistants, audiologists, private detectives, alarm installers, well-driller helpers, and boiler operators.
Reform civil-asset forfeiture by requiring the government to satisfy a burden of proof and by directing revenues to the general fund.

The last one, civil forfeiture is a byproduct of the war on drugs. I haven't seen it used for awhile, but it is a law still on the books, and if you own anything, you risk losing it if some ambitious prosecutor thinks that they want it. Remember, in those cases, they just have to say that it is related to drug money, and then you have to prove it's not. Good luck with that.

They Told Me That . . . .

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame has a collection of all of his "They told me if I voted Republican/for McCain we would have . . . ." All of which is to show that the Obama administration is just the Bush third term. The things some politicians will do to reach across the aisle.

You can find them all here.

A New Catchphrase for Herman Cain

Remember James Carville's mantra "It's the economy, stupid."? Herman needs to rework it to "It's the competency, stupid." Obama has become Jimmy Carter's best hope for improving as the worst President ever.

"Obamacare" is No Longer Racist

A prominent Democratic Congressman, John Conyers of Michigan says that Democrats should embrace the term Obamacare. And it wasn't that long ago that if anyone used the term Obamacare, they were told to stop it because it is racist.

These people beclown themselves.

Lying Liars

My wife made me watch part of the Casey Anthony trial over the weekend, and then there was Weiner's admission that he had lied about being hacked.


In both cases, the seemingly effortless ability to lie was truly amazing. Maybe if Casey Anthony gets her case overturned on appeal she can become a politician.

Hat tip to Hot Air.

The Biggest Smile in the Room

The New York Times does a reasonably good piece on the Hermanator. Well worth the read.

Today's Philosophy Question

Something about little boys throwing rocks into the water raised this question: If you took all of the two year olds in the world to Flathead Lake, how long would it take them to fill the lake up? Goodness knows that he is trying.

On Memorial Day

This Memorial Day, I am a little more pessimistic about my country than I have been in the past. Let's face it, Memorial Day is no longer a day to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and more for the start of summer and mattress saleathons.
But it is also time to remember that the people that this day is supposed to honor actually represents and honors all Americans, for there is no true "warrior class" in America. Sure, the demographics show that those who serve nowadays are more likely to come from the South and the West, from rural rather than urban, middle class more than the rich. But from all over the country, they come to serve. There is an entire subculture who do not serve, and know of no one who has served. And I pity them because they don't know what they have missed.
But of those who do volunteer and serve our country, they have a very wide base of similarity: They are ordinary. Not blood thirsty mercenaries, or the common uneducated criminal class. Instead, they are both ordinary, and at the same time an example of the best that our country has to offer.
They serve their country by joining. They serve their comrades by going out of the wire with them. No matter how many times, no matter how dangerous, they honor their fellow Americans by being there with them.
It is hard to describe fear accurately. Not the fear that is artificially induced such as in a scary movie, or doing something risky like rock climbing or skydiving. No, I am talking about the fear that comes from being absolutely dead certain that your luck has run out and it's your turn. Whether to die or be maimed, it doesn't matter. You just know that you won't survive to see the next day as you are today. And yet, still they go. That my friends is what courage is. They don't teach that at basic training, or any advanced schools. It is present in every American soldier who serves.
That is what should be honored today. But don't just say "Thanks for your service." While it may be appreciated, the best way to honor this day is to remember that they didn't serve or die for your freedom as many say. No, they died or served so that you can make the country better, freer, more courageous.

Don't let them down.

What Goes Around . . .

The Republican minority in the Senate has allowed nine nominees to the Appeal Courts to go through, but just put a monkey wrench in the planned promotion of one judge for the 9th Circuit. Democrats are of course, appalled that the minority would restrict the nomination of a President. After all, elections have consequences don't they?
Why yes they do, and as I noted six years ago, it was a good thing that the Republicans didn't implement the so called "nuclear option." Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you have to wonder if Reid wants the nuclear option. Of course, intellectual consistency is not one of his high points. Heck, intellectual anything cannot be used to describe Harry. I am just waiting for the moment to return and bite him in the butt for this comment from the Examiner:

There was a revealing moment in 2005, as the filibuster fight was nearing its climax, when mild-mannered Republican Sen. Robert Bennett asked Sen. Harry Reid, who was then the minority leader, "if any number of hours of debate would be sufficient" to move the Owen nomination forward. Reid's answer was quick and sharp. "There is not a number in the universe that would be sufficient," he said.

How is it that we can elect such stupid people?
Nevada - You got a lot of explaining to do.

Good Article on the Hermanator

Slate does an okay job on Herman. I forgot about the meeting with Clinton.

Herman Cain is leading in the latest tracking poll

The Daily Caller shows that Herman Cain is now the favorite first pick to be the Republican nominee among those surveyed.

Could get a lot more interesting.

Raising (Herman) Cain

Great piece by Byron York in the Washington Examiner about Herman Cain. While watching the news shows over the weekend, I noticed that none of them mentioned Herman Cain, and I think that is just another example of the myopia of the media. Herman Cain is the real deal, a non-politician who has actually solved problems. More than political experience, what we need right now is problem solving capability. The present occupier of the White House is outstanding when it comes to politics, but is absolutely ineffectual in solving problems. It would be a stark contrast to pit the two of them together.
Some of the solutions he has proposed from the article:

Lower corporate tax rates, lower personal income tax rates -- they work. Take the capital gains tax rate to zero. Suspend taxes on foreign repatriated profits. Provide a real payroll tax holiday -- 6.2 percent for the employee, 6.2 percent for the employer. That's the Social Security piece. Do it for a year. Then put a bow around it and make those rates permanent. You do that and you remove the veil of uncertainty -- businessmen will go crazy. They will start investing again.

I would add to that, that he would also have to have a moratorium on discretionary spending to the maximum extent possible. But that is how you prime a pump for getting the economy started again. Not throwing almost a Trillion dollars at "shovel ready jobs" that are mere political hackery disguised as job creation.
Herman is set to announce on the 21st of May in Atlanta. While I would love to be there, instead, I am going to break one of my personal rules and contribute to his campaign. While giving money to a candidate only seems to encourage them, I think this is the guy to encourage.

UPDATE: C. Edmund Wright at the American Thinker has a top ten list of why Cain should be President. Check it out.

Do They Even Know Any Republicans?

Ann Althouse at her blog posts the question "Have you ever had a thought on the topic of race that isn't set generations in the past?" The question was posed by a commenter about Matthew Yglesias on Newt Gingrich. And the question has triggered something that has boiling in the back room of the brain for awhile: Do members of the Left actually know any Republicans?
If you look both near and far, you will find Democrats who say that Republicans who oppose Obama are racists. Others go further and say that Republicans want a return to the plantation economy.
Others feel that racism doesn't go far enough and refer to them as Nazis. Invoking the term Nazis is usually a sign of the failure of the argument, but some take the position proudly. It's not just the rest of the Left in this country that act so ridiculously, even here in Montana, the appellation Republican utomatically means that you are a racist/Nazi.
Part of it is amusing to me. As I have said before, the perjorative "racist" has lost its panache as a tool to shut people up thanks to its unjustified overuse. And when that fails, especially in any argument involving fiscal spending, the next accusation is almost always that Republicans want to kill old people, women and minorities. Sort of reminds me of James Taranto's Best of the Web in which he regularly inserts the fake New York Times headline "World to End! Women and Minorities hit hardest." For my humor impaired Leftist (is there any other kind?) friends, the implication is that the end of the world would be an equal opportunity disaster. I am just not certain that that many of the Left would appreciate this.
But here is the problem with these outlandish accusations: How do you negotiate with someone that you equate with "evil"? Suppose you could go back to Germany in 1934. Would you be willing to tell Hitler that his killing ten million people in concentration camps, of whom six million were Jews is unacceptable, but that you would be willing to accept five million dead, so long as Jews don't die at a disproportionate rate? You save five million people, a good thing no? Except you are still condoning evil. Same with slavery. If at the secession of the Confederacy you had the opportunity to be Jefferson Davis and negotiate with Abraham Lincoln, saying that you would be willing to release half the slaves from bondage if the South would be left alone. In the long run, you could possibly prevent the costliest war in American history. If you were Lincoln, could you accept such a proposal? Of course not!
I know that there are the Leftist fanatics, the equivalent of jihadi suicide bombers who really don't care what they say, so long as it has a negative effect on their Republican opponents. They are immune from logic and facts and have no purpose but to destroy. From their appearance in the media, they do seem to be the most vocal.
But do any on the Left really know Republicans? Do they honestly believe their trope about Republicans not just wishing ill, but actually being evil? If there are those who know Republicans, isn't it hard to say that the nice family that lives up the block and contribute regularly to charitable causes like the homeless shelter, or who are willing to take in foster children from abusive homes really are Nazis? What about the Republicans who are hiring inexperienced youngsters in their businesses in the hope that they can make them into a productive worker and citizen? Are they really so evil that they deserve such hatred?
My biggest complaint about Republicans, is that they really don't know much about the poor. They have mistaken beliefs that one can get Social Security Disability payments for being a drug user or alcoholic. This hasn't been true for years. Republicans also don't recognize the damage done through the social network programs that are ostensibly to help the poor. The dehumanizing treatment to receive aid has a tremendous effect on people with personal pride.
On the other hand, my Democrat friends ignore the abuse by people who live off of the system without any intention of getting off of it. Consider the twentysomething who is so desperately trying to get the $610 a month plus Medicaid and has no intentions of doing anything but playing video games (if that was ever an occupation, we would cut the SSI rolls in half) and dabble in criminal activity to supplement their income, and is completely satisfied with the arrangement. Those of us who work on the frontlines of poverty see everyone of the above. Add in the lazy, deliberately stupid, and con artists who have figured out how to milk the system, and you have created a system for parasites, not for the downtrodden.
Our problems are too complex for most people to comprehend, and from that the demagogs arise with full throated fury to decry the other. But if we are to discuss our issues, the Left needs to realize how unproductive their attacks are. I would never bother to discuss political and economic theory with someone who thinks I am a Nazi or racist. Why would they want to do the same thing if they believe I am one of their enemies? But they need to remember that the Left is a minority in this country. Even among poor people, there is a desire to achieve economically. Very few of them believe that they are condemned to poverty. But the system of social services helps to keep them that way.
Until the Left leaves their comfortable enclaves where everyone thinks the same, it is easy for them to believe that Republicans in general, and Tea Party in particular are singularly evil. As long as they think that way, they are cut off from a wealth of experiences that would improve their lives.
Too bad for them.

Herman Cain for President

I along with almost two other people, just watched the Republican debate, and in the words of VodkaPundit, I have a heterorsexual mancrush on Herman Cain. He may not be the smoothest, but he sure as hell strikes me as the best candidate for the country.

Check him out.

Smile for the Camera!

The President is to be commended for ordering the takedown of Osama bin Laden, (although there is the problem that he had to interrupt his deliberations on it in order to attend the White House Correspondent's Dinner). However, if you thought the "birther" issue was a pain, wait now for the "deathers" to start rearing their ugly heads.
Apparently though, the President has decided not to release photos of the body because he fears the impact that it may have on the Islamic world, and indirectly, on US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there is one point in his comments that I find rather awkward:

Imagine how the American people would react if Al Qaida killed one of our troops or military leaders, and put photos of the body on the internet," he continued. "Osama bin Laden is not a trophy - he is dead and let's now focus on continuing the fight until Al Qaida has been eliminated.

True, Osama is not a trophy to be exhibited, but his reference to the sensibilities of Americans about a photo of a dead guy being the same sensibilities of the Arab street are disingenuous. The bazaars of Baghdad are filled with DVDs of the snuff videos of Al Qaeda sawing some poor innocent's head off. This is just the equivalent of porn over there.
Contrast his reticence to release the photos with the release of the photos of Abu Ghraib, or the demand to take pictures of returning caskets. In both of these latter cases, there was a demand that the "world should know." Cloaking themselves in the rightness of informing the public, their silence now reveals them for what they actually are: People bent on the destruction of George Bush, whose hatred of him is so great that they were willing to sacrifice American troops to greater danger on behalf of their agenda.

May they, along with Osama bin Laden enjoy their prolonged stay in Hell.

Hey - Racist!

It was as predictable as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. But a little unsettling in the widespread and coordinated attacks about anyone who wasn't "sure" that the President is an American citizen. We have Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, saying that Donald Trump is "aspiring to be the new Joe McCarthy." How dare Trump ask questions about the President's birth certificate and grades?
Donald Trump may be a clown, a self promoter, or as the President says, "A carnival barker" but you have to admit that he has done what the supposed media have refused to do, and that is force the President to produce actual evidence. One can argue that it was already proven, so there was no reason, but if so, why the delay of all of this time. One theory holds that the Democrats wanted the issue kept alive so that they could claim that anyone who didn't agree that the issue was resolved must be a racist. To quote from the article:

Many critics of the birther movement say its core tenets--and its stubborn resistance to evidence disproving those beliefs--can be traced to racial hostilities. The fundamental birtherist conviction, these critics say, is that an African-American can't have legitimately won the presidency--and that his elevation to power therefore has to be the result of an elaborate subterfuge.

Why would anyone want to believe that it was a subterfuge? How about the fact that the Main Stream Media sent 70 investigators to Alaska, but we still know almost nothing about the President himself. It is the obviously obsequious lap dogs of our supposed Fourth Estate who have brought their integrity into question. Sure, the birther question was ridiculous, but so was the allegation that "Bush knew" about the 9-11 attacks. One third of Democrats still believe that lie, but they received none of the attacks of people who didn't believe the press.
But the funniest has to be the direct accusations of racism of anyone who doesn't enthusiastically support Obama. Even supposed "newsman" Bob Schieffer discounts any legitimate criticism of the President as being based in racist undertones. He is supported in this baseless accusation by academics who see nothing wrong with what Obama has done, and therefore, the only explanation has to again be racism. the funniest has to be Whoopi Goldberg, who announced that she is deliberately "playing the race card" in this case. Well, if Whoopi Goldberg calls you a racist, you must be one, right?
Their overuse of what was once a legitimate allegation has devolved into a purely partisan one, that is only worthy of scorn and derision. If everyone who is now part of the 53% who disapprove of Obama is a racist, how in the heck did he get elected in the first place?
No, they cannot legitimately defend the President's record so they attack those who are disappointed in him by trying to deligitamise then by using the magic word that always shut up conservatives before: Racist!
The bad thing about this despicable tactic, is that it obscures real racism, and gives cover to those racists, who can point out non-racists accused of the crime. But this is all about winning, not being correct. They can justify their lies because they are so used to lying about everything else.
It's not going to work anymore though. It may become just another perjorative that will be tossed to the side as further evidence of the lack of the accuser's ability to think rationally or present a cogent argument. May that day come when we all laugh at these accusers sooner rather than later.

UPDATE: As proof of the intellectual pygmies, (oops, is that racist?) lack of reasonable thought, you just have to go here so see my points are validated.

Atticus Finch They Ain't

"How can you defend guilty people?" my mother once asked me. I told her that no one is guilty until the judge says they are. "But what if they tell you they did it?" she continued. I told her that the State has the obligation to prove each and every fact, and if they can't, even though my client admitted it, they can't reach a guilty verdict. I know that she wasn't satisfied, and I know that she is not alone in her belief, but I still believe in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence and the right to be represented by counsel.
I love being a lawyer. I love that I can use all of my skill, knowledge and ethics to present the best case on behalf of my clients in the pursuit of justice. I have defended all sorts of people, from the first time defendant who made a mistake on how many glasses of wine she had at dinner, to an incestuous torturing sadist. This isn't saying that I have to like my clients, although many I do, it is my job to put the State to the test and make them prove their case. That is what lawyers do.
Until now.
In case you didn't know it, the Obama Administration has taken the position that they will no longer defend DOMA, otherwise known as the Defense of Marriage Act, which basically prohibits federal recognition of same sex marriage. Now, I think the law is a travesty, violating the X Amendment, and none of their damned business. But the administration choosing not to defend a law on the books is really stupid. Do they not think about what happens when they are no longer in office? If the next Republican administration decides not to defend Affirmative Action, they will have an even greater basis for doing so, since Sandra Day O'Connor said that she thought the law should be invalid after 25 more years from her ruling. The Republican administration could argue that there was no reason to wait.
But this post isn't about the stupid choices of the Obama Administration. It's about lawyers, and the people they represent. Seems that the House Republicans decided to hire a prestigious Atlanta law firm of King & Spalding to represent the defense of DOMA. King & Spalding were apparently happy to take the work until gay activists were able to bring so much pressure on them, that they decided to abandon their client. The lawyer in the firm who took the case, has since resigned, taking the case with him. Former US Soliciter General, Paul Clement said

"A representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters," he wrote to Hays. "Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do."

The idea that lawyers can be chased from unpopular clients is completely alien to me. The (fictional) standard bearer has always been Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird." The small town country lawyer who defended a black man accused of raping a white woman. There was no evidence, and the accuser was shown to be a liar, but the jury convicted nonetheless and later expedited "justice" by lynching the defendant.
The law firm of King & Spalding do not honor Atticus Finch. In fact, they dishonor the entire profession. I may not like my client, his cause, or anything else, but if a lawyer can be forced to withdraw because of popular pressure, the right to counsel is meaningless.

UPDATE: I have since learned that Spalding is the correct spelling, but in my defense, it was spelled that way in the Post article.

Conspiracy within Conspiracy

The Wisconsin Supreme Court election recently passed has almost no effect on Montanans, but the kerfluffle afterwards sure has. Seems as though the initial results reported by the AP did not include some town, and as a result, the AP declared Kloppenburg the winner by just 200 votes. Ms. Kloppenburg promptly raced to the microphones to declare her victory, and of course offer her gratitude to her opponent for losing so gracefully. Then -Whoops, the AP count didn't include over 7000 votes for her opponent, making him the winner. Except that the votes were always there, they just weren't reported to the press. They were reported to the proper authorities and included in the official count. Now Ms. Kloppenburg is hinting at dastardly actions by -gasp- conservative bloggers who have somehow robbed her of her victory.
Now just for fun, let's posit an alternative, for which there is no factual basis, but could be amusing just the same. After the Minnesota Senatorial vote that started out showing Norm Coleman the winner, votes kept popping up all over the place until Al Franken was finally declared the winner. Ponder for a moment, that you are a Republican in Wisconsin, worried about the same sort of electoral mischief happening in your home state. What if you withheld the reporting of a block of votes just long enough to make the possible election thieves show their cards as it were? They would be hard pressed to suddenly go back and try and figure out how many other votes they would have to create for their candidate and would be locked in.
I realize that this is all speculation, and the most important fact that would be used to disprove it is that Republicans don't seem to think that far ahead, in spite of being blamed for starving kids and seniors alike, as well as polluting everything and, oh yeah, taking candy away from kids. (Wait a minute, isn't that the job of the Mayor of New York?)

It's My Blogaversary

Six years ago, started with the first post. Amazing. I think Electric City is the only longer continuously posted conservative blog since Dave Budge became integrated with it and quit posting on his own.
Not sure if six years means endurance, hardheadedness, or lack of imagination. Have to think about that one for awhile.

Why the Birther Movement Endures

A recent article is headlined, "Only 26 per cent of Iowa Republicans believe Obama was born in U.S." I bring this up because of Donald Trump's quest to make the President provide his birth certificate. Now I have long held that "birthers" are no different than the Democrats who claimed that Bush stole the election, or that "Bush lied." There was absolutely no evidence to support those contentions, but they were made for the purpose of deligitimizing the President to prevent him from doing his job.
But I am beginning to think that there may be another explanation: We no longer trust the Main Stream Media, otherwise known as the Press Secretariat for President Obama. For instance, if you go back to the article linked above, it seems as though nearly three quarters of Republicans believe that Obama is foreign born. But if you read the article, you find that 26% also say that they don't know.
The reason they don't know, is that they do not trust the media to be honest. Let's face it, when Sarah Palin was nominated for VP, there were something like 70 investigators sent to Alaska to dig up dirt on her. How many were sent to Princeton or Harvard Law to find out anything about Obama? Do you know anything about his time at those institutions, or even anything about his life that is not in his books? In fact, someone who is an Obama biographer even stated not too long ago that a good portion of his book was just made up. But no one asks him any question about it.
It goes beyond that, from Nancy Pelosi saying that Republicans are going to starve 6 million seniors, or more locally, the radio commercial that says we are all now breathing in arsenic and polluted air since Denny Rehberg voted against the commercials sponsor's pet view. Yet there is no media saying to them, "That is false." Instead, they go running to the Republicans to ask their opinion of the Democrat's talking points, as if they have accepted them at face value.
The Fourth Estate has claimed for themselves the mantle of protecting Democracy by their ever probing and investigating of public figures. While it is good that they do that to the Republicans, it is their absence of the same strict scrutiny for Democrats which shows that they are nothing more than lap dogs for the Democrat Party. Of course Republicans don't believe them when the press announces that Obama is a natural born citizen. They don't believe them on anything else either.
I know that if I had to provide a birth certificate, I would have to make an application to Virginia listing my place and date of birth and they would send me a copy of my birth certificate. But is it really me? Sure I was raised by my parents who told me that is who I was, but I have no proof beyond their assertions. There is no photo of me being born, nor any genetic material tied to the certificate that could be tested to verify it is me. Personally, I have no actual recollection of the event, so I can bring no details to verify that it is me.
But that doesn't mean I am not the person on the birth certificate. But let's face it, the only solution for this to end is for the President to authorize the Governor of Hawaii to release his birth certificate to the public. Oh wait a minute, maybe that won't work.

Obamnomics Revisited

President Obama in his recent address on the budget (where he ignored his previously proposed budget) lambasted Cong. Ryan even after having invited the Congressman to sit in the front row. Well that will build goodwill toward solving the problem. But maybe, he never was in favor of solving the problem. If you believe Cloward-Piven, this is exactly on track with their plan to bankrupt the country and create social upheaval to the point of revolution. The problem with Cloward-Piven is that the disruption of government also results in the disruption of social services, so the poor are disproportionately hurt. But at least those that espouse the theory will be happy that the current situation will be ended. That is, that they think the poor will rise up and eat the rich I guess. It makes no sense, but it does seem to be the path that we are on.
Another option is to raise the taxes on the rich. A favorite of class warriors everywhere. We must punish those that have more than we do. Why? I still haven't figured that one out. But again, class envy is on display and it is not a pretty thing. The Progressive Caucus of Congress is even proposing a tax of 90% on all income over $106,000 a year. What a wonderful idea! Sure, taking everything (and I mean 100% of all income of the top 25%) wouldn't close the deficit, it would make Progressives feel better. But they seem to lack the understanding that if you are a high income earner, that if confronted with the choice of working 80 hours a week to make a net $10k in take home per year, the majority are going to decide that it's time to close the business and retire. That will really end their ability to be rich, or employ people, or invest, or even to pay taxes at the same rate they are now. The Left seem to believe that the rich are hard workers and will continue to work just as hard for no incentives. I think that they are wrong, but time will tell.
So, in either case under the proposals of the President and the Democrat Party, we will not close the debt, we will destroy the country and unemployment is going to make the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. But they also are using Qualitative Ea&sing to inflate the dollar to cover the debt. This will result in a complete destruction of personal savings, and forcing old people on fixed incomes to clip coupons just to buy their one can of Alpo they can afford each day. Not to mention it will be impossible to buy a home on a mortgage of 21% or more.
Hope and Change, and the unbelievable thing is that Obama may get re-elected because of the weakness of the Republican Presidential candidates.
My advice is to face the facts and grab all you can before it all goes to hell. There is no hope with this administration that either consciously or not is working to destroy our nation. It's too late, unless you have enough savings to flee to Australia. Oh wait, they are no different either.

Damn, what's a sensible person to do?

Global Warming Has been Cured

April 18th, 2011 at 3:30 p.m.

I said when I walked in that Global Warming was a lie, and one of my young earnest associates reminded me that it's currently called "Climate Change." I told her the climate is changing in the wrong damned direction.

What the Tea Party is Really About

“It’s amazing to me to be lectured to and hear about how awful the Tea Party is.”

So began Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) defense of the Tea Party on the Senate floor yesterday. And he took off from there, inviting detractors to visit an actual rally and chastising Democrats for trying to blame the Tea Party for the delay in approving a budget bill.

“They want to blame it on the Tea Party because in their secret caucus meetings they’ve done a poll that says the Tea Party could be the villain. Call them extreme, call them all Tea Partiers, say the Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party,” he said. “Well you know what the Tea Party believes in? Good government. We Believe in balancing the budget. We believe in reducing spending.”

I suppose that is why they are demonized. Because the status quo allows for the continuing ripoff of the taxpayers and they don't want it to stop.

Free Obama!

In spite of his announcement that he is running for re-election, President Obama is bemoaning his loss of privacy. He can no longer just be a dad without the world having to wait for his decisions.

I know I will do my part to help him reattain that level of anonymity of Jimmy Carter.

Paul Krugman Says There Will be Death Panels

Sheesh, why in the world anyone would believe this idiot is beyond me. Doesn't he know that the official Lefty line is that Death Panels were made up by Fox News? Of course, he could finally be coming into contact with reality.
My bet is that Krugman will find a way to spin this as a positive.

Rethinking the Argument

While the Left is concerned because their message isn't getting out (it really is, that is why it is rejected) the Republicans seem to have a problem framing their argument as well. For instance, on the recent budget compromise, the agreement was to cut $38 billion from an already bloated budget. $38 billion sounds like a lot of money, and the opponents have been able to demagogue Republicans as wanting to starve old people and kill kids with that amount of cuts.
But what if instead of arguing for that amount of cuts, they were instead to call for a 5% cut across the board in all government spending? That amount doesn't seem so much does it? Surely the government could exist on 95% of what it had before. And the beauty of the thing is that a 5% cut would equal about $180 billion in savings. Still too little concerning a $1.6 trillion dollar deficit, but if you keep cutting 5% every year, you could actually get down to a real number.
Another argument that needs to be made is that we need to balance our priorities while we balance the budget. For instance, the corporation for public broadcasting received $422 million in federal subsidies last year. How many meals would that provide for the elderly? How many children could receive immunizations for that amount? In fact, let's keep going, National Endowment for the Arts? How many homeless shelters could we provide for the same amount? Green energy subsidies - those that raise the price of food and fuel? Instead of doing that, reorienting the money into mass urban transit. In fact, if you were to eliminate the Department of Education, how many more Pell grants could be offered from the savings?
The trick would be to defund these organizations, and put half the savings into debt reduction and the other half into more worthwhile aid to the truly needy.
But they don't call Republicans the "Stupid Party" for nothing.

Comedy

There are times, that I envy the Left. Unconstrained by logic, facts or consistency, they are ardent in their misguided adventures. Some argue that all government spending is good for the economy, except military spending. According to them, if we don't pay for NPR and Planned Parenthood, the entire US economy will collapse into shambles. There seems to be absolutely no awareness of a moral obligation to pay one's debts. Why this is seems to escape me. But that is just one of their advantages.
But the best part has to be how they feel that their messaging is just not quite good enough. Apparently, it's not enough to describe Republicans as being villains who want to starve 6 million old people, kill everyone on Medicare, or who just want to eat the flesh of babies who escape abortion. No, they feel that isn't working well enough, so Matt Singer has come up with a new solution: The Tax Cheat as a villain. From the article:

But of course there's no reason why we can't learn from our mistakes by copying their strategy. And to those ends I'd like to suggest that our new villain is the "Tax Cheat". The name itself tells us a few things. We're not going to say that he's rich, we'll let the voters fill that one in for themselves. Which is great because this lets us play the class card, without offending any of our wealthy allies and donors who happen to have a conscience. But more importantly it says he has tax liability or that he owes something to society. Few people actually enjoy paying their taxes (although most people like what our taxes afford us), but we pay them nonetheless out of obligation to each other and future generations. Most importantly regardless of what we pay, each of us thinks individually that we pay our "fair share." But the Tax Cheat doesn't. He doesn't contribute a dime toward all the things that make our system work. He still uses the parks, schools, and bridges like everyone else, but we the "tax-payers" end up footing the bill.

Emphasis added.
Now, I actually like this one. But there's just one problem, they are viewing it through their ideological prism, and don't see the missteps inherent. First, if you want the rich to pay their "fair share" you have to argue for a tax cut for them. How is it "fair" if we go out for a group gathering and when the bill for the 10 of us comes, one pays almost half, four pick up the rest and five pay nothing? Obviously, to be fair, all should pay, but that apparently isn't the "fair share" that is envisioned. "Fair share" has been beaten into something that no longer represents the common understanding of the word.
But what about all of those people who use our parks, schools, and bridges and don't pay anything? Essentially the 47% of the public that effectively pay no income tax. Or how about using schools and voting for school bond levies without owning property subject to tax, in other words, getting by scot free.
Just further evidence that the Democrats have moved from representing the working man to being the party of government.

What Was The Point?

When Obama first decided to enter the Libyan civil war on the behalf of the rebels, I wrote that I supported him, just as I would have hoped that the Left would have supported any president who sends American forces into harms way. But now that American forces have been withdrawn, I have to ask, "What the hell was he thinking?"
Bombing another country, then walking away saying "Never mind" is not a usually successful foreign policy. Especially when that country has been know in the past to use terror agents to kill Americans. I have a feeling that this act of humanitarianism is going to come back and haunt us in the not too far future.

Obama and the Libyan rebels remind me of the Murphy's Law that "Professional soldiers are predictable; the world is full of dangerous amateurs."

Why Conservatives Should Vote for Obama

They told me if I voted for McCain we would have tax cuts for the wealthy, military intervention without Congressional approval, Gitmo would remain open and terrorists would not be tried in civilian courts, not to mention secret terrorist detention centers. That there would be increased secret communications monitoring, and less transparency in government, that the government would prosecute its enemies
But at least with Obama, there aren't those massive protests of by all of the Lefties. Just kind of goes to show that the only thing wrong with Bush is that he wasn't a Democrat.

Barone on the Ryan Budget

I always enjoy Michael Barone, and dd not know that he is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, but he has a piece out talking about the proposed Ryan budget. What is sad and yet so predictable at the same time are the opponents demonizing a plan that they do not know, nor understand. But we are facing a predictable crisis, and half the politicians are using it to beat over the heads of their opponents. But if we fail to act, health care costs will be nothing compared to payment on the debt.
We have three options: Raise taxes, which lowers economic growth, except for tax avoidance; cut sending and finally; increase GDP. By doing the first two, we will automatically cause the third.
But I have little faith in my countrymen at the moment. I am sure that the Democrats will demagogue this thing to death, and will continue to make the problem worse.

What Went Wrong?

Let's face it, this Legislature has been a tremendous disappointment. I am not just talking about the "Cowboy Code" or the need for an atlatl hunting law. But first, let me say what they have done well so far. Er . . . okay, they have done a good job of cutting spending, even if is against my personal best interests like in a pay freeze or cuts to the Public Defender Office. But I agree that we need to reduce the imposition of government on our lives, and reducing spending does that better than anything.
Now for the rest of their activity. I have just one question that I would ask everyone to inquire of their legislator: What have you done to expand, or at the least, protect freedom? Are we protecting freedom by keeping an unconstitutional law that bans gays? Are we making ourselves more responsible as individuals by repealing the popular referendum on marijuana? Sure twenty somethings may be gaming the system and getting cards for less than serious conditions, but how does that harm anyone?
Have we traded off the Democrat nanny state for the Republican nanny state? Are we better off with the new laws, or is it that the new (and probably temporary) majority imposing their versions of what they want us to be? I should have known that there was something wrong, when a legislator was saying that the Republicans in the House were "positively giddy" at their majority.

They should have been in awe.

Wowza

Just watched Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday say that he had reached out to the Obama administration for someone to officially comment on what's going on in Libya.  From memory, Chris said Secretary Hillary Clinton and Secretary Gates were both on all of the other news channels, even though they have less viewers than Fox News Sunday but no one from the Administration would come on FNS.
Think about that, the administration has given up trying to explain to anyone who might not have the exact same view as they do.  That is one helluva concession.

The Libyan "War"

Professor Natelson does an excellent analysis of why the Libyan "War" is unconstitutional.  But like any good lawyer, I have to find a way for the client to do what they want to that is legal.  Some may consider it semantics and unfair, but the law has nothing to do with"being fair."  Fair is where you go for cotton candy and rides, it has nothing to do with the legal universe.
Nonetheless, I think the way that the Obama administration can justify its actions in Libya is not to call it "kinetic military action" but a live fire training exercise that uses the entire Libyan country as a range.  After all, if you are going to have a war, shouldn't it be two sided?  Outside of a malfunction by an F-15E, there have been no losses by the US in our "Training Exercise."  Therefore, it can't really be a war. 
Of course, this is just further evidence that the feds are grabbing up land for their exclusive use left and right, but live fire training exercise just sounds better than kinetic military action.

Well, This is Scary

If you knew someone had organized a plan that would destabilize the country for the purpose of inciting a revolution, most people would consider that to be a criminal act.  But Stephen Lerner who used to be a bigwig in the SEIU which of course has ties to ACORN, and through its head, Andy Stern have unparalleled access to the White House is planning just that.  Lerner intends to lead a mortgage strike and to attack the offices of JP Morgan and their annual meeting.  His intent is to so destabilize the economy, that the country will collapse, and from this, the poor will rise up and take from the rich.  Classic Cloward-Piven.
I have always wondered why the SEIU isn't investigated as a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization, but now it seems that they have ties to the Center for American Progress and George Soros to provide the funding for this revolution of the proletariat.  I would feel better if the Justice Department investigated this criminal enterprise.

Oh wait, it's Eric Holder.  Nevermind, it will just go on exactly as Soros planned it.  What do you want to be he has been shorting the dollar?

Impeach Obama?

There is a small coterie on the Left who I have to give credit for being consistent, expecially Dennis Kucinich, in that they are calling for the impeachment of President Obama for the same grounds that they called for the impeachment of President Bush.  Then there are the members of the Democratic press corps, also called the Main Stream Media, and MSNBC in particular who are bending over backwards to support this President in his use of force.  Sure, Bush went to Congress and obtained a Joint Resolution for the Use of Foce in Iraq, but it wasn't an actual, you know, declaration of war.  In technical terms, this is called pole vaulting over mouse turds.
But it is kind of fun watching the hypcrites of the Left who used to say that any criticism of Obama  could only be because of racism. You might notice how that dull sword has been sheathed for now.  It's also refreshing to note that Obama seems to be carrying George Bush's foreign policy forward, even if he won't admit it.
But is the President's actions really an impeachable offense?  Jack Goldsmith, writing in Slate argues that the President's actions are completely constitutional.  In addition to the examples that he cited, it is also ironic that I think Thomas Jefferson did not declare war on the Barbary pirates, now home to the quasi nation of Libya either. 
But what about the requirement that the Congress is the only one that can actually declare war?  True, but it has lost a lot of its meaning over the years as Mr. Goldsmith says.  In fact, for Congress to declare war is an extremely significant action which implies the full weight of the country behind the destruction of an opponent.  At the moment, we are using less than our full capability.  But if Congress actually did declare war, would that license the use of nukes?
I am a traditionalist when it comes to the Constitution, but I appreciate that there have changes. For instance the Commerce clause being used to restrict growing wheat for personal use was never contemplated by the Founders, but it is the law of the land.  In the same way, we have to acknowledge that through unopposed use of force without Congressional declaration of war is the norm, and it fits within the President's dual role of Commander in Chief and the primary director of foreign affairs. 
Obama has made a lot of mistakes in how he got into this, and his handling has not been any better, but it is his call.  And to those who still object to the fact that Libya never posed a threat to us, I will agree with you.  But neither did Rwanda, and I am still ashamed that we stood by and did nothing when three quarters of a million people were literally butchered.  There is no good answer, and in questions involving foreign policy, the default position has to be to support the President.

And I do.

Springtime for Hitler

On this the first day of Spring, when hope springs eternal, I decided to take a round of some of the Lefty blogs.  First Wulfgar has decided to just move all of his posting onto the dead and dieing Left in the West.  There I found out that if you are at all sympathetic to the Republicans, why you are a Nazi!  Not only that, you HATE people and want to see them suffer.

Truly a comical piece devoid of anything but impotent (and I use the term deliberately) and pathetic anger.  It's nice to remember, they aren't even worth considering.

Nazis?  I hate these guys.

On Libya

There are a lot of things to complain about in our involvement in enforcing the "No Fly Zone" over Libya right now, especially as to how President Obama has demonstrated his leadership on the issue.  I could point out how he has dithered while civilians were being massacred, and then said that we weren't going to participate, which gave Ghaddaffi a free hand in suppression his own people.  I could also point out how he ignored Sarkozy's calls for action, or those of David Cameron's as well.  The fact that even the Arab League had called for a no fly zone, although, predictably, they are now reconsidering gave him authorization to help the rebels.
But the fact of the matter is that the President is the primary agent for the implementation of the country's foreign policy, and if he feels it is in America's best interests, that decision needs to be respected and supported.  So I will not be like the many Leftist hypocrites who only attacked Bush because he wasn't a Democrat, and will instead quietly support the President and the forces in harms way.
However, I do think that his statement that troops will not be put on the ground is a mistake that he will need to readdress.  Like most Third World Armies, the Libyan forces are predominantly set up to kill their own citizens.  As such, they tend to be more rabble looking than professional.  So how are you going to discern between pro Ghaddafy forces and the rebels?  What happens when rebels capture tanks and turn them on the  government forces?  Are they then subject to attack because we can't tell them apart?  What we need are  the Special Forces troops in Algeria to come assist in the targeting and direction of air power to avoid friendlies.  Without them on the ground, we are going to invevitably attack the wrong guys.
So here's to the President, may he be wise and decisive.  He might even find that he likes it, since he hasn't tried it yet.

A Thousand Words

On Obama's leadership:

I guess this explains why he said this:

# "I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future."--Barack Obama, Democratic National convention, Aug. 28, 2008

Emphasis added.

This is What Democracy Looks Like

The Left seems to have a well developed sense of entitlement, so much so that they are happily sending death threats to Wisconsin legislators with whom they disagree. Outside of the criminal acts, and not to mention the poor spelling and grammar (Having people like this support teachers is not a positive thing) the willingness to disregard the ballot box and electoral results show what they mean to be democracy.
My favorite bit is how the law will force 300,000 to lose their jobs, their homes and into poverty. The reality is that if the union workers no longer have forced dues removal, they will probably not pay their dues. No dues means no massive campaign contributions to Democrats, which means less Democrats.
So in essence, the entire Wisconsin debacle boils down to a cutoff of forced extortion. And the extortionists don't like it.

Random Thoughts

Life has been busy, so no posting for almost two weeks. I have had alot of thoughts for posts, but just haven't put them down, so here is the Reader's Digest version:

The snow came off the back yard finally, and we have been spending the afternoon picking up dog poop. We had offered free drinks and a prize to our friends who wanted to help, and whoever had the most amount of poop picked up. No takers, hmm I wonder why? Also, if anyone could figure out how to turn doggy doo-doo into a form of usable energy, I would be rich.

There is always that moment of relevance that you find when you least expect it. On Friday, I read in the paper that environmentalists had decried the passage of the big drums being trucked from Idaho to Billings. One even calling the permission to transport a "catastrophe." Then I heard about the earthquake in Japan, and you realize what a catastrophe actually is.

Wisconsin is still trying to stay relevant by having 100,000 people show up at the capital to take it over and chant "This is what democracy looks like." They may be right, but I don't think that is anything to be proud of.

I also get a kick out of the labor bosses saying that Gov. Walker's actions are in support of his corporate masters. Really? What is it that they are so programmed with terms that work, they don't realize that what they are saying makes no sense? There are no corporate masters over government unions. There are only tax payers. And in the end, there will still be schools and teachers, and workers in government offices, in spite of the supposed assault on worker's rights. But they should thank the Governor for saving them from themselves. As they say, anything that is unsustainable, will eventually fail to be sustained. If they keep demanding more from the taxpayers through the collusion of governing officials who are enriched by the unions that they are supposed to be negotiating against, is not sustainable as well.

President Obama is trying out his new "smart diplomacy" on Libya. Poor bastards. While I agree that it is a difficult choice, to simply stand on the sidelines is not a choice at all. If we did impose a "no-fly zone" it would be an act of war, but could turn the tide to the popular resistance over an autocrat. The difference between Obama and Bush is that the first muddles along, trying not to alienate the ones still in power and hoping for the best. Bush would have acted, and he may have been right or wrong. But a muddle results in nothing, while a choice to act results in either success or failure. Even in a binary system, the chance of success is still greater than doing nothing.

This Just Is Not Right

Bristol Palin is joining Justin Bieber in writing a memoir. Boy, I can hardly wait to see what she has learned in her 21 years and he in his 17.


No I'm not.

Way to Go Auntie!

AuntieLib at 2 Helena Handbasket has an in depth analysis of the Good Guv, and what he is doing. Between Schweitzer and Racicot, I am amazed at the snake oil salesmen, er I mean politicians that we elect to the highest office in the state. Their ability to sell us smoke and tell us it's cause we're "hot" is how they get elected and stay in the limelight.
But Auntie does a great job at the whole analysis and in the end leaves off with wondering about BS's political future. I had speculated before that Tester having so little cash on hand for a reelection run meant that he would probably not do so. But then he goes and surprises me by refiling. Except that I have heard a rumor from people not too far from his campaign that he is telling his people to start sending out their resumes because he doesn't think that he'll win. So, what if Tester drops out of the race, and Schweitzer drops in? Sufficient name recognition and probably the most popular Democrat state wide right now.
Auntie's analysis will probably be the biggest impediment to BS going to the Senate, but I am sure that he still has dreams of ever higher glory.

Great job Auntie!

The End of Sarah Palin Month

What began as part of a grassroots response to the State Controlled Media's announcement that they were no longer going to cover Palin is now coming to an end. This will be the 50th post that I have made this month, (I am writing this on Saturday) and while not all of them are about Palin, this is the most amount of posting that I have ever done, and the traffic statistics point out that it does draw eyes. It's not that Sarah needs or for all I know even wants my support, but I am highly pissed off at the idea that those who are supposed to provide me with information decide to arbitrarily cut off all such information.
I may have made only a blip on the blogosphere, but add us all together and we carry weight. If we can shed some light on the ignorance peddled by the Left and their media, we will have accomplished quite a bit. So Sarah, here's to you. Without all of the hatred, you would probably never have achieved what you have.

Now, what should I do for the next month? I have thought about correcting Rob Kaily/Wolfboy, but there is not enough time in the day. Then I thought about correcting the rest of the Leftosphere, but again, what is the point? They are irrelevant even while being noisy. I will have to think about some new subject. Any suggestions?

Even Jerry Springer Gets It

Just found this wherre Jerry Springer says it's a mistake for liberals (Although I think he means Leftists) to attack Palin. The Reader's Digest version is that when they mock Palin, they mock people like her, and there are twice as many people like her as there are Leftists.
Sitting in their comfortable echo chamber where they only talk to like minded souls, they miss the fact that the rest of the country is not like them. Oh sure, they look with disdain on those they want to help (Think "What's the Matter with Kansas?) even if they don't want the help.
But keep it up. As a minority, your ability to piss off the rest of us is much greater than your numbers would be expected to.

Why Sarah Palin Really Matters

Most tall buildings have lightning rods that help direct strikes away from the building and safely into the ground. In much the same way, Sarah Palin is the lightning rod for conservatism. I have no idea if she will run, but the amusement never ends when the Left decides that she is not fit for office. This obsession is almost a "birther" equivalent for the Left, in that it has taken on a life of its own.
Unthinking in their hatred, they claim that she is not worthy, while they ignore Joe Biden. You know, if they had any consistency, they would be calling for Biden to step down at the end of Obama's first term. But this is not about consistency, nor morality or even facts. It's about winning, and Sarah imperils that goal and they know it.
There is no use in discussing it with them, because they are emotional and thus irrational. Their morality is fake, and their facts questionable. But it's still fun to watch the flop sweat coming off of them as they stamp their little feet and scream "I am too relevant!"

No you're not. But Sarah is.

The Government is Taking Over

At least in the State of Montana. Apparently, government is now the largest single employer in the state, and also has the largest share of the economy. Of course, the reason for that is the slowdown in the economy more than anything else. But if instability continues in the Middle East, as it would be reasonable to presume, the price of oil will stay high which very well could prolong and deepen the recession.
Our only hope is to grow the economy, and that is not going to happen anytime soon with so called "Green Jobs." We need to change the bureaucratic mindset from "prove you will do no harm" which is proving a negative, to buy a bond that will make it uneconomical to do environmental harm. If we could just catch up with North Dakota and Wyoming, we might be able to provide more of the economy from something other than government.

The Problem With Government Unions

I have not seen it addressed, and no one seems to want to talk about the inherent conflict of interest for the government (especially Democrats) and unions when it comes to bargaining. As the above cartoon shows, there is a collusion between what should be separate and equal competitors bargaining over resources.
The government does not actually represent the taxpayer interests when it negotiates with unions. As an example, in the 2008 campaign, unions contributed $400 million to Democrats and were in the top five of the top ten contributors and the top ten of the top twenty contributors. The majority of the money seeming to come from the government unions. If the government was an independent entity, it would try to maximize work while minimizing costs. But the government is nothing more than a cash cow to be milked for the advancement of Democrat Party, it will help to funnel massive amounts of money to sustain the attack on the taxpayer. And the amount of money the unions are able to churn out shows how effective the relationship is.
I wonder if there isn't a lawsuit out there?

Sarah to go International

She will be traveling to India for a seminar on global leadership. Seems to be buffing up the international diplomacy resume, although in comparison to Obama, the fact that she travels over Canada on her way to the lower 48 shows more acumen than he has.

Sarah Palin and Birthers

From Texas for Palin, I  found this analysis of how the New York Times distorts its reporting (I know, what else is new) to make it look like Sarah is repudiating Birthers after first embracing them. Like all NYT articles, you need to look at the whole statement, and not what they give us, because they have an obvious agenda that they won't give up.
But it got me to thinking, why does the press and the Left (I know, same thing) keep bringing up Birtherism, when every time that they do so, it prolongs the story? And then it came to me, they need to keep birtherism up front because they are afraid someone will ask "How's Obama doing?" And the answer is not good.

Mitt Romney Thinks Sarah Would be a Great President

One of the original members of Dextra who no longer posts here, used to be a very strong champion of Mitt Romney during the 2008 campaign. I still have my reservations about him, mostly for RomneyCare and a few other reasons. But it seems that he has the good sense to realize that Sarah would make a fine President.

Sarah Trademarks her Name

According to ABC News, she and her daughter are trademarking their names. Would be interesting if they decided to ask a court for a cease and desist order if someone was doing a parody or such.

The Winter of Our Discontent

It's the 22nd of February people! Spring is less than four weeks away, and I am sick and tired of looking at dirty crappy granular snow with high winds and low temps. Not only that, I am becoming very discontented with our legislators in Helena as well, and apparently, I am not alone in that regard.
I will give them credit for trying to be fiscally responsible, mostly because the final push on the spending bills hasn't happened yet. But what part of being "conservative" or "limited government" explains what the hell has been going on at the Montana State Hospital for the Criminally Insane, East Campus?
Repeal medical marijuana? Is it that critical? Are people suddenly growing third eyes in the middle of their foreheads? Or is it just that some may not really need medical marijuana and are skating by and getting high without a legitimate reason? And if so, why the hell does it matter to you?
My biggest problem with the Left is that they want to amass power to the government in order to tell us what to do. Please explain why that is different than what our "leaders" are doing right now? I mean let's face it, if I wanted to have someone telling me what to do, I would have voted for the Democrat. But I don't!
Here is another little secret: If you don't waste time with these stupid bills, or the repeal of term limits, you could conceivably get done early. That would be a good thing.
Last year, Roger Koopman sent out letters deciding who the real "conservatives" were that were running for office. I can tell you right now, if you aren't in favor of limited government (yes, even if someone has some fun that you don't approve of)and vote accordingly, then in 2012 I will find someone who will. Even if I have to do it. I am no longer going to put up with Democrats trying to tell me what to do because they have an R behind their name. Time to buck up folks. We don't need 75% of what you are working on. So ask yourself the question: "Why are we working on this?"

A Day to Celebrate!

Apparently, it's National Margarita Day.  And I didn't get you anything.  But I know how I am going to celebrate.

New Montana Blog Sighting

Just found Montanafesto and it seems like a hoot.  I wouldn't characterize it as necessarily Left or Right, but more down the middle Cranky.

I'm up with that.

Sarah at the Iron Dog

This is apparently an endurance race for snowmobiles in which her husband is racing.