Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

Cruz or Lose: What’s Really at Stake if Our Leaders Won’t Fight

Thursday, September 26th, 2013

Just Once, Use It!

The truth of the matter is actually rather simple: Obama-care could be de-funded any time John Boehner decided to find his…voice…and do something concrete that is entirely within his power.  The House, led by Speaker Boehner, could initiate the process of sending individual appropriation bills to the Senate, one after the next, for all the essential programs and budget items that would fall under the ordinary budgetary process.  Send a defense spending bill.  Send a Social Security spending bill, and up the ante by giving a 4% raise in the cost of living adjustment, one time, “to account for the effects of inflation not considered in the CPI”(Consumer Price Index.)  Do the same with other big spending programs, but simply withhold one on Obamacare.  Dare Harry Reid to hold up the bills, or the President to veto them should they pass the Senate.  Go on television and explain why all spending measures must begin in the House, and the House has passed each and every one of these individual things, and throw down the list on the table.  Tell seniors: Harry Reid is holding up your Social Security check.  Tell soldiers that the President, their commander-in-chief, is preventing them from being paid.   Just tell the truth: Because the President and his party are more interested in buying votes than in funding the essential functions of government, the President is willing to see Grandma eating dog-food and soldiers in the field being denied beans and bullets.

I predict that with his increasingly tenuous grasp on the support of the American people, Obama would cave.  Tie each bill to the debt ceiling.  Make it impossible for government to spend more than its receipts.  This can all be accomplished if the House of Representatives merely exercises its prevailing constitutional authority over the purse.  You might want to know that Obama is probably a good deal more nervous about this than you might guess.  This is because government has been illegally borrowing money in excess of the current debt ceiling since early summer.  To me, this is an unconscionable circumstance, and part of the reason Boehner is going along is because the President has succeeded in buying his silence through Boehner’s complicity.  The US government is already in a sort of insurrection against its own laws.  Why do you suppose the debt clock has remained frozen these months, just shy of the legal borrowing limit?  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is still lending money into existence to somebody.  Any rational person can guess the real answer here, and if there isn’t a continuing resolution and a corresponding increase in the debt ceiling soon, Obama and all those assisting him will be in deep…water.

There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington DC, and the American people are its first and foremost victim.  The truth is that at the current rate of government borrowing, no program is sustainable.  It’s now so bad that they’re suspending investments and re-investments of Federal Employee retirement funds.  That’s how bad it really is, and it’s the reason that John Boehner isn’t saying a word.   It’s the reason nobody really wants to push on de-funding Obama-care, and it’s the reason Washington DC is hoping they’ll pass a continuing resolution to fund the government and this will all just quietly go away… for now.

Ladies and gentlemen, you should know that there is no chance whatever that we will succeed in slowing this runaway government unless we lean very heavily on our elected representatives.  There’s no chance that as long as stooges like John Cornyn(R-TX) are willing to betray us that we can expect any change in direction.  We mustn’t let these rotten liars continue.  Yes, it’s as bad as that, and everybody should know it.  How many conservatives are aware of what’s been going on with our debt?  How many conservatives realize the implications?  When and if they re-start that debt clock, you will watch it wind up more quickly than ever, at blinding speed as it lurches to catch up with all the debt the government has illegally accrued in the last several months.  There is treason in Washington DC, and if you want to know why Speaker Boehner will do nothing about it, it’s because he’s in on it too.

On Friday will come the vote for cloture on the bill now pending before the Senate.  Reid must not succeed, which means you must turn up the volume on all Senators beginning first thing in the morning.  If you can fax them, do so. Their fax numbers are listed on the Senate’s website.  Just select your state in the upper right-hand corner, and if your own senators are pretty solid, check in with some of the others, including the Minority leader’s(Mitch McConnell of Kentucky) and the Minority Whip’s(John Cornyn of Texas).  Also hammer some of the red-state Senators who are up for re-election in 2014.  There’s some evidence Senator Manchin of West Virginia is beginning to crack under the pressure.  It’s time for maximum effort and maximum exertion from this moment until we win or lose.  This will almost certainly move back to the House, in which case we’ll need to get after Boehner and the establishment phalanx there.  Let us not squander the momentum and the good start Senators Ted Cruz(R-TX) and Mike Lee(R-UT) have provided.  We’re in for one hell of a fight, and our country’s future is at stake.  This is no time for hesitation or waffling, and we must demand our elected leaders show the character and fortitude we expect.  The country is in real danger now, much worse than the DC class will tell you, and it’s time we let them know that we see what they’ve done, what they’re doing, and what we intend to do about it.

Editors note: You will notice on the Senate homepage that there is an article celebrating 100 years of direct election of the Senate, complete with a propagandist puff-piece about the passage of the 17th Amendment.  Mark Levin’s book must really be getting to them, since he proposed repealing the 17th.  Coincidental? You decide.

Congressional Switchboard: 202 224 3121

 

The Moral Depravity of Triumph by Default

Saturday, July 27th, 2013

Don’t Worry, It Will Collapse!

Observing the fight within the Republican Party over funding Obama-care, one might come to understand how thoroughly broken is the moral state of so many politicians.  One might also begin to grasp the fullness of the amoral position of political advisers and analysts, who help to shape the debate while bearing none of the consequences for its outcome.  The proposition advanced by Karl Rove and the hapless congressional Republicans who drink his brand of kool-aid is that threatening a government shutdown over the funding of Obama-care is dumb, since in their expressed view, it will somehow “collapse under its own weight.” I wish to direct your attention to the ethical position of this group of moral defaulters, and what it says of their view of fellow Americans, even if we take them to be sincere: They are willing to see billions or trillions of dollars wasted in order that the program will “collapse on its own.”  There is a certain cowardice attached to this sentiment, but more, it speaks to a deep depravity that is part and parcel of their notion of governance: They wish for you to believe that “triumph” may be had by a moral default that will destroy the lives of millions.

Naturally, given the advocates of this position, one is right to wonder in the first instance how sincere they may be.  After all, it is not exactly a state secret that many of these Republicans and their puppet-masters will make out like bandits from the implementation of Obama-care.  If the program collapses in the end, it won’t matter because it will have been during the implementation phase that they had made off with the loot.  Contracts of every description are being made between the federal government and vendors, so that a huge sum of money is flowing directly from the Treasury into the hands of cronies who are filling their pockets with cash.  Not nearly all of those cronies are Democrats.  For this reason alone, it is wise to suspect the sincerity of Rove and others like him who wish to continue implementing Obama-care on the basis that its collapse is allegedly nigh.

Taking them at their word, momentarily, let us imagine that they’re clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.  Let us imagine that they’re not filling their pockets with as much Obama-care implementation cash as their pockets and the pockets of their friends can hold.  Let us further stipulate that they may sincerely believe that Obama-care is so obnoxious to liberty and so burdensome to economic prosperity that it will be crushed under its own weight.  Even if this is so, what can one say about the moral depravity of a person who stands aside as a children play with matches having doused themselves with gasoline?  Is it possible to later claim that one hadn’t possessed some responsibility to intervene and to stop the certain disaster?

If and when Obama-care “collapses under its own weight,” I suspect this crowd will show up on television to gloat and to proclaim themselves “right.”  It will be an empty victory dance to be sure, since along the path from the passage of the Affordable Care Act to the supposed collapse, trillions of dollars will have been wasted on implementing a bad idea, trillions of dollars in economic activity will have been suppressed, and real people will have their lives shattered or ended if they happen to lose life’s lottery and come to need substantial health services during the period Obama-care remains in effect.  How many tax-payers dollars will have been squandered?  How many people will endure extended, protracted poverty because they were unable to obtain full-time employment because companies will restrict workers to twenty-nine hours per week?  How many will run head-long into those death panels Sarah Palin predicted while her critics chortled, only to later admit that rationing is a primary goal of Obama-care?  How does one perceive victory in any of this?

When Senatorial lemmings like Richard Burr(R-NC) suggest that Mike Lee’s(R-UT) intention to fight Obama-care by de-funding it even at the cost of a government shutdown is the “dumbest idea” he’s ever heard, what one can detect in his further explanation with laments about 1995 is the pulse of a coward who hopes to escape the difficulty of taking a solid position, instead hoping to win by default.  This man and all those like him, including Rep. Tom Cole(R-OK) hope to avoid controversy and avoid any political blame, but I must demand that they take the blame for failing to stop what they admit they already know will be a catastrophe.

I blame each and every Republican, whether elected or instead part of the consultancy class, because these alleged “leaders” who by their own statements on the terminal estimates of Obama-care, know full and well that it is a calamity.  By standing up and being counted now, they could help the country to avoid the grotesque spectacle of a health-care law that is certain to fail and cause untold suffering for millions, perhaps tens of millions, but they are not haunted into action by the ghosts of their future victims.  This disease that pervades Washington DC and its professional consultancy permits them to imagine they will be insulated from judgment, but every American, whether they had supported Obama-care, or instead like the vast majority who opposed its passage and implementation will have known or ought to have known that these default-merchants are really amoral merchants of death.

There is no moral abstention possible in a matter in which the lives and financial futures of three-hundred million Americans are at stake, and the outcome is already known.  They claim to sincerely believe that it will collapse, but even if we imagine that they are not filling their pockets from the mad scramble to implement this program, these people claim to understand what a disaster the Affordable Care Act will be, so that they have a responsibility to act. Instead, what we get from these political cowards and opportunists is a dance of default, hoping to celebrate on the ashes of a program that will have destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth for average Americans and prematurely ended the lives of so many who need not have gone to their graves so soon.  When I see the grinning face of the rotund, balding and bespectacled carnival-barker on FoxNews, holding up his whiteboard while advocating the acceptance of an onrushing disaster we should have avoided, I know I am seeing the Devil incarnate, because what he demands that we accept is a vast slaughter of Americans and their wealth so he can later claim: “It told you so.”

“Winning” by that sort of default is no victory.  If conservatives wish to take the moral high road, we must first discard this shoddy notion of “triumph by default,” deciding instead to fight against this as the last living defenders of ourselves and our fellow man, knowing that if it does collapse under its own weight, Obama-care will crush the lives of millions.  Worse yet, what will the wreckage be if it doesn’t collapse? Rove and his acolytes never answer this question, but it is one we must confront as we consider his advice.  If the road to Hell is paved with allegedly good intentions, then the speed at which we travel down it will have been determined by our own moral default.

At the end of the road, you may pass a welcoming man with a whiteboard.

 

Mark Levin Explains Forthcoming Book

Thursday, July 11th, 2013

Constitutional Prescription

Mark Levin introduced his audience to the conceptual aim of his forthcoming book on Wednesday evening.  Titled The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, the book is set to be released on August 13th, although it can be pre-ordered on Amazon now.  His basic premise is this: In all the history of the United States, governed under the constitution arising from the convention begun in 1787, and completed in 1791, there have been twenty-seven amendments successfully ratified, all arising through the Article V. process  that permits two-thirds of both the House and Senate to propose an amendment, leaving it to three-fourths of the states to ratify and enact it.  Dr. Levin rightly points out that the second course offered by Article V has never been exercised, and it is this recourse by which we must seek our national restoration.  The second alternative is to seek a convention to amend the constitution, without interference or obstruction by the Federal Congress.  In suggesting this alternative, Levin explains why this process was created, and how we might now use it to bring the Federal government to heel.  It’s admittedly a long shot, but it may be the only course now remaining.

For those not familiar with Article V, here is the entire text, with the relevant clauses emphasized:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”-US CONST ART V

Many fear that such an amending convention would result in a chaotic process that would effectively rewrite and thereby overthrow the existing constitution, but as Levin explained Wednesday, there need be no such effect because any amendments proposed would still require the approval of three-fourths of states(thirty-eight of fifty,) in order to be ratified.  In his coming book, he is introducing eleven “Liberty Amendments” as a means to put in place much-need restraints on our increasingly out-of-control government.

I sincerely hope that among them, he will call for the repeal of the seventeenth amendment, a blight on our system of checks and balances from which this country now suffers mightily.  Over the course of this blog, I have introduced other ideas for amendments, and as a matter of curiosity, but also as a matter of interest as an activist in pursuit of liberty.  We desperately need to think about this, and to bring this to the attention of our fellow Americans, who may not understand it, may not recognize its value, and may not otherwise be exposed to the reasoning for taking this approach.

Levin’s explanation is simple in broad terms: The Federal government has grown to an extent that it can no longer be relied upon as the instrument by which it will be disciplined.  Even if the task seems impossible, both as an educational and preparatory exercise, it is important to pursue this course.  As Levin explained it, if the Federal government’s current course causes the catastrophic results we can reasonably expect, it would be best if the American people already had freshly in mind the manner by which to force reform down the Federal government’s throat without resorting to violence and upheaval.

We conservatives know where our government’s current path will lead, and we’re also informed as to the unambiguous intransigence of the current Federal leviathan.   We cannot rely on Washington DC, or any of the branches of our Federal government to restrain or discipline themselves in any way.  Even in such a states-based effort, the Federal establishment in Washington would do everything it is able to impede, obstruct, and ultimately blunt the effects of any such effort.  As Levin further contended, if the Federal government, specifically the Congress, endeavored to break with the rules of the process as outlined in Article V, this would indeed act as a probably trigger for the last resort to which a free people may turn in the face of tyranny.  After all, if the Federal government itself became so lawless that it would ignore specific constitutional processes, that government is itself in anarchy and may no longer lay legitimate claim to the authority to govern.

Government needs a good spanking, and we cannot rely on this pack of spoiled children and their enablers to deliver it.  We will need to rise up, to educate, and to use the processes already available under the constitution to impose our will on the government, whether it can be accomplished by efforts in time of peace and relative prosperity, or will be delayed until exigency demands it, and dramatic reform may no longer be denied.  As has been oft-quoted by government officials, particularly in the judiciary, the US Constitution is not a “suicide pact,” but this works in both directions.  It is not a suicide pact most of all for we the people, and it is time we reassert it supremacy as the foundation of our law, and the basis for our nation’s long-enjoyed prosperity and liberty.

This makes all the more important the efforts of grass-roots groups, such as the Tea Party and any sort of “Freedom Faction” that might arise to challenge the existing establishment, because this approach will require the broadest demands of the people working in every state in the union.  None should be deluded into thinking such an undertaking will occur in one election cycle, or any number of them, without a persistent and unrelenting dedication of purpose.  Once again, let history record that we had been the people equal to the task of self-governance.  Let it be said of us that we gave it our fullest measure of devotion, for the country and the constitution we still love and revere, that our children and grandchildren might yet inherit its fullest blessings.

Note: Site modifications and updates are still being brought online in phases. Some of the largest chores are yet to be done, and I intend to carry them out Friday night or in one case, Saturday night.  Visitors in the wee hours of the morning are likely to experience sporadic outages.  Thank you for your continued patience.

Ban Down Under: What Happens When a Nation Surrenders Guns – Video

Monday, January 21st, 2013

Liberty Crushed Down Under

If you’re still on the fence about gun control, or you know somebody who is, it may be time to acquaint yourselves with the recent  experiences of the Australian people, who in 1996 enacted a ban on all semi-automatic and pump-action weapons in private possession. While the murder rate from guns has diminished in very small ways, their overall crime problem has since gone through the roof. It’s really no surprise that the results have been exactly opposite of what was promised, and contrary to all of the alleged “good intentions.”  As Aussies have discovered, now that the gun ban has made things worse in the aggregate, reclaiming their gun rights will be nigh on impossible.  Once liberties are taken away, they’re seldom returned, and if it’s your right to keep and bear arms you’ve surrendered, you won’t even be able to fight for them. The Australian experience should serve as a warning to every American.

Take a look at this video and acquaint yourself with what Obama and his ilk are really after:

Knowing that the overall crime statistics have worsened, you might be surprised to find that even the Chicago Tribune acknowledges that in Australia, since the ban, deaths by firearms haven’t diminished at a rate faster than they were already falling prior to the ban.  As they suggest, while mass shootings have dropped to zero, this may owe more to random chance than to any effects of the gun ban.  Considering the UK as another example, overall violent murders have increased despite the all-out ban on guns, and it shouldn’t be a surprise that once you remove the great equalizer, those who are the traditional targets of villainous scum would have a lesser chance of surviving an attack in a world in which they are legally disarmed, and by definition of their physical stature and condition, less able to defend against brutal attackers.

David Plouffe has been running his mouth, and he has stated that he thinks the President may have the votes in Congress for some sort of gun control action. If this is the case, it comes down to a bunch of sell-out Republican moderates in the House, never mind the Senate, where McConnell ought to be able to filibuster the thing to death provided Reid and the Democrats don’t employ the nuclear option.  Once again, as the tide is shifting against the President and his leftist agenda, Republicans in Congress are contemplating surrender.  If the Republicans go along with gun control, they will lose the House in the Senate and they will face a complete revolt by 2016.

Boehner’s Record of Failure Inspires No Confidence

Thursday, January 3rd, 2013

Too Late for Tears

You know things have gotten pretty tough for the tearful one when he starts talking about ditching one-on-one negotiations with the President.  In an obvious appeal to keep his position as Speaker of the House, it’s being reported that John Boehner won’t engage in the sort of back-room deal-making with Obama and Reid that has characterized most of the first two years of his Speaker-ship.  The problem is that nobody seems to believe him, but why should they?  This is the man who sold Republicans down the river in vote after vote by sticking in front of them plates of legislative particulars they couldn’t stomach, and then relying upon Democrats to pass.  Time after time, he has walked somewhat conservative members off the plank, and twisted arms, and retaliated when they failed to do his bidding. What’s the point of having a Republican majority in the House if the Democrats wind up controlling it anyway?  This latest story from The Hill merely amplifies the point most conservatives have already gotten: Boehner is weak, and there’s no reason to believe he will suddenly strengthen.

Let us not wonder whether Boehner would keep his word in a second term as Speaker of the House.  How many times must he lead Republicans to disaster, ditching conservatism at every turn, before conservatives and Republicans begin to realize that he will never change.  Whether due to incompetence, or behind-the-scenes complicity, Boehner has been an ineffective leader for conservative causes.  He’s been a poor negotiator, and now on the strength of his own admission of failure, he expects Republicans to believe he will change his course?  There are too many issues facing America that are of real consequence to risk another two years of losses crafted and guided by John Boehner.

What will happen to our Second Amendment if this is the man left to defend it against the left?  Will he rush a Senate bill passed in the dead of night in front of Republican members only to have it passed by a majority of Democrats?  Do the American people wish to trust John Boehner with that?  Given his record of “leadership,” it is easy to see how such a procedure would occur, and how Barack Obama and the rest of the gun-grabbers in Washington DC would be dancing on the grave of our precious right to keep and bear arms in short order, with John Boehner carrying their water.

When the Senate passes some “comprehensive immigration reform bill,” a.k.a. “amnesty,” will John Boehner be waiting in the wings to take it up and ram it through the House, again against the objections of a majority of the Republican caucus?  You’d better believe it.  Sure, there will be some Republican moderates and liberals who will support it, but again, it will pass with a majority of Democrats piling on.

We will soon arrive at another round of the Debt Ceiling issue, and if the first round is any indicator, Boehner will broker a deal that will sabotage the Republicans and leave them dangling over yet another fiscal cliff.  Time after time, Boehner has demonstrated contempt for conservatism, and time after time, he has dealt more readily with Democrats than with his own conservative caucus.  There is nothing about his two years as Speaker to recommend him for a further two, but all the mainstream media seems to hope he’ll stay.  If a man provides you one ideological victory after another, you “dance with who brought you.”

Sadly, it is the Democrats and the statist left that has profited from Boehner’s so-called “leadership.”  It’s not as though Cantor will be any better, because he too is a slack-jawed fake who only voted against the fiscal cliff deal because it looked like an opportunity to separate himself from Boehner.  No, the truth is that Republicans desperately need somebody else entirely, a person not now in leadership, to take up the job as Speaker of the House.  Whether a matter of conspiratorial sabotage, or massive, unmitigated incompetence, John Boehner must go, and his whole leadership unit with him, their late attempts to separate themselves from his mismanagement notwithstanding.

I don’t buy the stories that he told Harry Reid to “Go f…yourself,” or that he’ll change his stripes in the manner of negotiations with this President.  I simply don’t believe these are anything but last ditch appeals to retain power, and I have no doubt but that if left in the Speaker’s chair, he will squander, sabotage, and otherwise submarine conservatives, but more importantly, the country, at every turn.  To quote the man who ought to take his job:

“Give me that damned gavel.” (Allen West on the proposition of relieving Nancy Pelosi of the Speaker-ship)

 

Message to Congressional Republicans

Tuesday, November 27th, 2012

Beohner Re-Elected Speaker

I’ve listened to this mewling bunch of whiners tell us they’re “one-half of one-third” until I can stand it no longer.  It’s true that Obama was re-elected, and it’s true that Harry Reid still runs the Senate, but it’s also true that Republicans still control the House, and it’s about damned time they begin to behave like it.  All, I repeat ALL, spending and taxing measures must originate in the House.   This is no time for tears, and no situation for surrender.  If we are to hold off these statist loons, we must begin now, and we must begin here, at the cliff’s edge. These slack-jawed losers-in-waiting had better understand reality, if they can see it through all of those tears:  You were sent to Congress to STOP OBAMA, and I’m sick and tired of Republicans who have all the spine of overcooked spaghetti, and who will not live up to THEIR mandate.  I’m not one to cast unnecessary or pointless profanity into the public sphere, but you squishy whiners in the House had better get your acts together.  I have one message for House Republicans: SACK UP or GET OUT!

If you’re not willing to do the work you were elected to do, I expect you to tender your resignations now.  Conservatives no longer wish to listen to the excuses.  If you surrender on taxes to make a deal with Herr Obama, you will be blamed when the economy goes into recession.  If you refuse, and he plunges us over this so-called “fiscal cliff,” you’ll be blamed.  So be it.  You’re going to be blamed either way, so you might just as well summon the testicular fortitude to do what is right and stand on a principle.  My apologies to the ladies in the House Republican Caucus, but I think some of you are more capable of leading, and you’ll need to do so, because you’re surrounded by Republican eunuchs.  They haven’t the equipment or the gumption to do what is needed, but a few among your number have.

You people have let this thug-in-chief control the narrative for far too long.  While he and his henchmen have castigated Republicans for the alleged “war on women,” he’s been conducting a real war on America.  It’s time you say so.  While you permit him to get away with alleging that all of your opposition owes only to his race, you’ve let his party machine toss out one of your number who happened to be an African-American, and it’s not coincidental that none of you seem all too unhappy about it, because he dared to oppose some of your deal-making.

Back in 2011, as your so-called “speaker” was making deals with Harry and Barry behind closed doors, selling-out both principle and country, you sat on your hands and made no fuss as this entire debacle was shoved down your throats.  You took it.  You let it happen.  You went along with it.  Now, some sixteen months later, you’re surprised to find Obama still controlling the situation?  If you rest on your laurels, as you did throughout the campaign season of 2012, what did you think would be the likely result?  Your short-sighted deal-making of July 2011 has set this stage, and you’re to be held responsible for it.

Now the president intends to run the table on you, and your answer is “Let’s make a deal?”  DEAL???  Let me tell you the real deal, and let’s make it clear: Do you remember in 2006, when you lost the House?  2014 is right around the corner, and if you don’t find your stones for this fight, you might just as well go home.  In fact, why wait?  If you’re unwilling to make a stand now, why don’t you simply surrender altogether?  Why don’t you quit your nifty offices, with all your staff and goodies, and make a run for the border…of your home state?

This is not good enough.  It’s not nearly good enough.  The “fiscal cliff” is a joke.  The monetary cliff is real, and the money-printing must stop, but the only way to do that is for you to put the brakes on it.  ALL spending and taxing measures must originate in the House.  Simply don’t originate any.  Why aren’t you out in front of the White House making a spectacle?  Why aren’t you down there marching and yelling?  When will you learn that if you don’t have the ball anyway, you might just as well keep it in his court and let him field it?  I’ll tell you why: You people have grown too comfortable, and besides, he’ll let your pet earmarks through so long as he can get his agenda into law.  It’s time to set all this aside now.  Where are your tears for the US Constitution, the destruction of which you are enabling?

Dare this president to spend one nickel without your authorization.  Dare him to spend one cent beyond the debt ceiling.  Dare him.  Where is your courage?  Will you stand for nothing?  Will you fall for anything?  When will you realize that this clown can only make traction when you let him?  He is impotent if you take the purse away.  Impotent.  If he tries, impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors.  There’s simply no other purpose for which you exist in your offices.  If you fold, there will be no coming back, and there’s no time to argue about it.  If you won’t do what is necessary to preserve this union, then we must replace you.  You have compromised your last if you expect to return to office in January 2015.

It’s time for Congressional Republicans to act as though they’re in charge of the House, and if they won’t stand, we must send them home.  What is the point in fighting to have a majority that once installed will not fight for the principles on which it was elected to lead?  Even now, Obama is trying to incite public support for his legislative tax-and-print agenda, but what is John Boehner doing?

This madness needs to end, but it won’t end until the adults in the room learn to say “no” and stick to it. Who will be the adults?  It will need to be we conservatives.  We conservatives need to think of this entire situation as an emergency, and as a war, but rather than become despaired at the current situation, we need to think in terms of warfare.  That’s how the enemy thinks, and until we realize that it is only the outcry of we conservatives who can make these cowardly Republicans in Congress fetch some resolve, we’re going to be in for a tough time.  The country is not nearly so overwhelmed as these election results might indicate if viewed only through the lenses of whining losers.  We need to buck-up first, and then we need to hold Congressional Republicans’ feet to the fire, and we need to let them hear us.  If we don’t do it, who will?  If now is not the time to stand, when shall we?

As Though The Appointments Sell-Out Hadn’t Been Bad Enough… Another Budget Surrender

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

Too Afraid to Fight

Early Wednesday, I brought you the story that had erupted in Washington over Republican capitulation on Presidential appointments on Tuesday evening. While Ted Cruz was winning the Republican run-off for Senate in Texas, the House Republican leadership was busy selling us out, but it didn’t end with the matter of Presidential appointments. They also came to an agreement on another temporary spending extension that will carry the budget problems until after the elections by virtue of yet another continuing resolution, as the Heritage Foundation reports.  Let’s get real: If we can’t win by standing for the constitution, let’s just quit, surrender the country, and simply lie down and die.  This is another example of the preternatural fear exhibited by Republican Congressional leadership over the prospects of a government shutdown.  I don’t understand why, because this nation has survived many shutdowns, including at least three major ones during Reagan’s administration, and at least one during Clinton’s. Of course, it is the shutdown of 1995 that leadership fears, because in that instance, Bob Dole over in the Senate undercut Gingrich because Dole was seeking the Presidency in 1996.  Now, the leadership is selling-out for Mitt Romney’s sake, but if this continues, we will have a repeat of the 2006 disaster.

Somebody should tell Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell that they don’t answer to Mitt Romney, but more, Mitt Romney should make a case on behalf of budgetary discipline, but just like last summer, Romney didn’t say a word about the deal-making over the Debt Ceiling until it was finished, only then remarking on it. This is precisely the sort of spineless approach I have feared from Mitt Romney, and from any Congress that would work with him.  If this is what it will be like in a Romney administration, I’m not interested.  More, we shouldn’t get our hopes up too high since it’s now apparent that Boehner and the boys in the House simply don’t have the stomach for a battle.  As usual, the GOP establishment is in collusion with liberals to screw the rest of us for the sake of politics.

Here’s the list of problems Heritage offered with this latest continuing resolution(CR):

  • It stifles the economy by adding to the uncertainty among investors and employers, making them reluctant to pursue growth-producing, job-creating activities.
  • It erodes public confidence. Congress’s repeated failure with such routine matters as annual spending bills breeds cynicism about how lawmakers are handling more than $3.5 trillion of the economy’s resources each year.
  • It weakens Congress’s ability to budget at all. Each repetition makes fiscal mismanagement the norm. Past vices become present-day habits, and the chance of Congress restoring stable budgeting practices grows more remote. Without them, Congress will be unable to address the huge entitlement spending challenges that are growing larger and more imminent.
  • It risks an economic breakdown sooner than expected. Former Senator Judd Gregg (R–NH) has warned that “once reality sets in that there is going to be no improvement in leadership, whether on the fiscal cliff or on long-term deficits and debt, people and markets will react. They will not wait until January. Historically, September has been a good time for such a reaction.”

More than any of this, however, I believe it simply “kicks the can down the road” again, in search of a more favorable time to address the impending catastrophe.  By “more favorable,” they mean a time when there is no impending election, but I have news for these establishment weasels:  There’s always an election pending, and this is precisely why we never actually address these issues.  Kicking the can down the road is much less painful to politicians, but it does precisely nothing to repair our nation, and it helps to promote an eventual collapse of our system.

Congressional Republicans ought to wake the Hell up.  Mitt Romney’s campaign didn’t appoint them to office.  We elected them.  They’re in office to represent our interests, but not Mitt Romney’s electoral aspirations. This is not a winning strategy, but merely a plan for perpetual retreat. We can’t afford this sort of leadership any longer, and if this is what Romney offers, we’re better off without him too.

 

Republicans in Congress Shafting Us Again

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

Mmmm, Pork!

We shouldn’t even be having this conversation.  It shouldn’t be possible that with all our efforts in 2010 that the Republican majority in the House is even considering this bill.  We wanted Congress to get the spending under control, but instead, it seems as though many of the members we elected on the basis of getting the nation’s financial house in order are instead using the occasion of the Obama administration’s spendthrift ways as cover for more of the same.  The new farm bill is a scorched-Earth policy that heaps new debt upon the nation, reaching forward a whole decade(as if somebody could possibly know what will be needed in farming ten years in the future,) and makes pay-outs of subsidies invisible to the public.  In addition, it locks in Obama’s Food-stamps spending at nearly $80 billion per year.  Why would any Republicans, never mind alleged “conservatives,” go along with this? H.R. 6083 promises nearly one-trillion dollars in spending over ten years.  As an excellent article on Breitbart details, we’re shafted if this is the answer of Republicans.

Agricultural subsidies are popular in farm states, so that it’s easy to understand what’s going on.  This is the same sort of welfarism that the Democrats employ, and it’s clear that no small number of the farm state Democrats will join in the vote in favor of the bill. It’s also clear that a large number of Democrats will vote for the bill due to the locked-in SNAP/Food-Stamps spending levels.  For those less than perfectly familiar with the sort of thing government does in agriculture, consider the ethanol subsidies as one, but also consider the crop insurance program as another.  Both are harmful to our general economy, and both take from tax-payers to redistribute to others, but what they do most of all is to make our farmers dependent upon big government. More, by tying it up with the Food-Stamps/SNAP program, it Congressional “leaders” help to assure easy passage.

The crop insurance program is designed to basically pay farmers if the invest in planting subsidized crops that are ruined by weather, drought, or other natural condition that prevents them from recovering their investment in the planted crop.  This is a terrible idea because it does something nobody else in the market can rationally expect: It removes all risk from the activity, and actually encourages extraordinary risk-taking.  Fields that perhaps shouldn’t be put in production, or should be planted in something else are instead planted with a crop that the farmer may even expect to fail, but is indemnified because it is one of the insured crops.  Worse, the crop “insurance” isn’t really insurance, since in actuarial terms, the small “premium” isn’t near what the mathematics would demand in a free market for such an “insurance” if that were to be its actual goal.  It’s a scam, and the biggest beneficiaries are agricultural giants and politicians.

The effect of this program is to confound the free market, results in higher prices for consumers, and generally causes an expenditure of government funds that is not necessary or proper in any respect.  At the same time, other programs like the ethanol subsidy drive more corn into ethanol production, rather than into food production, meaning that consumers who want a can of corn or a sack of corn-chips are going to pay much more for them because the government is subsidizing the conversion of the food crop to fuel.  It’s extraordinarily wasteful, and yet if you tour those states and poll the farmers who benefit, you will have the virtues of ethanol extolled in such a manner that you will be led to believe it’s the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and it is, for those in the program.  For tax-payers and consumers, it’s an unmitigated disaster.  Add to this the fact that the supposed driver for ethanol, “environmentally friendly fuels,” is nothing but another inefficient scam and what you have is a program with no factual merit, even if it were permissible under our constitution, which it is not.

As a farmer myself, I raise a non-governmentally-preferred crop, and as a result of various government tinkering in the marketplace as I’ve detailed elsewhere, it’s making my farm an untenable proposition.  While I and other non-favored farmers pay taxes, other farmers of favored variety consume them, and borrow from the future besides, as they join other welfare moochers at the government teat.  Of course, like any other welfare program, there is no pay-back, ever.  Temporary assistance becomes permanent subsidy becomes a way of life.  Now, so ridiculous has it become that in this bill, they are actually going to make the recipients secret so you can’t know whose bread is being buttered from the public trough.

I don’t know about you, but ladies and gentlemen, if this is the kind of country we want, we will soon have it in full as this is nothing more or less than naked socialism.  Some will hang upon the strict definition of the term, arguing that government doesn’t own the means of production.  Don’t they?  It seems to me that the most important features of ownership are use and disposition, and that responsibility follows naturally along with the two.  If the government takes all risk away, alleviating responsibility, and it chooses how the resources will be subsidized, effectively determining their use and disposition, though the deed to the farm may be in some citizen’s name, who is in fact running the farm?

Farmers were once a proud and independent lot, but many of them are now merely proud without the independence to support the pride they fiercely claim. Don’t get me wrong: There are still many farmers who produce unsubsidized crops, and who take their lumps accordingly, but that number is shrinking as the number of unsubsidized crops gets smaller and the number able to stand against the leviathan withers.  More, large agri-businesses are lined up at the trough, feasting more thoroughly than any, and there are interests now buying up huge swaths of land along and in flood-plains so they can profit from the crop insurance too.  Why do you think this is being made secret?  Do you think it’s so that Farmer John’s little claim isn’t public?  No, it’s so that Congressman So-and-so’s claim won’t be revealed, and so that Corporate Agriculture’s take from the system won’t be seen publicly.  If you wanted crony capitalism combined with the welfare state, you now have it in full even in agriculture.

That Republicans you elected in 2010 to fight all of this are now supporting it is terrible enough, but when we see freshman members like Kristi Noem(R-SD,) herself a rancher, joining hands with Democrats to further such legislation, you must know we are in terrible shape.  I can’t imagine how a person can campaign for office as a constitutional conservative, but then immediately ignore that when it comes to their own pet subsidies.   Doesn’t the hypocrisy bother her?  Dr. Susan Berry, writing for Breitbart, wrrote:

“A more constructive task for Rep. Noem, and other House Republicans, would be to work out a way to disentangle the food stamp program from the agricultural policies, and then begin to promote free market principles in agriculture. “

This may be optimistic because  the fact of the matter is that none in Congress want the matter disentangled.  By having it entangled and inseparable, members are able to seek cover behind their pet portions of the bill while swallowing the rest.  It is precisely the goal of these sorts of “bipartisan” acts of Congress to create a voting bloc larger than any particular interest in order to get them all through.  Welcome to “compromise,” DC-style.  Conservatives should be livid, and the large number of ostensible conservatives in the agriculture fields should be raising Hell, but many will not because they want to be able to queue up at the trough in secret too.  In 2010, or in 2012, if this is the answer our Republican Congress provides, I’d just as soon have Democrats.  At least they don’t pretend to be conservative.

Will the Patient Live?

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

Will our Republic Endure?

The Republic that is our constitutional, representative form of government stands upon a precipice.  We have a President who has undertaken to set aside the constitution at every turn.  We have a Congress divided, split between a Senate controlled by a maniacal shill for the President, and a House of Representatives led(and I use that verb very loosely) by a Speaker who is unwilling to do battle with the President, unwilling to attempt even the most basic defense of our Constitution, and incapable even of holding an outrageous Attorney General to account  without much hand-wringing and waffling.  We have a United State Supreme Court that has most recently ruled that States have no sovereignty to speak of, and not even the authority to protect its own citizenry.  We are told by the presumptive Republican nominee that he will repeal Obamacare, despite implementing a similar program in the state he governed, while his various mouthpieces talk about “replacement.”

Do you think we face long odds?  Do you believe our Republic can survive or recover?  The decision expected from the Supreme Court on Thursday will either re-shape our country forevermore, or allow us one more opportunity to restore it.  Make no mistake about it:  If the court upholds the Affordable Car Act, the Republic is dead.

I have given this a good deal of thought, busy as I have been these last two months, and as we’ve all waited to see what tomorrow will bring, I’ve decided that if the Supreme Court of the United States upholds this legislative abomination, a de facto state of war exists between the United States Federal Government and the people whose rights it had been constituted to defend.  Those who will perceive this as true will be branded enemies of the state, in one fashion or another, and the decline of this Republic will accelerate at a breathtaking pace. There can be no recovery of the Republic if this law is allowed to stand, and the urgings to repeal it from we citizens, with platforms large and small, will fall on the same deaf ears that have ignored our pleas for more than two years.  If this law stands, there is no constitutional, representative republic.

If the law is overturned, even then, our jeopardy will only have begun, because this President will ignore the ruling of the court, as he has done repeatedly, and as he has done remorselessly.  He will attempt to impose his program anyway, and even should our  milquetoast House of Representatives act to impede him, he will turn to incitement, outright.  He will attempt to raise a mob, and force his will by virtue of threats and violence.  He will do everything in his power, and many, many things beyond their legitimate exercise in order to create chaos.  Barack Obama will not rest, and none of the looters or moochers who ride upon his coattails will allow this to be overturned. We may see what can only be termed a civil war, and it will be bloody.

This is the direction in which this nation has been lurching for generations, since the so-called “progressives” took over both parties.  We have been led into a box canyon, from which none may escape unscathed.  Today, idiotic former Democrat Congressman from Rhode Island, and latest family ne’er-do-well, Patrick Kennedy warned:

“If the Court upholds the law, dangerous Tea Party extremists will go on a rampage.”

We should be so lucky.  The truth is that if the court upholds this law, Tea Party types will not go on a rampage, because they are not dangerous, although they probably should have been.

Rampage or not, civil war or not, this piece of legislation and all that has followed in its wake serve to demonstrate how fragile our Republic has become after a century of unceasing statist agitation.  In the 1930s, we could have sustained this condition had our court exhibited such staying power as to have overturned all of the New Deal legislation, because the American people were still a moral people by a vastly overwhelming majority.  By “moral,” I mean specifically in the sense that they respected the notion of property rights, the idea of self-sufficiency, and the concepts that once buttressed our constitutional foundation.  Who now can claim this description would apply?

I spent most of the first decade of my adult life serving under an oath by which I swore to uphold and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  I have never yielded on my oath, neither for comfort nor for ease; neither for the sake of a false unity nor for the sake of familial peace.  Sadly, many of my countrymen no longer even understand what principles that oath had been constructed to honor, and to protect, but still, I observe it, while our Supreme Court ignores it, our President demolishes it, and our Congress abandons its defense.  No branch of government seems interested in upholding it any longer, and by this procedure, they have slowly stolen our Constitution from us.  Thursday, we will learn if we shall have even one more chance to resurrect our Republic, but if we are given that chance, we must neither squander it nor revel too long in our temporary reprieve.  “Rampage?”  Indeed, we of Tea Party orientation must rampage at the polls, where we must not permit even the most thuggish brigands of the President to deter us from our electoral duties.  We must now walk back the entire statist menu, or watch our Republic perish.  If the Supreme Court does not present a sentence of death, we must make the most of any temporary stay. We must undo it all, or be undone by it.

Real Cost of Obamacare Revealed

Wednesday, March 14th, 2012

Wilson Should Have Said It Again: He Lies!

Remember when Congress was running the numbers through the Congressional Budget Office to get a scoring of the costs of Obama-care? Not surprisingly, these estimates fell well short of the real numbers under the arm-twisting and politicking of the Democrat leadership of Nancy Pelosi(D-CA,) then Speaker of the House. In short, they engineered a lie, and that lie was that over ten years, the costs of Obama-care would be “just” $900 Billion, but now the CBO has revised its estimates, and that number has sky-rocketed to nearly $1.8 Trillion.  You might wonder how badly you’re about to be hammered, but you can expect that by the time Obamacare is fully implemented, most working Americans will see their premiums sky-rocket(and in truth, many already have in just the last two years since the bill’s passage.)  Expect to pay more in taxes, and if you’re an employer, you may want to consider what they intend for you with all the new penalties.

Back in 2009-10, when the bill was being debated, they kept going back to browbeat CBO as repeated modifications of the bill continued to exceed one-trillion dollars.  They finally came out with a cost estimate of $940 billion, and this was sufficient to get the support of some wavering Democrats who didn’t want to be tagged with a $1 Trillion expenditure.  At the time, many Congressional critics said that it would come in far higher since the CBO was using a static scoring that didn’t account for economic conditions at large.  Much of the near doubling of the costs are accounted for by a weaker economy than they had estimated at the time.  This is typical CBO estimating:  Look at the sky today, see it is blue, and estimate the cost for umbrellas over the next ten years will be zero.  As you’re drenched for lack of an umbrella, they will explain that their estimates didn’t account for the dynamics of weather.

The entire Obama-care scam is just now kicking into high gear.  Over the next eighteen months, as new features and taxes kick in, along with the mandates and penalties, I don’t think most small or even medium businesses quite grasp how badly this is going to affect their bottom lines.  This is because much of it  has been hidden, and many large corporations have managed to obtain exemptions from the Obama administration.  It’s not clear that those exemptions are even legal, and it’s fairly certain they will end early in a second Obama term.  Our best hope is that the Supreme Court overturns the whole law, since there is no severability clause in this law, meaning that to throw out one portion, for instance the individual mandate, all portions of the law must go.  If that happens, we’ll be extraordinarily fortunate, but we must plan on the fact that this is going to go forward irrespective of the desires of more than 65% of the American people, who oppose it.

When you see Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barack Obama, or any other Democrat who supported and voted for this law, you can assume they are liars, one and all, and that they knew full well that this program was going to cost significantly more than advertised.  They lied, because it was the only way to get even their own members to vote for it, not because those members believed the lies, but because it gave them plausible political cover.  Know this: If your member of Congress or your Senators voted for this bill, despite what they may say now, they knew it was an underestimate based on willful ignorance.  You should cast your votes accordingly at the next opportunity.

 

 

Panetta Testimony Prompts Resolution Threatening Impeachment

Monday, March 12th, 2012

A Bridge Too Far?

The Obama administration is signaling that it will overstep its bounds again, this time with respect to Syria.  Many in Congress were upset by President Obama’s use of military force against Libya without Congressional approval.  This issue again raises questions about when this nation goes to war, what constitutes the actual making of war, and what is an effective limitation on executive authority in this respect.  More pressing than this, however, may be an underlying notion put forward by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on consultation with our allies and the international community before even talking to Congress.  A resolution is being offered that threatens an impeachment should President Obama step outside the bounds of his authority and fail to consult with Congress in order to gain their approval before engaging American forces.

Congressman Walter B. Jones Jr.(R-N.C.,) has introduced a resolution stating that should the president use offensive military force without prior authorization by an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that any such actions would constitute “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.” Of course, introducing such a resolution and actually passing it, and then subsequently acting upon it are very different things.  According to WND, former Congressman Tom Tancredo believes the bill was offered as a response to the following statement by Leon Panetta, now serving as Secretary of State:

“Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

This was Panetta’s response to Senator Jeff Session(R-Al,) during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  There has long been a significant division between presidents and congresses on the use of military force, but this is an escalation of sorts, because what it admits is that the Obama administration is willing to seek permission from international bodies like the United Nations, but not willing to seek approval from Congress.  That’s an absurd reversal of precedent in many respect, because the Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution provides that it shall be Congress that has the authority to declare war.

Here’s video of the exchange:

Of course, what Presidents have long asserted is that not all military actions constitute a war by traditional definition, and that various military incursions do not require approval of Congress.  For instance, the operational security of some strikes might be compromised if the President had to go to Congress for each relatively small action.  There is a certain truth to this, but at the same time, Congress has addressed this with the  War Powers Act, that virtually every President has ignored ever since it was passed.  There are vigorous debates over the constitutionality of that act, but what remains certain is that when it comes to declaring war, Congress is the proper authority.  Instead, the argument revolves around what constitutes a war requiring that declaration from Congress.

Congress has itself added to the confusion, by passing resolutions that “authorize the use of force” in various contexts, but they have not issued an “resolution of war” since 1941.  If Congress is going to assert its authority, it has a long line of precedents it established by its own intransigence or malingering in the last seventy or so years since it last summoned the will to declare war.  This has been part of the case that previous presidents have made with respect to Congressional objections in the last four or five decades.

On the other hand, if the Congress actually passes Congressman Jones’ resolution, this might signal the willingness of Congress to take a more fundamentally active role in the foreign and military affairs of the nation. While all presidents would prefer a Congress to act as rubber-stamps for their foreign and military affairs agenda, the fact is that President Obama has been governing wildly outside the norm as commander-in-chief, and his intransigence to long-standing American foreign policy interests is a sore spot in many quarters.  His willingness to abandon allies, or support former enemies is a troubling development, and this may be leading Congress to finally re-examine its largely inactive role in that part of the policy arena. Here is the complete wording of the resolution:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Readers should bear in mind that any such resolution, to carry any force, would need to be approved by the  House and the Senate, but that would require the resolution being brought up for a vote.  That would effectively require Speaker John Boehner(R-OH) to be in favor of it, or at least willing to put it up for a vote, and I suspect this may not be the case.  Boehner has long avoided controversial maneuvers simply because he wants to avoid the possible political fall-out, meaning in too many cases, he has been unwilling to do that which is right in favor of that which he can do in relative political safety. More importantly, it would have to come to a vote in the Senate, and there’s virtually no chance of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) would ever permit that.  This strangely means that Boehner might be willing to bring it up for a vote, since he knows it would go nowhere in the Senate.  That would merely continue the trend of Congress doing nothing to sustain its own power in foreign and military affairs, and that’s what readers should expect.

 

Limbaugh Surrenders

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012

The pressure must have been much worse than we knew.  The left must have been working overtime to make hay out of this one with sponsors.  Unfortunately, it has worked, and it worked because so many whiners were unable to stand in and fight.  Worse, it now seems that his detractors will know they can bully Limbaugh as they please, because their Gestapo tactics have worked. Rush Limbaugh has issued an apology to Sandra Fluke via his website.

In a brief statement posted there, Limbaugh said:

For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.  In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.

I believe Rush will live to regret this statement.  Since he first made his remarks on Wednesday, and doubled-down on Thursday, millions of people have reached out in various ways to say “We’ve got your back, Rush.”  When the Gestapos descended upon Limbaugh’s sponsors, and began to pull back, many of his fans went out of their way to create a backlash against this tactic.  By issuing this statement, Limbaugh has inadvertently undercut that effort.  Many did not like his choice of words, but his remarks were in keeping with the theme of his program by illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Besides, I want to know why the term he used, “slut,” is such a problem.  I decided to do some digging, and found the following definition:

Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous. The term is generally pejorative and often applied to women as an insult or offensive term of disparagement, meaning “dirty or slovenly.”[1] However some women have demonstrated saying they’re proud of being “sluts”, and have given it a positive connotation.[2][3]

I consider sexual promiscuity or loose sexuality by either sex to be awful.  That’s my view, and I’m entitled to it.  So is Rush.  More, I am permitted to voice that view publicly, and so is Rush.  When a person goes to testify before Congress about their extensive contraceptive costs, as a plea to get others to bear them, including me, I am within my right to pass moral judgment.  Let us consider the context here, shall we?  If Ms. Fluke had gone about her life, and simply paid her own expenses, and not appeared before government to demand that somebody else pay those costs, neither Mr. Limbaugh nor I nor anybody else would know the first thing about Ms. Fluke or have any reason at all to make judgments about her.

Unfortunately, Ms. Fluke did appear before a committee of Congress to demand that religious institutions be coerced to provide coverage for contraceptives.  That is not in dispute.  What is in dispute is which term properly applies to the behavior her testimony of demand describes and implies.  Limbaugh offered “prostitute” and “slut.”  What terms will Limbaugh’s critics offer?

Unfortunately, what this apology by Limbaugh will beget is a series of intensified attacks and scrutiny aimed at forcing him off the air.  By yielding to all of this, I think Limbaugh will have inadvertently given the left more power over him than they deserve.  Georgetown University is a Jesuit college, and yet their leadership chastises Rush Limbaugh?  Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry but I don’t see much point in any of this if the administration of religious institution is unwilling to publicly pass judgments about students.  What Limbaugh has shown these leftist ne’er-do-wells is that they can get to him.

They’re celebrating this at the White House, because now they believe they have Rush silenced via what he himself might term a “testicle lock-box.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

So Now Bernanke Is Worried?

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

He Warns Congress?

In the immortal words of officer John McClane, played by Bruce Willis in Die Hard, all I can say to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is “Welcome to the party, Pal.”  Bernanke is now warning legislators about the fiscal cliff over which Washington  is shoving the United States.  I must say that I have a few problems with this primarily because Bernanke has been leading us over a monetary cliff all his own.  At the same time, I have a few other pointed question for Chairman Ben as he chides Congress on its lack of budgetary restraint.  Why, at this late date, when we’ve all known this has been coming, is it only now that the Federal Reserve Chairman feels the need to show concern?

He certainly didn’t say any of this, or not loudly, when Nancy Pelosi was running the House.  I also notice that he didn’t chide the President, who hasn’t taken any substantive steps to curtail the problem, and could be said to have arguably multiplied them with his stimulus bill(a.k.a. Porkulus) that unlike previous stimulus programs, wasn’t a single budget year project, but has been copied in each successive year.  Bernanke can complain to Congress all he wants, but when this whole mess got started, he was nowhere in sight.  For the first three years of Obama’s administration, he said nothing much to the executive branch on the matter, at least not publicly, and he said nothing of the sort to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid when they controlled Congress in one-party dictatorial fashion.

Worse than that, however, he has administered the greatest printing of money in Federal Reserve history, and it has all been largely inflationary as I have reported.  Mr. “Fiscal Cliff” should have thought about all of this as he was digitizing more currency into existence, through QE1 and QE2, and more recently, a quiet QE3(by another name.)  All of this quantitative easing really amounts to is printing more money, (or digitizing it.) That policy leads to the same cliff, because it is by his printing of it that it exists for the government to borrow and spend in the first place.

For Bernanke to come along now, conveniently after the House is in Republican control and to then waggle his finger is a bit of a sideshow act.  Some will take him seriously, and the markets may react badly, but the truth is that he has been leading us into an even greater danger, and I think he knows it.  This may be his way of making a preemptive strike for later this year, if the dollar crashes.  He can point at Congress and claim: “See, I told you so.”  The problem is that if tries that, I will be right here waggling a finger at him, to assure him that others, like Sarah Palin, have told him so.  I have made this clear repeatedly, and yet Bernanke now comes along to warn Congress?  Congress?  He had better heed some warnings over at the Federal Reserve himself.

Don’t get me wrong:  Congress is being as irresponsible as ever, but some in the majority party are at least trying to do something about it. For Ben Bernanke to come along and say this now suggests that he’s either seeking political favor with President Obama, who re-nominated him for his current second term, that ends in Janurary 2014, or he’s setting us up because he knows something bad is coming, and he now wants to disassociate himself from any blame.  It may well be both.  The sharp fall in gold prices on Wednesday may signal the beginning of a deflationary cycle.  That could lead to a complete economic collapse, and Bernanke’s actions over the past four years have done nothing to remove the possibility.  He can point a finger at Congress if he likes, but that means there are at least three pointing back at him.

 

Do We Really Need Tax Deductions For…

Thursday, March 1st, 2012

Complicated Enough?

Mustaches?  Like many distinguished Americans, I have one.  John Stossel wears a mustache.  Of course, then again, there’s that Gerald Riviera fellow, also on Fox, who wears one too, and he’s not so distinguished.  When this former baby-face arrived at basic training, just having turned eighteen, I’m not sure I could grow a mustache yet.   I soon outgrew that, and in fact, since maturing into a razor-blade-wrecker, I’ve worn a mustache almost continuously for more than 20 years, except for that one trimming incident that caused me to start over.  Mustaches are fine if you like them, but if not, well, then they’re not, but why is somebody pushing to create a tax deduction of up to $250 annually for mustache grooming expenses?

You might think this is a joke, but it turns out that that there’s not only a legislative proposal but also a lobbying group ostensibly pushing this for legislation. It’s not that I wouldn’t like to deduct another $250 from my taxable income, but I must wonder about the nonsense that get through in Washington DC.  Is this what makes up these multi-thousand page bills that nobody reads before voting to enact them?  If you’re like me, then you probably suspect that this is so, and this incident serves as another reminder of how thoroughly out-of-touch Washington DC is with the average citizen.  I did the math, and I figured out that between haircuts($8) and razor blades, even if I replace my mustache trimmer annually, I can’t reach $250 in expenses on hair of any sort, never mind my mustache alone.  If you wear a mustache and spend $250 annually grooming it, please contact me to explain.  I’m truly interested, and I promise not to mock you or call you a metro-sexual. Much.

In fact, I cannot fathom how anybody would expend the resources to pursue such a thing, and yet there actually exists a group, the American Mustache Institute, devoted to fighting discrimination against mustaches and those who wear them.  It’s real.  They’re actually organizing an event they’re calling the “Million Mustache March,” all in support of their favorite facial hair.  Not surprisingly, they even have a Facebook page for that event.  The Stache Act is actually even an acronym: “Stimulus to Allow for Critical Hair Expense.”  I don’t know if this is somebody trying to make some other point, an idea I first thought when I read the article, or whether this is 100% serious, but it seems like the latter.

As it turns out, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett allegedly referred the legislation, but according to his press secretary, there’s no actual legislation yet at this point, throwing the whole thing into question. An update to the Weekly Standard article reveals:

Lisa Wright called Wednesday morning to clarify that she only referred the mustache proposal to the Ways and Means Committee, and did not actually send a bill to the committee. In a follow-up message left on my voicemail, Wright says, “Please check Thomas to look for the Stache Act. You will not find it. It does not exist. There is no bill. There is no legislation. And an advocacy group that characterizes it as legislation—and you used that term with me—does not make it legislation.”

So it’s a legislative proposal, but not an actual bill.  The fact that something like this could go this far, whether legitimate legislation, or just a proposal, really doesn’t speak well of Congress generally.  Is this really the pressing issue some are making it out to be?  Is somebody trying to play “gotcha” with Roscoe Bartlett(R-MD,) or is this a real effort?  The fact that the Facebook page claims to be sponsored by H&R block seems almost too cliched to be true, implying that company’s vested interest in tax loopholes of every sort.  Unfortunately, it seems that clicking the Facebook link on their main site indeed refers you to the aforementioned page.

I suspect a marketing scheme, but who really knows?  It’s impossible to sort out the real from the hoax in Washington DC these days, and perhaps that’s the real point, whether serious proposal or parody at some unsuspecting Congressman’s expense: It’s not really beyond the boundaries of credulity.  It’s not beyond the pale.  In Washington DC, nothing is too much to believe these days, and it’s a common problem throughout the Federal government.  The beast is out of control, but I can promise you this:  In the coming campaign season, I am going to have my own Hall of Shame for politicians, and any who push an actual bill on this to the floor for a vote are going to catch all the hell I can heap on them, in part for the wastefulness of it, but more importantly, because anybody taken in by this doesn’t deserve to be in Congress.  They had all better begin reading those legislative proposals more carefully.

 

 

How the Republicans Can Win

Saturday, February 18th, 2012

Leading Our Leaders

There’s nothing else to say about this except that we’re in trouble.  We shouldn’t be, as Barack Obama’s war of diminution against our economy, defenses, and culture should have doomed him, particularly in the hands of able leadership.  Due to Republican ineptitude, he is turning what should have been an election more like 1980 into one much more like 1996.  That shouldn’t be possible, but it looks almost certain to be the outcome, and worst of all, as I reported on Friday evening, he may manage successfully to make enough hay over the debt ceiling to do serious damage to the GOP House majority.  We might well ask how it is that we arrived in this predicament, but looking at the onrushing elections, it’s time to think about how we can turn this around despite our ineffective Congressional leadership.  There is a way, but until we make them grasp it, we will not win this argument. If they will not lead, we must, because our nation’s future now rests in our hands.

The first thing the House of Representatives must do is to begin passing a long string of bills, all legislation that would pass muster with the American people at large, and each confined to a narrow scope of issues.  Many or even most of them can be repeal bills, striking down previously enacted bad law.  In fact, apart from such things as money already spent, they should repeal virtually everything enacted since roughly 2007.  They should begin to beat the drum about an intransigent, puppet Senate, and they should keep this up from now until the election. They should build a pile of legislation that reaches skyward, and pile it on the steps of the Capitol, showing the world what Harry Reid will not even consider.  Every day in session should be concluded with hours of special orders speeches, decrying the President’s unwillingness to lead, and Harry Reid’s unwillingness to act on legislation.  We shouldn’t be able to turn on the television without some Republican Congressman or Senator appearing on screen to criticize in indignant terms how it is that Harry Reid, and Barack Obama are harming whichever group is effected by the legislation at hand.

In short, we need the House Republicans to go to war with the left.  We need people like Allen West, Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann, and others of that frame out there making a holy fuss.  We need Rand Paul and Marco Rubio from the Senate out there calling attention to the miserable conduct of the Senate, and Harry Reid’s disgusting parroting of the Obama line. In other words, the whole of the Republican party should go to war, minus the useless RINOs, who live in cringing fear of the next poll, that due to their cowardice, becomes a sort of self-fulfilled prophecy of failure.

The other important thing they can do is to stay well clear of the Republican nomination fight.  Leave the primary battles for the nomination to the people. Among their number, we do not need controversies or divisions, as they should be seen as a solid line opposing the forces of Obama.  A little indignant anger is good, and they shouldn’t hesitate.  They should band together in small groups on particular bills, raising hell over the failure of the bills to move through Harry Reid’s Senate.  They should never fail to mention that this is part of the Obama-Reid strategy to deny the American people their will through legislation.  In short, this must become a Tea Party.

From now until the general election, it should be an unbroken string of repudiations of Barack Obama and Harry Reid. If Barack Obama is holding a rally in their district, they must co-opt it if they can.  They need to organize groups as large as possible to show up and jeer President Obama often and loudly.  They must do this, and you must help them.  And if they won’t do this, you must do it independently, taking  the lead in your own districts.   The consequences of this election are too dire to permit the current administration to continue.  We must take the Senate, and we must take the presidency, so our options are few if we want any chance of staving off the national disaster for which Barack Obama and the Democrats have set the stage.

In the summer of 2009, Tea Parties formed, and at various town-hall meetings, the purveyors of the President’s agenda were swamped by an avalanche of public defeats.  The YouTube recordings of their ridiculous advocates went viral and they learned that they would have to push their agenda out of reach of the public eye, and control the circumstances of their public appearances.  They brought in thugs, and when that didn’t do so well, they stopped holding town-hall meetings. Then they sent their thugs to the town-hall meetings of Republicans, but that mostly fizzled.  Bear in mind that they are keenly aware of the effect on their agenda of such events.

This is not going to be an election that can be won on any level but by the most active side.  They have an advantage, because they have mobs of people who have nothing better to do with their time, but to you goes the advantage of defending your principles and your values, and indeed your country, but also the understanding of why you fight.  Their mobs really don’t know what it is for which they are fighting, but you do.  You can see the future of your children and grandchildren in the country they’re building, and you know where it leads.

It’s time we throw off this fretting over the Republican nominee, whomever it turns out to be, and while you and I may have different preferences, we both know this fight must become more focused.  We all know what is likely to happen if we fail. It’s not a future we can accept.  Like most of you, I have substantial doubts about most of these GOP Presidential candidates, and like so many of you, I wish we could broom the lot and start from scratch, but we’re not going to be able to do so.  We are the people who know how to turn a few lemons into lemonade, and in the coming election, that is what we will be compelled to do if we want any hope of victory.

Conservatives, Tea Party Must Focus

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

Our Real Focus?

To this point in 2012, the focus has been almost entirely on the Presidential election, but let me suggest to you that it’s time that we begin thorough considerations of the down-ballot candidates.  From the Senate, to the House, to the States, and all the way down the list, we need to concentrate here because it is here we can make the biggest difference.  Let me explain: Even if Romney gets the nomination, and subsequently loses the general, we needn’t tolerate Obamacare, because we still have Constitutional option B.  We need 290 solid conservatives in the House, and 67 Senators of equal merit.  In this way, even when Willard loses, we can still repeal Obama-care.  I will remind you that a President can veto a bill sent to him by the Congress, but Congress can vote to override by two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress.

The lower down the ballot you go, the greater our grass-roots efforts pay dividends, because we are able to take a bigger bite in these elections.  Unfortunately, the real challenge for us will be to not only capture the Senate but also grab enough support there to overwhelm the Democrats. Gaining the seats necessary to obtain the 67 votes necessary will be nearly impossible, but only nearly.  In this election, more than one-third of the Senate will be up for election, and many of them are Democrats. This can be the year we clobber them without respect to  the presidential race.  From 2009 through January 2011, Obama was able to rule without reference to Republicans, but if we get our act together, we can grab large enough majorities in Congress to govern without respect to the presidency.

Most with whom I speak have forgotten this, but it’s a simple fact of the construction of our Constitutional Republic’s government: Congress writes laws, and if we have large enough majorities in both houses, there is very little any president can do to curtail its authority.  Of course, the problem has always been having a large enough majority to override the President’s veto at any particular time, but let us not forget this is one tool the constitution permits us in direct combat to executive overreach of the sort Obama has imposed. You may wonder what such a Congress would do if Obama, for instance, would continue to issue executive orders in contravention of law, but a Congress able to sustain that level of control by virtue of a large majority is also an institution able to remove any president from office.

With this in mind, I must urge you to remember that our problems as conservatives and Tea Party folk begin in Congress, and if we wish to reform this country’s out-of-control efforts, we must begin there. It’s not that we should ignore the presidency, but that we should be of a mind to restore the balance between the executive and legislative branches, and the one way in which to do so is to overwhelmingly control Congress.  In this way, no matter who the president may be at a particular time, we can restrain him to his constitutional role.  This should have been our primary focus, because in so doing, we reduce this problem to components, breaking it down into more manageable pieces we can confront.  I’m not yielding ground on the presidency, but I’d ask you to consider why the legislative branch is more important to restoring our constitutional republic.  Presidents come and go, but Congress is where our battle will be won or lost.  Let us therefore refocus on that effort, lest while watching the circus of the presidential race, we lose focus of the more important battle.

I Told You He Would Lie

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

Blah Blah Blah

I’ll admit that it wasn’t a prediction fitting of Nostradamus, but only because if you’ve spent any time observing Barack Obama, you knew before he uttered his first syllable that much of what he would say would be lies.  The simple truth is that he can’t run on his record, apart from giving the go-order to take out Osama bin Laden, but then again, as others have pointed out, 99.9% of Americans wouldn’t have hesitated either. Nevertheless, the Associated Press has their fact-check of President Obama’s speech, and it’s littered with inaccuracies, but I don’t think AP catches everything.  After all, there is something disgusting about this Marxist president quoting Lincoln on government only doing that which its people can’t do better for themselves. The problem is, Barack Obama doesn’t believe there is anything that the people can do better for themselves.

You know all too well that some of the biggest lies are those made by omission, and Obama’s failure to discuss frankly the state of our economy is illustrative of that fact. In prattling on for sixty-five minutes about his 2012 wish-list, but failing to present any real agenda, he made only vague references to the state of the economy, and he spent no time explaining details.  What was supposed to be a non-political speech turned out to be nothing else but a political diatribe.   Time to go home, Mr. Obama.

Allen West Says Election 2012 Will Be “Bloodbath”

Thursday, January 12th, 2012

 

Congressman Allen West

NewsMax.TV conducted an interview with Allen West(R-FL) in which West questions Mitt Romney’s credentials as a true conservative, and he points out several of Newt Gingrich’s best accomplishments, referring to Gingrich as “the smartest person” among those now in the contest.   West wasn’t willing to endorse any candidate yet, but he sees the race coming down to Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich.  He also described at length why it remains important for the GOP to battle against Obama’s illegal “recess appointments” that weren’t, but he wouldn’t commit to the notion of impeachment.  Representative West also pointed out the need to take great care in any cuts to our national defense.

While he said he likes Ron Paul’s views on economic liberty, he expressed serious concerns about Paul’s foreign policy positions.  He went on to severely criticize Barack Obama’s lack of leadership, and he made several excellent observations about the reckless behavior of the Obama administration.  West remains a very popular Congressman nationally.  You can watch the entire video at NewsMax.

 

Obama Ups Ante on Appointment

Saturday, January 7th, 2012

Obama and Cordray

The Daily Caller is reporting that Obama is ratcheting up the pressure on the matter of the “recess appointments” that were not during a recess.  Now he’s asserting that his appointee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, will have full powers of his office despite the fact that the plain language of the law says otherwise.  The 2010 law that established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau includes a section that says many of the bureau’s new powers are to be held by the secretary of the Treasury “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.”  Until then, those powers are supposed to be retained by the Secretary of the Treasury.  Those extra powers include the authority to write regulations for non-bankfirms, such as payday lenders.

Said Obama during his Friday visit to the CFPB:

“Now that Richard [Cordray] is your director, you can finally exercise the full power that this agency has been given to protect consumers under the law.”

The law requires that Obama’s nominee first be confirmed by the Senate to have all of these powers.  Since no such confirmation has occurred, it’s clear that Obama is again flouting the law.  This is an outrage, and every concerned citizen should be incensed, and they may be, but it seems few are concerned, because the mainstream media is not covering this story.  Most Americans remain ignorant of this controversy.  This is one instance in which conservatives and Tea Party folk should be getting the word out.  It’s time to yell at your members of the House and the Senate, but perhaps more importantly, it’s time to tell your friends and family.  This President is taking dictatorial powers, and our Congress sits on its hands as the United States is reduced to the status of a banana republic.  The reason for Congressional inaction is simple: Your fellow Americans aren’t demanding it, I suspect mainly because they don’t know about it.  That should be something you can change.

This Is No Time For Crying

Friday, January 6th, 2012

What Stinking Constitution?

Barack Obama’s tyrannical actions must be challenged.  This is going to be in the form of what Donald Rumsfeld once explained when he said to cat-calls: “You go to war with the army you have – not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”  We are now in that sort of fix.  John Boehner is a weak leader, at least in terms of his willingness to make waves or engage in battle, but this is no time for whimpering.  President Obama has openly declared by his actions of Wednesday that the Constitution is fungible, and that he has no need to obey it due only to a technicality otherwise known as the law.  This cannot be permitted to go without challenge, and whether the United States Senate will take it up or not, the Speaker of the House must move to begin impeachment proceedings on the basis of Barack Obama’s willful disobedience of the US Constitution.  Members of Congress must assemble to denounce him, and this must be brought to the light of day.  What Barack Obama has hereby argued is that the constitution only matters when he permits it to be the controlling legal authority, but that in all other cases, it is secondary to the whims of his willingness to enforce or abide by the law.

If you haven’t kept up with this issue, or like so many, haven’t heard a peep about it, let’s make it simple to understand:  What’s at stake is our constitutional form of government, and the checks and balances about which you may have been taught when you were a child in school.  Those checks and balances provide that presidents do not possess unlimited authority to act without reference to the other co-equal branches of government.  What the President has done in this case is to make a “recess appointment” without the Senate actually being in recess.  In so doing, he is violating the law, and he has more than one motive with this plot.  Obama intends not only to give a new hand-out by virtue of mortgage write-downs for qualified persons, but also to set the precedent for undermining all law.

This is extraordinary, and for the President to undertake this action is a treason against the United States Constitution.  What he is attempting to do is to pull the rug out from beneath his opponents by buying off enough of the electorate to swing the vote in his direction, and he’s willing to violate the law to carry it out.  This sort of reckless indifference to the rule of law is unprecedented in American history, and it cannot be stated loudly enough or often enough that it must be opposed by every American, but particularly our political leadership.  This demonic assault on the separation of powers embodied by our Constitutional Republic must not be permitted.

Congress must act.  We haven’t the luxury of waiting for an election.  Every member of Congress must stand and in one voice denounce this violation of law. Every American should be upset by this, because what it means is that one man, Barack Obama, has arrogated to himself the power of law.  Ladies and gentlemen, let none persuade you that this had been a trivial matter.  Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and here, Barack Obama has taken it upon himself to simply ignore the law.  At the American Center for Law and Justice has an excellent piece on the specifics here.

Let none be mistaken:  Your lives are under attack by this action as surely as by the act of a foreign aggressor.  If you’re not writing and calling and raising a ruckus, what you’re doing is to participate in the surrender of our nation.  This isn’t just another act by Obama in defiance of some statute, or some judge’s ruling, all of which are bad enough to impeach him, but instead a direct head-on assault upon your US Constitution.  Why do so many shrink from this?  I realize the media is downplaying it for the most part, so it’s not really caught on with most people who aren’t even aware of the situation, much less its details.  This, I submit to you, is when you can be most effective if you’re inclined to fight for your country.  Pick up the phone, call your Representatives and Senators, call your friends and family, and call anybody you know who will give you a few minutes of their time.

Explain to them the simple facts, direct them to the ACLJ link above, and make it known that this is a serious issue with which we must contend.  I read many oaths in the comments section, some of which do not get published because they’re too profane, but a constant theme is how you will fight for the country.  This is one of those times.  It’s Friday, and the press is putting the week to bed, but if you wanted to, by Monday morning the country could be a sea of uproar over this issue, with or without the media’s reporting.

I have long feared that for too long, this nation has suffered a surplus of sports fans and a dearth of active citizens.  I would hate that my surmise had been proven correct over an issue of such glaring national effect.  Will we have the rule of law, or the rule of one man?  It’s time for you to decide.  It’s time for you to place those calls.  It’s time to make the start of a resistance to a growing, grasping dictatorship.  Unopposed, he will grow to love his newly discovered power, and he will make ever greater use of it.

 

So You Like 100 Watt Light Bulbs? Better Stock Up!

Saturday, December 31st, 2011

Is the Party Over?

Effective at midnight, certain types of light-bulbs will be against the law. 100-watt incandescent light-bulbs are the first to be phased out due to a miserably wretched piece of legislation passed in 2007.  It’s true that Republicans managed to place a provision into a recent bill that would de-fund enforcement through September 2012, but the fact is that most manufacturers and retailers will comply, not wishing to risk being outside the law.  That’s right: 100 watt incandescent bulbs of the sort we’ve been using for decades are going away, and if you don’t like it, you can thank the Democrat Congress of 2007 and and of course President George W. Bush, the “compassionate conservative” who signed this idiocy into law.  Hurrah for compassion! Hurrah for government regulation! Hurrah for George W. Bush!  If you’re not happy about this, you’ve got just a few more hours depending on your timezone.

Many Americans like me find compact florescent bulbs to be problematic.  They contain toxic mercury, and there is already talk about disposal issues, never mind the problems you might have if you break one.  They’re expensive, and in truth, despite the hype, they don’t last any longer, and I’ve encountered a number of these with defects. In addition, they drive my pets insane, because apparently they emit high-frequency noise that I cannot hear, but they can.  We’ve gotten rid of every one of these from our home, since we have no desire to torture our pets.  More problematic, the light they produce is in a wavelength that bothers my eyes, and seems to trigger migraine headaches.  Of course, why would the Democrat Congress of 2007 or the compassionate George W. Bush care about that?  No, they don’t understand that while I don’t mind if others wish to have these compact florescent bulbs, but they shouldn’t mind either if I retain the choice to pay the few pennies more in electricity bills in exchange for avoiding all the troubles they inflict in my own home and life.

The other alternative is the LED bulbs, but they’re outrageously expensive, and I’ve not figured out how to finance a house-full of them.  Perhaps a second mortgage?  The other problem is that my only experience with them is not a good deal more positive in terms of the light emitted, but I’ve decided that as a practical matter, I have no intention of being an early adopter of the technology because it’s fantastically outside my budgetary constraints.  Of course, neither the Democrat Congress of 2007-2011 was the least bit worried about budgetary constraints as shown by the growth of our federal budget, and it doesn’t seem that either the compassionately conservative Mr. Bush or the fantastically radical Mr. Obama had any concerns about the effects of this law on working stiffs.

It is for this reason that I have decided not to participate in this ban, and in order to do so, I’ve been stock-piling.  At an average usage of one bulb per month, I now have enough to last should I live to be 100 years old.  (I won’t last that long, of course, but I want to have some put back for my heirs.)   My message to the Democrat Congress of 2007-2011 and to Presidents Bush and Obama is simply: “You’re not the boss of me.”

Of course, the thoughtful will have noticed that there exists no similar measure one can adopt to protect one’s future health-care from the mandate that will be Obamacare, at least not for working stiffs.  Fortunately for them, neither the Democrat Congress of 2010 nor President Obama will suffer those limitations. After all, they have you to pay their bills, light their corridors, and dispose of their toxic bulbs.

Hurry on down to your local big-box store and buy up such 100-watt bulbs as you can still find.  They’re going away, and you have nothing but the compassion of big government liberals of both parties to thank!

Happy New Year!

Why Is John Boehner Sabotaging the Conservatives[Again]?

Thursday, December 1st, 2011

Embracing Obama: John Boehner Sells Out

It’s become more and more difficult to believe that John Boehner isn’t representative of some sort of progressive fifth column in the Republican party. The longer this goes on, the more obvious it becomes that Boehner and his lackeys in the House Republican leadership are simply giving away anything and everything, while sabotaging their conservative members and their legislative goals.  This time, they’ve tucked some anti-abortion provisions into the spending bill in order to push conservatives to join in approving the bill.  The basic idea is cynical DC-insider garbage: Bring in the pro-life lobby to harangue conservative members on behalf of this bill in order to get their votes, and thus pass the spending bill to which they are otherwise opposed.  Yes, it’s a damnable dirty trick, and it is brought to you by John Boehner.  This is the sort of cynical ploy common to DC politics, and it’s precisely the sort of thing to which so many of us are fervently opposed.  This is one more reason John Boehner must go.

Rather than unite his party by affirmative measures they can all support, he instead weasels his way out of that by putting this off on members, leaving them to choose between support of the anti-abortion lobby and the anti-spending lobby. In short, it’s another sick attempt to split conservatives and Tea Party types.  Why would John Boehner do this?  Why would he set his own party up for defeat and electoral disaster?  The answer is either that he is the most incompetent Speaker of the House in my lifetime, or he is intentionally sabotaging the conservatives in his party.  Why would he do that?  What would motivate him in this way?  I have only one answer:  John Boehner is an establishment sell-out whose political career consists of more crying than legislating, and more surrendering than victory.

It really doesn’t matter what his intentions may be, but if you don’t understand anything else about what he’s doing here, you must understand this:  What John Boehner is now doing will ultimately guarantee that we will not win the elections, we will lose control of the House, and have no prayer of retaking the Senate.  Obamacare will become a done deal if this happens, and you must know that there will be no repeal, no overturning, and no recovery. Ever.  You may wonder how this would be, and the answer is quite simple: Conservatives in his party promised to cut spending, and to cut the growth of government.  They promised it. Loudly. Often. Regularly.  In 2010, they appealed to the Tea Party on this basis.  The Tea Party showed up to support them, by and large.  Now, having secured their votes, and the majority in the House, the leadership is leading those conservatives to sell out their promises, or squeeze them into so doing as with this latest ploy.  What will happen to the Tea Party folk who supported them in 2010?  In November 2012, just as in 2008, and 2006, they will stay home in perfect disgust.  Who could blame them?

When the people who you place in power turn on you, and undercut you, you’re hardly to be blamed if you decide no longer to lend your support to such people.  Call a dog to you, with a firm “Come,” and then whack his nose with a rolled-up newspaper, and you’ll quickly see the dog learn to cringe and balk at your call.  This is what the Republican leadership is doing to the Tea Party and conservatives, but worse, the leadership is setting them one against the other.  That’s why Boehner’s tawdry ploy is destined to lead the GOP to defeat in 2012.  Obama is weak, but Boehner continues to improve his position by compromising endlessly with the Democrats.  How does this win support for victory?

It cannot.  If we’re to see Barack Obama replaced, and Obamacare repealed, we must discharge John Boehner and those like him from leadership.  They are a walking advertisement for the statists, because they don’t really care about the direction of the country, but only maintaining power, and lately, one would be right to wonder if they care even for that. The burdens of leadership are many, and John Boehner is incapable of or unwilling to bear them.  It is my recommendation that in the name of the Republic, never mind the Republican party, that we send him home, or at least to the back benches with all due dispatch.

Reality Check: Horses and Slaughter

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

It's Time to Face Reality

I’ve had horses for a long time.  I love horses.  It’s fair to say that I know a good deal about them, and have successfully bred and raised them, and also taken mercy on horses by relieving them of undue suffering.  It’s also fair to say that one of the things I have learned in all my time with horses is that some people, most of whom have never owned a horse, have no idea what is entailed in the ownership, maintenance, and medical demands of a horse.  Too many people have a “happy-talk” view of horses that does not match reality.  Too many people believe that they shouldn’t ever be slaughtered, because it’s a fate too cruel to contemplate as some of the same people wolf down hamburgers or buckets of chicken.

The Congress has finally lifted an effective ban enacted five years ago on the slaughter of horses for human consumption here in the US, and the lifting  of this folly in law will finally permit some hope for an industry that has suffered grave harm because some in government have been listening to the well-meaning, but uninformed folks who believe that horses should be exempt from the same fate as other livestock.  Some of you are going to hate me after this post, but so be it.  If you’ve not yet tackled this truth, today is your day.  The truth is that with the glut of unwanted horses now flooding the market, all horses are suffering as a result.  More are being abandoned, and more are slowly starving, because owners have been deprived of one method of disposal because some people don’t like it.

People talk about the cruelty of horse slaughter, as if it is any more cruel for a horse than for a cow, pig, or sheep.  Newsflash:  It’s no different.  If you like bacon dressing your plate of eggs and hash, you’d better grip reality.  Slaughter is what it is.  I make no excuses for it, because it is necessary.  If you’re one of those “vegans” who believe that eating all meat is bad, congratulations on your philosophical consistency, but at the same time, I offer you my condolences since growing children need meat proteins and if you’re not providing them to children in your care because of your beliefs on slaughter or meat, I think you’re a blooming idiot.  The simple fact of the matter is that humans need meat in their diets.  You can murmur and whine all you like, and you can call me names until you’re blue in the face, but our nature is not that of a herbivore. Nature didn’t give you incisors to slice through veggies.  Deal with it.

Now as to the particulars of horses, let’s get something straight:  Long before mankind saddled up on horseback, early man was rubbing his belly after a fine meal of horse meat.  Horse is leaner than beef from cattle, and is every bit as nutritious.  In World War I, when most of the world still fought wars on foot and on horseback, the United States sent more than a million head of horse to Europe to fight the war.  None came home.  Most of the surviving horses went to feed a starving continent in the aftermath of that war, and millions of Frenchmen and Germans, among others, owed their survival to a diet of horse stew.  This was less than one-hundred years ago, meaning there are many still around who remember those days.  Check in with them before condemning horse slaughter.  It wasn’t only the meat that the Europeans used.  As in any such calamitous circumstance, almost every part of the horse was used, including the coats, from which winter clothing was made.  My wife still has a coat passed down to her through generations that finds its origin in that period.  She doesn’t wear it, but it remains as a reminder of her heritage and how her family like so many in Europe were forced to survive.

Having covered the purely practical questions, let’s move on to the economic ones.  Horse slaughter fulfills a vital function in the horse industry:  It puts to good use animals that would otherwise be dumped in landfills or buried in massive pits.  As it stands, we have a surplus of horses since the prohibition on federal funding of inspections of horses slaughtered for human consumption enacted through Congress five years ago.  It has long been true that excess horses found their way to slaughter because only the most useful animals are kept.  There are a few organizations that run horse rescue operations, but the truth is that those subsist almost entirely on charity, and in these hard economic times, they’ve been suffering, and a few have even gotten themselves into trouble, unable to feed or care for the growing number of discarded horses.  Too many people have come to the irrational view of horses as pets, but this is a nonsensical view that cannot be sustained in the real world.  Horses are livestock, and when treated as such in the market, the market handles the problems associated.

In days gone by, but thankfully perhaps now returning, horses past their usefulness went to “the glue factory,” as the euphemism promised.  Only the rare horse, perhaps famous for racing or other equestrian endeavor managed to avoid this fate.  The reason is simple enough to understand, and I know a thing or two about it:  Horses are expensive to maintain, feed, and pasture or stable, and because they are no longer a necessity of our culture, the demand for them comes only from entertainment, sports, and yes, that practice of slaughter for food and other byproducts. As a matter of economics, the lack of slaughter has devalued all  horses, because we now have a glut of unwanted horses too infirm from old injuries and old age to ever be of use other than as pasture ornaments.  Let’s conduct an economic exercise:  When slaughter was legal, we saw prices of nearly $0.60/lb. for horse on the hoof.  This meant that a 1000lb. horse could be expected to bring six-hundred dollars.  While that’s not a great deal of money, if the horse is fit for no other use, that’s the most the horse is worth.  You can attempt to attach non-market emotional value to the horse, but that’s a matter of subjective considerations that has nothing to do with the market.  Now, let’s take that same horse, and rather than slaughter, let’s euthanize the horse.  Depending on the veterinarian, that may cost anywhere from $100 to $300, or more.  Then you must dispose of the carcass.  Yes, horses go somewhere, and most of them end up in a landfill.  You can expect to pay between $200 and $300 for that.  Let’s stay on the cheap side of this argument. Let’s assume you euthanize and dispose of the horse for a grand total of $300.  As compared to taking that same horse to slaughter, you’re out $900.  Math is hard.  Nature is harder.

Let’s imagine that this animal is going to be kept as a pasture ornament.  Let’s just say we’re going to keep the animal around indefinitely.  You will spend an average of $1500 annually on veterinary care, and another $600 on farriers’ services, and you will feed the horse hay and some sort of bulk protein in the form of grain or pelletized feed products.  The average one-thousand pound horse is going to consume $40 in hay and $20 in feed for a week.  Do the math.  You’re going to spend a load of money on a horse that isn’t doing anything else.  It’s not at all difficult to suggest that with the average horse, even bargain-shopping on all the necessities, you’re going to spend $5000 per year to maintain the existence of the animal.   At present, the average healthy young horse does not fetch $1000 at a sale in my home state.  I want you to think about that reality: On average, in my state, if you can give a horse away, you’re doing well.  Texas has some particular problems in its horse market brought about by politicians, but nationwide, the industry has suffered from this horse slaughter ban.  Too many unfit, infirm animals are taking up too many resources, because for the last five years, we have been prevented from slaughtering the excess.  While horses haven’t been going to slaughter, many horse farms have been killed off, because they can no longer sell their product at a profit for all the useless animals stacking up all over the country.

Now, before some PETA-minded “animals have rights too” whack-job starts in on me, no, I have never personally shipped a horse to slaughter.  Every horse we’ve ever had that became seriously injured or sick was euthanized.  Yes, I paid the freight to haul off their carcasses, but understand that in all but one hopeless case, we tried to save the horse first, meaning its meat was unfit for human consumption anyway due to the medications that were used in the animal’s treatment.  With perhaps all but one of them, if I had known that the treatments would have been futile, and that they were going to die irrespective of our veterinary efforts, I would rather they had gone to slaughter than spend untold thousands on treatments that were ultimately followed by euthanasia and disposal.  At least that way, some good would have come of them.

I realize that seems harsh to some people.  Part of this sense is born of the fact that some people mistake livestock for pets.  Pets live indoors. Pets are generally in some manner housebroken.  If you’ve managed that with an equine, you’ve one serious horse-whisperer.  The simple fact is that the bias in favor of horses on the part of some resides purely in their minds, much like any other bias.  I mentioned “all but one of them,” and that was such a case, where my bias in favor of the horse would have caused me to expend a good deal more if the veterinarians had not convinced me it would be fruitless.  It had nothing to do with the horse’s market worth, but his worth to me personally, but the fact that one particular horse was especially valuable to me doesn’t change the fact that horses are livestock.

I also think with the shape of things in our world, the time is quickly coming when we will have no room for purely sentimental legislation that effectively leads to asinine bans on the slaughter of horses for human consumption.  The simple truth that none of the do-gooders ever address is that horses will die. All horses will die.  How they will die comes down in many cases to human choice, but the only end accomplished by slaughter bans is to deny to horse owners a residual, token amount for the tens of thousands of dollars they will have spent over the life of a horse, and to make those owners slaves to animals long beyond their use.  You can call me a mean and ruthless bastard if you like, but the truth of the matter is something else entirely.

I love horses, but  I know that the only way we will preserve them is that if they are maintained as private property.  A thing is defined as property in part by the right of its owner to use and dispose of it.  If the argument of the anti-slaughter advocates is that I should be denied the use and disposal of my property, they are merely communists acting under another claim of “the public interest,” or “the public good.”  If I knew who inserted that provision into the bill that eliminated the ban, I would give them a big sloppy kiss and $100 toward their re-election.  So would most others in the horse husbandry business.   It’s not that any of us in the horse industry seek to slaughter horses, but we know so long as they exist, this will be necessary, if unpleasant.

Follow-up: A Note to Horsemen

Ten Reforms to Save America: Reform Number Six

Monday, November 21st, 2011

Time For Change?

One of the problems that has always plagued us is the clear disconnect between taxation and electoral responsibility for those who legally raise them.  It’s not accidental that Tax Day is April 15th, a full six months before election day. I want Americans to hold elected representatives responsible for the fiscal condition of the country, and the taxes that condition will naturally necessitate.  Since our Federal elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even years, I think we should move tax day to the first Monday in November.  The truth is that for quarterly filers, this won’t make so large a difference, and in the main, it would seem a symbolic measure, but I think that it’s a worthy symbol.  After all, many voters go to the polls thinking about what they want, but for a change, I think it would be better if when they start marking their ballots, they instead should be thinking about the costs.

Of course, this presents another problem that needs to be reformed.  For some of those voters, the day they file their tax return is an occasion for celebration rather than a day of mourning.  Some of that is because a fair number of people over-withhold throughout the year in order to avoid getting hit with a big tax bill, but more of it is because some people get refunds in excess of what they had withheld in income taxes altogether.  You might ask yourself how it is possible that one can receive a refund higher than one has paid in, but Congress has an answer:  The Earned Income Tax Credit.  Effectively, all you need to do is earn a minimal amount of income.  It doesn’t take much income to qualify, and then you are eligible to receive a credit that may be more(and usually is) than the amount of income taxes you’ve had withheld.

One of the constant scams is people who receive various welfare benefits will work a couple of months out of the year, at a low wage job or two, and this will be enough “earned income” to make them eligible for free money.  Some recipients actually refer to it as their “IRS Bonus check.”  I kid you not.  This program is also why we have 47% of tax return filers who pay no net income taxes.  For this segment of the population, there is no stigma attached to tax day, because for them, by the time April 15th rolls around, they’ve long since submitted their returns, gotten their refunds including their credit, and they’ve spent it.

Some of you will doubtless think I’m joking, or that I have somehow concocted this as some sort of literary device, but I assure you that it is real, and that like so many extensions of the welfare state, it acts as a disincentive to work.  Therefore, along with moving tax day, I submit that we make another law: No tax refunds of any ind in excess of what has been withheld.  It’s contrary to the notion of welfare as a hand up, and it’s opposed to the notion of the tax code as a program to raise federal revenues.  So long as we’re stuck with the 16th Amendment and the grotesque tax system it birthed, nobody should be receiving money as a net gain from the system of taxation, and besides: We’re constantly reminded that everyone should have some skin in the game.  I think that’s true, but when I say “everyone,” I actually mean it.  Combining these two reforms as one single step will cause more serious evaluations of candidates by voters.  If we’re going to save the country, it’s one more thing in the laundry list that we’ll need to fix.