I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me.

Okay. Let's get this straight.

For 5 years (2009 - 2014) the GOP said "Oh, we just don't have enough influence to do anything." At first there was some truth to that- minorities in both houses of Congress, and a Dem President will do that. Even so, they seemed unwilling to use what influence they did have, because the MFM would call them big meanies. 

Porkuluous passed with nary a word.  ObamaCare could have been derailed at any of several points, but Republicans wouldn't.  At one point it could have been killed in committee.  At any number of points it could have been killed by a single Republican refusing "unanimous consent" to skip the reading of the bill (or the various amendments). 

Then Scott Brown was elected as the "41st Vote Against ObamaCare."  All Republicans had to do to kill it was keep the debate moving until he could be sat.  Instead, they allowed it to be passed because they didn't want to work over Christmas.

Then, 2010, we handed them the House. With which they immediately preceded to do... nothing much. "1/2 of 1/3 of Government!" we were told. "Oh, a Shutdown would ruin our chances in 2014!" we were told. (Hmm... almost as if winning elections were more important to them than doing the right thing)

Did they even pass a budget?  No.  "Oh, it will just get stopped in the Senate."  So Continuing Resolution after Continuing Resolution passed.  Did they stop raising the debt ceiling, or even get some kind of real budget cut in return for raising it?  No.  In fact, they ceded that power to the President, just so no one would ask them to do something scary like vote on it again.

So in 2012 (after 2 years of them doing nothing, and with a candidate who couldn't/wouldn't take on TFG) we let them maintain their control of the house. For another 2 years they proceeded to do... not much. 

Admittedly, after Mitt Romney's loss in 2012, they were a somewhat reduced party.  Lots of soul-searching had to be done.  But they still had chances.  The shut down was the most intestinal fortitude any Republican had shown in years, and the leadership fell over themselves to end it, and give up yet more concessions in the process.  Only their (stated, though not acted upon) opposition to ObamaCare saved them.

Now in 2014 we have given them majorities in both houses of Congress. So rather than stall until the new congress can be sat of course they rush to pass a bill which takes away almost all of the influence they would be able to wield for nearly half (and really more than that, considering we'll be spinning up for 2016 at the end of 2015) of the next Congressional term.

Why should I ever vote Republican (for national office) again?

Not the response they wanted

Dear Republican National Committee

Before I get to my response to the fundraising letter you sent me today, please go see the comments of the new House Majority Whip's new Communications Director
.
Oh, you might also want to go take a look at the emails you are sending.

Now on to the response.

I am not some low-information, uninvolved voter.  I assume you listed me as a registered Republican (more on this in a minute) because of a "citizens' congress" event I attended with Representative Joe Barton several years ago (he called me a better Lloyd Doggett than Lloyd Doggett- I'm still not sure if that was a compliment).  I maintain a political blog.  I have a fair idea of what is going on in my State, the country, and the world.

Further, I consider myself a "Tea Party" Conservative- note the word I did not use, that will be important later.  I believe in limited, fiscally sound government.  I believe that the Federal Government is supposed to be constrained by the Constitution- that it enumerated specific powers for the Federal Government and any which were not specifically enumerated were reserved to the People or the States.  I believe "that Government governs best which governs least."

Since 2008, I have seen nothing that would make me support the Republican National Party, and much that disgusts me about you.  People actively opposed to limiting government have leadership positions; those actively attempting to limit government are removed from leadership positions.  When you had several chances to stop Obamacare cold, you have continually refused to take them.  And don't give me "1/2 of 1/3 of government."  The simple expedient of withholding unanimous consent during the "debate" over Obamacare would have ended it- no one was going to sit while 1800 pages were read so that a bunch of old men and women could hear them.

I could expound at length about how you seem intent on remaining disconnected from the American People (the vast majority support legal immigration while opposing illegal immigration or any form of amnesty, for instance, yet you continually seek "comprehensive immigration reform").  I could point out the awkward and pathetic attempts you have made to seem "hip" and "cool."  I could point out time after time after time that senior Republicans have called those like me "the fringe."

But I will not.

Had I known that I had been registered as a Republican, I would have asked that registration be removed long ago.  Any party of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn is not a party with which I identify.  Perhaps you can hit me up again when you have listened to the likes of Mike Lee, Pete Sessions, and Ted Cruz.  Maybe I'll be more willing to listen when you grow a spine, or testicles, or both.  Until then, no, not one red cent.
More Sincerely than you can possibly Imagine,

The Dedicated Tenther

Who Abandoned Whom?

So, I got this in my email today.

Now, normally I get these emails and I just ignore them.  If I decide I want to give money, I will.  I don't give money to the RNC for lots of reasons, but those have been *my* reasons and I've kept them to myself.  However, accusing me of "abandoning the Republican Party" is a bridge too far.

You know what Mr. RNC Treasurer Tony Parker?  You asked for it, you're getting it.

When I was a kid in the 80s, I believed, with the innocence of youth, that the Republican Party was a conservative party.  How could I not?  Ronald Reagan was president.  My Conservative (yes: Christian) parents loved him.  My father (in banking) never bought into the idea that the S&L crash was due to too little government.  The Republicans had reduced taxes, and, if they had also increased spending, at least it was spending on conservative things, right?

Then came the 90s.  I got a little older.  I was still a kid, still innocent, but I was pretty sure that raising taxes wasn't the conservative option, whatever George HW Bush had said.  And I'd been taught lying was bad (Read my lips).  Both George HW Bush and Bob Dole were certainly better than Bill Clinton- a draft-dodging womanizer (at best)- who never met a government program he didn't like, but I was beginning to see that things weren't so clear as I'd believed when I was (yet) younger.

My first Presidential election was in 2000.  I enthusiastically voted for George W Bush.  He'd been my governor, I knew I liked how Texas was running, I figured we'd be back to conservatism after 8 years in the Prog/Commie desert.  And things started out well.  The crash of 2000 happened (that no one remembers), and President Bush responded as he should have- by cutting taxes and putting money back in the hands of the citizenry.  If he also gave some of my money to people who already didn't pay taxes... well, the economy was in a slump.

And after September 11th, 2001, I was incredibly glad he was at the helm.

But George Bush was never Conservative.  Maybe "conservativist" might be a better term, but really he was always a big government progressive who happened to believe in slightly smaller government than the Democrats.  The Patriot Act passed at his insistence.  The Department of Homeland Security quickly started stepping on the Constitution.  No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D both passed and were signed by President Bush.

For 2001, and the immediate aftermath, I was still young enough to believe that "as long as people we can trust" were in charge, the law giving them the power to trample on the Constitution would not be abused.  I have since come to realize the error in that thinking was flawed.  For one thing, people we trust will not always be in charge.  For another, you should never trust government in the first place.

I've grown wiser since then.  It's been nearly 13 years since Muslim Terrorists flew airplanes full of our neighbors, brothers, sisters, parents, and children into three buildings -and attempted another- in the largest single attack on US Soil in history.

And what does the RNC Stand for now?
1- They stand for big government.  I have never heard a Republican on the national stage- except for Presidential debates, which don't count (words are cheap) call for an end to the grossly unconstitutional government overreach which exists.  Find me the Constitutional Authority for the EPA, DoE (either one), No Child Left Behind, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, or any other big government program.  The Constitution is short, I'll wait. 

Republicans don't want to shrink government.  They don't want it out of our lives as much as possible.  They want it under their control.

2- They stand for amnesty.  Over and over Republicans have tried to force amnesty (under the Orwellian term "comprehensive immigration reform") down the nation's throat.  We don't want it.  A nation which cannot or will not control its borders is not a nation.

And what do Republicans stand against?

1- They stand against small government.  If you are for big government, you cannot be for small government.  QED.

2- They stand against border control and sane immigration policy.  See above.

3- Most importantly: They stand against their own constituents.  Over and over since 2010, engaged Republican voters at a grass-roots level have shown their displeasure with the current status quo by selecting actual conservative candidates to run against incumbents.  Some of those were... ill advised.  But some were not.  Some were men and women quite capable of winning their elections.  How did the RNC respond?

When they engaged in the primary at all, they always did so on the side of the incumbent.  I suppose that's fair enough.  But what did they do *after* the primary?  Well, when the incumbent won, they proceeded to rub Conservatives' noses in the fact that their candidate lost, and then immediately called for "party unity."  When the incumbent lost, they gave words of faint praise, and then mostly did nothing.  That was bad enough.

But then came the Mississippi run-off between Thad Cochrain and Chris McDaniel.  In that race, the Republican National Committee shat upon Conservative Republicans from a great height.  When Republican Leadership bought ads smearing Chris McDaniel as a racist homophobe- the very same deceitful attacks Democrats use- they were saying to Conservatives across the nation: "We don't want you.  We don't value you.  We don't think we need you to win."

To which I say, "Fine.  Then you won't have me."

I will vote for Republicans in my Great State of Texas.  I will vote for Ted Cruz- one Republican who does seem to get it.  I reserve the right- if the Republican Party stops trying to urinate on me and tell me it's precipitation- to vote for whoever is the Republican nominee in 2016.

But the RNC will never see another dime from me.  And if the candidates are not as conservative as I am, they will not get my vote.  If they're too Progressive, I'll vote Democrat.

No more.  You have pushed me too far, and you will push me no further.

Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.

SCOAMT^2

Readers of this blog know that I believe that the President of the United States is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.  I have been saying the same since shortly after September 11, 2012.

Well, now I have more evidence.  Enter Bowe (pronounced, I’m told, “Bo”) Bergdhal.  Young Mr. Bergdhal was rejected from the French Foreign Legion before joining the United States Army (hey: US Army- you might take that under consideration).  Apparently, he believed that USA, in this case, meant US Aid and was a humanitarian outreach program, as opposed to a military force designed to kill people and break things.

So, upon being deployed to Afghanistan and actually required to fight against terrorists, he decided “this blows” and walked away.  Literally walked away- he left his duty station along with a note (apparently) in which he declared his desire to renounce his citizenship.  Now, the US Army has Views on people who leave their duty stations in the middle of a war.  It’s called Desertion in the Face of the Enemy, and it’s perhaps the second-biggest no-no an Army private can commit.

But, it turns out, this was not the end of his parsimonious behavior.  When US Army forces were sent to apprehend him, they discovered that he specifically wanted to join the Taliban.  This moves from second biggest no-no (desertion) to the biggest no-no: treason.  Providing Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.  That crime for which there is exactly one punishment.  Yes, Bowe Bergdhal is, at best, a deserter who got half-a-dozen of his buddies killed, and at worst a traitor.

So it makes all kinds of sense that the Traitor-in-Chief would release five of our highest-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison to secure his release.  Absolutely.  Hey, we’re only down a net 4 terrorists.  This is also “Aid and Comfort to the Enemy.”  Releasing five guys to do more harm to Americans (because that’s what they want to do) in order to get back one deserter?  Whatever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists?”

Oh, SCOAMT is all over that one, too.  Now, apparently, these enemy combatants taken on the field with no uniforms, answering to no government, and representing no organized military force are somehow POWs.  That deserter? Not a deserter who was taken hostage- but also a POW.  So it’s a POW-swap.  Because King Barakanhanen said so, you racist tea-bagger.

Now, I actually expect this kind of behavior from the Man-Child-in-Chief.  He was under heat for the VA scandal, and wanted something to take that heat off.  As Ace pointed out today, it’s a political decision that Democrats can spin- unlike the VA scandal.  So it makes some sense.

What doesn’t make sense is that Republicans have remained almost uniformly silent on this.  What does it take to get John Boehner and Mitch McConnell fired up?  The President of the United States just arguably committed treason.  He violated several laws to do so- on top of all the other laws he’s already broken, and his general Imperial approach to the Presidency.  If that’s not grounds for Impeachment, what is?

It may already be too late, but Republicans must push back against the SCOAMT.  They must start stone-walling him at every turn.  No more bipartisanship, unless it’s unification against the SCOAMT.  No more pushes for Amnesty.  No more “my friends across the aisle.”  Either the Democrats are with America, or they’re with Barack Hussein Obama.  And the Republicans face the same choice; they are either for America, the Rule of Law, and basic moral decency, or they are with Barack Hussein Obama.

Which is it?

Tyranny in Small Things

Austin, the Capitol City of my Great State of Texas, recently passed a ban on plastic grocery bags.  Now everyone is supposed to use reusable (that is: cloth) bags instead.  This is being hailed as a win for the environment, because those plastic bags were so terrible.

Man, I'm so old I remember when plastic bags were the "environmental" choice, since those eeeevil paper bags came from trees.  (Hint to liberals: when something literally does "grow on trees," that's not a bad thing.)  So now the plastic bags are no longer in favor, so we must change to cloth bags.

Now at least one City Council member in the City of Dallas wants to implement the same thing in that city.  This is why conservatives in Texas should not turn a blind eye to the bad things the Austin does; eventually some idiot will try to bring those bad ideas to our own cities.

Now, I don't actually have a problem with reusable bags themselves.  They are a breeding ground for disease, but they're cloth.  They'll survive the clothes washer just fine.  Wash 'em every couple of weeks and you'll be fine.  Double wrap your meat, and wrap your produce, and you can go even longer between washings.  I use them at Aldi (I don't even buy all of my groceries there, and they've cut my grocery bill about in half), because Aldi (as a private enterprise) encourages their use.  I'm fine with that.

On the other hand, I also like plastic bags.  They're convenient.  They're light.  I don't have to turn around and go back home when I realize I didn't bring any with me. 

On top of that, they're every bit as "reusable" as my cloth bags.  I don't reuse them for groceries, but we keep one in our minivan to put trash in.  I used to carry a couple in my kids' diaper bags (thank God they're both out of diapers now- those things are expensive), for accident containment.  I use them as a "lunch box" for work.  I've used them to line trash cans in the house, paint buckets, and all kinds of things.

They save me a lot of hassle. 

In short, it really annoys me that people are now telling me I shouldn't be able to use them.  So let me ask this: are you targeting plastic trash bags next?  Plastic trash bags are, well, plastic, too.  Am I going to have to change out my plastic trash bags for paper?  For canvas?  If not, then you'll excuse me if I don't believe your objection to the plastic trash bags is about the environment; rather, it's about your desire to control ever facet of my life.

Blow that.

It is not the government's job to mandate that I use reusable grocery bags.  It is not the government's job to make sure I recycle.  It is not the government's job to force me to do anything.

This seems like a tiny thing, but it really isn't.  The Government has already taken over health care.  Just ask your doctor how much of a pain ObamaCare is.  Ask your insurance provider.  Government wants to rule every part of your life, and this is simply another facet.  It seems minor, but the door it opens is huge.

Update & Scienceyist Alert:
FotB tsrblke sends along this little nugget.  Turns out that those "reusable bags" are actually worse for the environment than plastic bags anyway.  And that assumes that someone is just using the plastic bag once and then throwing it away.  It gets even worse (for the canvas propagandists) if you reuse even just 40.3% (well less than half) of your plastic bags just once. 

Fithy Quislings

I don't know enough curse words to capture my sentiment upon reading this story.  It seems GOP Leadership (for whatever that is worth) has decided they "don't need no steenking Conservatives," and that they will be willing to pass Democrat Legislation, marginalizing the majority of their own caucus.

Once my immediate, word-stealing rage dies down (it flares back up every time I re-read the article), I have a couple of things to point out.

First: When grass-roots conservatives were calling to remove Boehner as speaker, we were pooh-poohed and told that of course Speaker Boehner was the best man for the job.  Often this pooh-poohing came from the same Conservative representatives now at risk of being frozen out. 

That is not to say that we expected this kind of betrayal.  Squishy "moderate" stances?  Sure.  Outright betrayal of principle?  Not so much.

Second: The current House Leadership is not Conservative.  Oh, I think a Conservative or two snuck into the upper echelons somehow, but the vast majority of them are not now, nor have they ever been Conservative.  They don't care about "We, the People."  They care about themselves, their own power, and their privilege. Anything which jeopardizes that must be dealt with.  Unfortunately, they seem to believe the best way to secure that power and privilege is to side with Democrats in making us serfs, or at least peasants (I don't think they quite view us as chattle.  Yet.)

Third: The House has fallen into the old trap.  It's one that grass-roots conservatives had hoped to avoid when we hoped to get rid of Boehner.  It goes like this: "We have to do something!  If we're not passing legislation, we're not doing our job!!!!"

In many ways this is the most important point.  Conservatives know that Congress can do its job best by doing nothing in most cases.  Pass a budget; confirm appropriations; oversee the Executive branch.  That's all Congress should be doing in most cases.  However, as full-time legislators, they believe their job is to write (well, vote on, I'm pretty sure none of them has written their own in quite some time) legislation.  That mindset is the only one that could have produced this quote:

“It is better if the House does their work,” said McCarthy. “We should be sending bills to the Senate.”

This, as Ben Shapiro notes, is tantamount to a declaration of War on Conservatives.  The Moderates in Congress want their power.  They want to be invited to the best parties.  They want yet more government expansion.  In fact, the only place Moderates disagree with Liberals is the pace.  Liberals want More Government Now! Moderates want More Government Slowly!

After the initial publication of the Big Government article, Rep. McCarthy's office contacted Breitbart News and whined:

In a statement to The Hill, McCarthy spokesperson Mike Long said: "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to regular order to bring legislation to the floor that has the support of a majority of the majority. Insinuation to the contrary is completely false."

Of course "Whip McCarthy strongly supports returning to the regular order."  "Strongly supports" is not "is committed to," and in no way is that statement a rejection of the original report.  Whether Boehner and Cantor agree is unclear, but it seems unlikely that the Majority Whip would have made such an inflammatory statement without the blessing of his bosses.

Oh, and if this finds its way into Rep. McCarthy's hands:  before you even think of "crossing the aisle" and enact gun control remember this: I'm a Texan.  Consider well the meaning of "come and take it."

Causal Confusion

You've probably heard or seen commercials from the National Association of Realtors about "the benefits of home ownership."  These include better grades for kids, more cohesive family units, higher employment, and unicorns (I think I made that last one up).  To hear them tell it, if everyone just bought a house, everything would be better. 

Even granting them the best of motives, this is irresponsible advertising and giving people false expectations.  And I don't grant them the best of motives.

You see, the premise of these commercials is a fallacious conflation of causal relationships.  For my Liberal readers: it gets cause and effect backwards.

In the early days of my blog, I addressed it this way: frugality fosters wealth, not the other way around.  You see, the fact is that couples who are committed to each other and their children, who work hard and save money, and who have the personal habits associated with those things will tend to own homes.  It is not owning the home that makes them committed and hard working.  Exactly the opposite, it's the commitment and hard work that makes them good candidates for home ownership.

Unfortunately, this disease does not simply effect the NAR.  It seems to have spread everywhere.  Colleges tell you that getting a degree will enhance your prospects, when the truth is (especially in this age of degrees in Underwater Basket Weaving), that the kind of people who are likely to be successful are the same ones who will tend to get college degrees.  More over, they will tend to get STEM degrees, not Liberal Arts degrees.

This really gets to the heart of our "because I deserve it!" society.  We have ceased being a society of personal responsibility and liberty- the society that built this nation into the greatest on earth- and have become a society of "steps to success" and "easy money."  Our grandparents and great-grandparents did not believe that there were certain steps that would lead to wealth and prosperity.  Rather they realized that accomplishing certain goals would require certain steps.  Our parents, for various reasons, began getting that backward, and they imparted that to my generation. 

Now, people believe that if they go to college, they are owed a job when they graduate.  They believe that once they sign to purchase a house, they are owed prosperity and a good school and a job.

It's completely backwards, and it will change.  The only question is if it will change because we, as a society, set out to change it, or if it will change because the gods of the copy-book headings will force it on us.

Tyranny in a Velvet Glove

Here, go read this.  Human Events has the list of the SCOAMT's Executive Orders on Gun Control.

At first glance, these don't look so bad.  They look like "propaganda" or "window dressing."  But on further review, they are a tyrannical government attempting to disarm its citizenry.

Let's take a look at just a few:

2.  Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

Oh, good.  So now my private health information is an "unnecessary legal barrier" to the Government deciding if my 2nd Amendment Rights should be honored.

 4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

5.  Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Law enforcement already runs a background check on individuals before returning seized guns.  So the only purpose for this, that I can see, is that a "full background check" takes longer, which means yet more delay in retrieving your wrongfully seized gun.

10.  Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Guns reported lost are stole are already logged that way.  When someone runs a gun's serial number, it will come back as "lost" if it was reported lost, or "stolen" if it was reported stolen.  I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish if it's not more than that.  If it is more than that, expect DOJ officials to come "verify your report" of a lost or stolen gun.

14.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to reaserch the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Do you know how easy it is for the DSM-V to be modified based on politics?  Congratulations, owners of multiple guns.  You can now be diagnosed as mentally-ill.

 16.  Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Now he's just re-writing the law by fiat.  Not that that's new for him.

20.  Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Remember that point about the DSM-V I made earlier.  Yeah.

Now, this is not to say that all of this will happen.  It's possible that this was just done to make the SCOAMT feel good about himself.  But it is what could happen.  And that should be enough.  The President has just declared that he, through his Secretaries, has the ability to take your right to own a gun away from you by fiat.

This is tyranny in a velvet glove.  The fact that we even have to consider that he might do it is completely unacceptable.

All the while he hid behind children- children the policies he believes in so epically failed to protect- while declaring that pointing out that his own daughters have armed security 24/7 is somehow "Repugnant and Cowardly."

No.  From my cold, dead hands.

From My Cold, Dead Hands

Today, Barack Obama will outline his plans for further gun control, in addition to announcing Executive Orders he plans to sign to enact some form of gun control without Congress.

I'm not going to discuss the merits of gun control legislation for two reasons.  First, there are none.  Second, the people who now want to deprive me of my 2nd Amendment Rights don't care about the merits, or lack thereof, of the legislation they wish enacted, they only want more power over me.

See, Sandy Hook Elementary doesn't matter to them.  Neither did the Aurora, CO theater shooting.  Neither did any previous mass shooting.  If those events actually mattered, they would have put together this series of events:

1. Bad guy selects location where victims have no ability to resist
2. Bad guy goes on rampage
3. When people with ability to resist show up, Bad guy surrenders or (just as likely) takes his own life.

That's always the way.  In fact, I only know of three instances, and only two in my lifetime, where people being better armed would not have stopped the violence much sooner.  The UT Clock Tower Sniper, the Hollywood Bank Robbers, and the Gabriel Giffords's event (remember, a Federal Judge was killed that day.  I guess he doesn't matter since he was a Republican).

Here's the thing.  In none of those events would more gun control laws made anyone more safe, either.  In the case of the Clock Tower sniper, there was no way to get to him until police stormed the tower.  In the case of the bank robbers, they were heavily armored enough that even the police could not hurt them until they appropriated shotguns and those same "semi-automatic assault rifles" (an oxymoron) from a civilian gun dealer.  Some guy with a Glock in an inside-the-pants concealed holster wasn't going to do much.  In the case of the Gabriel Giffords, there were too many people in the way for a responsible gun owner to fire back at the assailant.

Let's examine that one a little more, because it's important.  See, there were people at that event who were armed.  But they were responsible, law abiding gun owners.  At least one of them openly stated that he did not draw his weapon because he knew there was too great a chance of hitting an innocent. 

When we talk about "gun control" what we really mean is restricting people like that very responsible and law abiding gun owner from being able to protect themselves.  The bad guys aren't going to care about any gun laws; they've already decided to commit mass murder.

Democrats know this.  Maybe some are truly earnest about wanting to "do something," but this kind of gun violence has existed since at least the 1920s.  It isn't like the majority of them have not had time to figure it out.  So their purpose cannot be to keep guns out of bad people's hands, they know they're not going to do that.

So why would they want to enact these laws?  As I said above: Power.  A disarmed populace is a compliant populace.  If the citizenry have no means to resist tyranny, they are less likely to resist tyranny.  The only purpose any politician can ever serve, whatever he has deluded himself into believing, by restricting gun ownership in any form is to empower tyrants.

I will not ever knowingly empower a tyrant.  Not even passively.

Brave, Brave, Brave Sir Boehner

I would really love to get into staring contests with any Republican US Congressman or Senator.  I'm pretty sure I could beat them all.  Certainly President SCOAMT and the Democrats do every time.

Late last night, the Republicans caved on the Fiscal Cliff negotiations and traded away their only hole card- tax rate hikes- for the promise that maybe, possibly, sometime in the future, the Democrats will consider spending cuts.  If they feel like it.

This is like the political version of "Henry the VIII."  The next verse really is the same as the first, and it really doesn't get better; it only gets worse.

The Republican dominated House voted for the Democrat-controlled Senate's "Fiscal Cliff" bill which does not actually address the fiscal cliff at all.  However, because Republicans are about as clear sighted as Mr. Magoo, they were unable to articulate that the Cliff was not some artifact of current law (the automatic tax hikes and fiscal sequestration).  The Cliff is a flaw inherent in our current system that means that at some date, possibly in the not-to-distant future, we'll simply run out of money.

Not that we'll run out of currency; that is impossible since we print our own.  But currency is not money.  Money is an abstract representation of the value of the productivity of the people.  The more currency their is, the less it represents that money (we call that "inflation").  But, at some point, there simply will not be enough valuable productivity to pay all of our bills. 

When that happens, the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

Now, since money is a fixed thing- dependent directly upon the value of the productivity of the people- it is impossible (or at least incredibly improbable) that taxation, either more or less of it, will address the fiscal cliff in any significant way.  The only thing that is sure to work is getting spending under control.

And Republicans let our best chance at doing just that slip right through their fingers.

However, to have done so would have required courage.  Addressing spending would have required Republicans to put up with being vilified, and pilloried.  It would have required them to stand up against both the Democrats and the Democrat's even more Liberal allies in the Media.  It would have required clear and coherent explanation of the actual nature of the problem.

Instead, like Brave Sir Robin, Speaker John Boehner decided that "compromise" was more important than principle.  He decided to bravely run away from a confrontation, because he was more afraid of possible negative consequences to himself than he was of the guaranteed negative consequences for the economy, and for the American People.

Why "Gun Control" Doesn't Work

Okay, since we're still apparently "having the discussion" about gun control- a "discussion" which mostly involves responsible gun owners being harangued for the actions of a criminal- I think it's time we point out why Gun Control laws have never worked, and will never work.

Take this case, for instance.

See, the perpetrator in that instance was already a violent felon.  He'd killed his grandmother with a hammer.  Without looking, I'm guessing that the manslaughter charge was from a plea bargain, but that's a rant for another time.  Legally, he already wasn't allowed to have guns of any variety.  Not a hand gun, not a rifle, not a shotgun- none of it.

It's almost as if someone who is intent on committing one crime doesn't care about the fact he may be committing more than one.  It's almost as if no amount of laws will convince criminals to obey them.

On the other hand, stricter gun control laws do disarm responsible citizens who could otherwise defend themselves.  As the fine folks at PJ Media point out, the Newtown, CT shooting was stopped by a show of force.  That is, the police showed up with guns, and the shooter didn't even wait to confront them; he just shot himself.

William Spengler was shot by emergency responders.

Neither of them was stopped by an unarmed populace wagging their fingers.

It may be a cliche to say "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns," but it is also true.  I can point to Europe, where they have a significantly higher instance of violent crime, even with their very strict gun control laws, than the United States.  I can point to Mexico, which has virtually banned private ownership of firearms.  How's that working out for them?

Rather than be reactionary and try to ban the icky, scary gun, maybe we could look at these things the way we do other crimes.  Do we ban computers because the hacking group 'Anonymous' exists?  Do we ban hedge funds and mutual funds because people like Bernie Madoff exist?  Do we ban cars because their are crashes and because criminals use them?

No.  We don't.  We don't do those things because that would be a terrible infringement on innocent people's liberty in response to specific crimes.  Yet every time a gun is used in a crime, especially a high profile crime, "guns" are blamed rather than the perpetrators.  Do we blame money for Bernie Madoff?  It can be argued that he ruined more people's lives than the shooter in Newtown, CT, and certainly more than William Spengler in Webster, NY.

We already have laws against murder.  Ponzi schemes were illegal before Bernie Madoff started his.  People who have decided to break the law don't care what the law is. 

My defense against the Bernie Madoff's of the world is a combination of common sense (don't believe unbelievable promises) and finding a financial manager I can trust.  What defense should I be allowed against someone who wants to kill me?

Let. It. Burn.

House Republicans are already preparing to capitulate to Barack Obama on tax increases.  When he rejects that offer, then they'll come back with tax increases and another increase to the debt ceiling, providing him everything he wants.  In addition, John Boener and GOP leaders are removing fiscal conservatives from their places on House committees.  This is all just more evidence that the GOP is dead as a conservative party.  So let it burn.

But what does "let it burn" mean?  Well, I think it means different things to different people, so I'll explain what I mean, and you can chime in in the comments (hint, hint).

First, "let it burn" does not mean a complete disengagement.  If it looks like things really can be turned around, we have to be willing to rush to the point of conflict to turn things around.  However, it does mean not spending one more minute defending the Republican party.  Not one more dime sent to the RNC or any Republican incumbent. 

It also means disengaging, as much as possible, from the coming economic collapse.  Taxes are going to go up.  Growth is already anemic, and higher taxes will just cripple the economy further.  This means a collapse is very seriously nigh, and we must be prepared.

We must be prepared for the collapse itself.  This means making as sure as possible that you have the means to take care of your family during the collapse.  Form informal groups and cooperatives with others, banding together to see your families through the tough times ahead.  I have a family farm I hope to have operational before the collapse, if it holds off long enough.  Food, shelter, and clothing are the most important things you can secure.  If you can do that through a job that pays well enough, that's fine.  If you can't, then you need to find a way to provide those things.

We must be prepared for the possible societal collapse.  That sounds alarmist, but it is an entirely possible consequence.  Over 51% of the voting public in the United States voted for Barack Obama, who promised them no end to their free stuff.  Once the economic collapse comes, their free stuff goes away anyway.  With luck, enough progress will be made politically that "the masses" will be willing to wait for economic relief.  If there isn't, then our Society, with 60+ years of class warfare rhetoric, 40+ years of racial warfare rhetoric, and an especially divisive President is ripe for societal unrest.  Part of being prepared for that unrest is the same as being prepared for the economic collapse.  Food, water, shelter.  Add physical safety and you're okay.  Another part, though, is being ready to lead.  Which leads us to the third thing we have to prepare for.

We must be prepared to rebuild.  Whether "just" an economic collapse, or a complete societal collapse, those who have prepared are most likely to come out of the trouble in a better situation.  Their preparations will give them advantages over their unprepared neighbors.  This means those unprepared neighbors will look to them for relief.  Those neighbors will either look to the prepared as leaders, or as targets.  If properly prepared, we can be seen as leaders and guide the rebuilding.

Let it burn is as much a path and strategy as anything.  It requires preparation and commitment.  It is not simple resignation and a complete disengagement from the economy, society, and culture.  It is an acknowledgement that "it" is going to burn anyway, and a prioritization of limited resourced based on that realization.

Racist Eugenicist Margaret Sanger to Rachel Carson: "Well Done."

Update: This is what happens when I don't get enough caffeine.  Yes, Rachel Carson, not Corrie.  Corrected below.  *sigh*

From the Competitive Enterprise Institute comes this piece, detailing how Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was basically completely wrong.  Check out their piece (video and PDF).

I want to make a different point though, going back to the "perfectibility of man" premise so many Liberals accept.  Rachel Carson wrote a book which basically called anyone who used DDT mass murderers.  She claimed there were side effects of DDT which were harmful to humans (beyond those in any chemical- including natural ones- there aren't), and then said they made bird eggs super-duper fragile, so that birds weren't hatching.  Now, there has never actually been any scientifically rigorous proof of that, either, but let's grant it for the moment.

Is she saying that birds are more important than people?  I'm sure she would tell you otherwise.  See, she believes in the perfectibility of man.  One consequence of the concept of the perfectibility of man is the resulting concept of the perfectibility of man's designs.  See, if man is perfectible, so is anything to which he sets his hand.  So any negative consequences of anything humans do are completely unacceptable.  Anything which has any negative side effects at all must be banned.  Those who use it anyway must be shunned.

However high-minded this philosophy may think it is, it fails to apply its own test to itself.  For, if man is perfectible, and therefore anything man does should be perfect, then any negative consequences are unacceptable, and the enterprise must be abandoned.  When we apply that rubric to the idea of the perfectibility of man, however, we find the concept of the perfectibility of man also has negative consequences, and so must be abandoned. 

The concept of the perfectibility of man required that Rachel Carson and her compatriots oppose DDT and other pesticides.  As a result, more millions of African babies have died than those ever aborted by noted Racist Eugenicist Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood ever has.  Those deaths are negative consequences, so, by their own rules, the opposition to DDT must be abandoned.

Of course, there's one other option.  Maybe Rachel Carson just hates black people.

Bob Costas: Idiot

So, during his spot in last night's Sunday Night Football game between the Dallas Cowboys, who should still fire their GM, and the Philadelphia Eagles, Bob Costas decided to wax eloquent on Gun Control.  In a spot in which he quoted heavily from noted intellectual light-weight Jason Whitlock, Mr. Costas essentially blamed the existence of guns for the deaths of Kansas City Chiefs Line Backer Javon Belcher (suicide) and his live-in girlfriend (and mother of their child) Kasandra Perkins.

If they hadn't owned a gun, Costas opined with Whitlock's words, they might still be alive.  Yes, Mssrs-Highly-Paid-Media-Personalities-Who-Live-In-Very-Safe neighborhoods, because there is no way on earth a six foot tall, or taller, man weighing well north of 200 pounds (and probably not far south of 300) could possibly have killed his girlfriend with, say, a knife.  Nicole Brown Simpson was unavailable for comment.  Failing a knife, he could have used his hands and feet- a means by which you are much more likely to die than any firearm. 

Whatever happened that night, Javon Belcher attacked and murdered his girlfriend.  He then drove to his team's offices, where he shot himself in front of whitnesses.  A man so out of his mind is not suddenly going to reach clarity just because he has to grab a knife, a pipe, a rope, or use his bare hands instead of a gun.

You want to talk about "gun culture?"  Let's look at Virginia, where high fire-arms sales correspond (just coincidentally, I'm sure) with dropping violent crime rates.  Let's look at Texas, Oklahoma, and Arizona, where a "gun culture" of routine ownership has not, somehow, lead to mass murders and the streets running with blood.  Let's look at Michigan, with it's own open-carry law where, excepting the cesspools of Flint and Detroit, you don't exactly have to be afraid to walk to your car at night.

Guns do not cause violence.  Guns do not cause us to "escalate confrontation."  Whatever your beliefs about the Wild West, it wasn't like the movies.  A well armed populace actually decreases violence.  This is especially true when the nature of those weapons is that of the gun- the great equalizer.  As written by Robert E. Howard "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."

So spare me your holier-than-thou pontifications about the state of our "gun culture."  Don't try to tell me that violence and murder never existed before the firearm.  Don't try to lay the blame of young Mr. Belcher's actions on the tool he used in their commission.  The blame lies solely with Mr. Belcher, who, for whatever reason, killed the mother of his child, and then himself.

I Know! Let's focus on "Fundamentals!"

Okay, Cowboys fans, it's time for a serious talk.  It's over.  It was nice while it lasted- in the early 90's- but the Cowboys as a winning franchise has been over since at least 2000, and probably before that.  You see, we have one "fundamental" flaw with our franchise, and it hasn't been addressed in working on 20 years.  Our GM sucks.

We've tried new coaches, new schemes, and new players.  We have a fancy new stadium (the City of Arlington is grateful for that, by the way).  We have as much talent on the current Cowboys roster as was on the early 90's teams, but nothing to show for it.  As Bob Costas pointed out several weeks ago, the only thing that hasn't changed is Jerry Jones.

Now, I understand this will be hard.  Jerry Jones did such a bang-up job in the early 90's.  Three Superbowl championships in four years is impressive.  Wait, you mean Jerry wasn't the GM during those Superbowl runs?  You mean that Jimmy Johnson was the one making those calls until he was fired, and then Jones just left the same pieces in place?  The deuce you say!  And you mean that now, Jerry Jones is an even worse GM than he was in the late 90's because he's so busy being a celebrity and selling Pizzas and Buffalo Wings?

Well I don't believe it.  No one could be so egotistical that they would ruin good men's careers as sacrifices for their own self-image.  No one could possibly be such an idiot that they'd refuse to hire someone competent for a position simply because they didn't want to be shown up.  It simply isn't possible that anyone would be so blind that they would allow an icon of success to turn into a laughing-stock, and themselves with it.

Nevertheless, however hard this decision may be, it is necessary.  If the Cowboys are ever going to be a winning franchise, then the Owner must fire the General Manager, and hire someone competent to handle those duties.

Before the back office becomes even more of a laughing-stock.

What Happened To Thanksgiving?

It seems people say it every year, but Christmas sales, and Christmas promotions, and Christmas decorations seem to come out earlier and earlier every year.  This year, my local stores had Christmas stuff up starting before Halloween.  One of the local radio stations started playing Christmas Music last week.  People are camping out at stores to get "Black Friday Deals" already.

What happened to Thanksgiving, or, for that matter, thanksgiving? 

I get it.  Thanksgiving is not a big retail holiday.  People don't give each other Thanksgiving gifts.  They don't buy each other Thanksgiving Baskets or decorate Thanksgiving Eggs.  They don't buy Thanksgiving costumes.  From a retail standpoint, Thanksgiving is a non-entity.  Sure, the grocery stores like it, but they like Christmas, New Year's Day, Easter, and the Fourth of July just as much.  Best Buy couldn't care any less.

Just because the stores do it, doesn't mean we have to encourage it, though.  Right now, people in general are depressed and disheartened.  All the "news" is bad news.  Families wait on pins and needles to find out if their children in Afghanistan are still safe.  People with family in Israel have similar fears over their loved ones.  Over 23,000,000 people don't have jobs, and are having to rely on charity for food.

In the midst of all of this, we should be thankful.  We should be joyful.  I say this both as a Christian and an American.  As a Christian, I'm commanded to thanksgiving and joy anyway.  I don't always live up to that, but I'm instructed to give thanks even when I'm burdened by troubles.  As an American, I am one of the most wealthy people in the history of the world.  As a somewhat successful computer programmer, I can afford to feed my family just on my income, so my wife can rear our children.

Later, I'll post a list of what I'm thankful for, and why.  For now, why don't you fill the comments with your thanks?

Susan Estrich: I Didn't Vote For Obama's Policies, Just For Obama

Well, then, Ms. Estrich, why did you vote for him?  His stunning success as cutting the deficit in half like he promised?  Did you vote for his stellar record of job creation and unemployment numbers?  Oh, I know, you voted for him because of his amazing facility for quieting our international foes while bolstering our allies.

Oh, that's right.  You voted because somehow no one can do what you explicitly state you were able to do.  To whit:

I voted for Obama. I voted for him because I know how hard it is to buy health insurance for a single person with even a minor pre-existing condition. In the case of my nanny/housekeeper/dear friend, it was gastritis. Thank God for Kaiser, which sold me the insurance that some years later saved her life when she was diagnosed with cancer. So call it what you will, but I did not want to see Obamacare repealed.

Now she's complaining because Obama claims he has a mandate to raise taxes.  Guess what, Ms. Estrich, he believes he does.  Why might he believe that?  How about the fact he ran on tax increases.  His answer to everything for the entire election season was "Tax the Rich."  And now you have the gall to be surprised that he wants to raise taxes?  I mean, it's obvious you're stupid from the paragraph I quoted, but exactly how stupid are you?  Are you only able to "type" because someone gave you Dragon, Naturally Speaking and showed you how to use it?

This kind of thing drives me nuts.  It's absolutely stupid, and I hate stupidity.  Democrats run on competing ideas all the time.  They want to raise taxes "on the rich" but won't raise taxes.  They're all about Amnesty when talking to Hispanic voters, and all about border control when talking to rural Whites.  So many Democrats are single issue voters, and they choose not to notice the Democrats' positions on the other issues.

So, yes, Ms. Estrich, you did vote for Barack Obama to raise your taxes.  He claimed that was his specific intent, and you voted for it.  You also voted for continued drone strikes and involvement in Syria.  You voted to stone-wall the investigations into Fast and Furious and Benghazi.  You voted for a porous border.  You voted to spend billions on "green energy" schemes which are doomed to failure, and continued refusal to drill for oil on Federal land.  You voted for massive spending cuts in Medicare and Defense.  You voted to support Hamas and Al Qaida over Israel.

These are all things that Barack Obama stood for during re-election.  If you voted for him, you voted for all of them.

H/T Ace.  Again.

The Growing Police State: Email Edition

When Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy first introduced his internet surveillance bill, he claimed that it "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."  That doesn't seem to be true anymore.  After receiving push-back from law enforcement, Mr. Leahy is suggesting a series of amendments which basically mean that law enforcement and other government agencies do not need to prove probable cause to gain access to your electronic information, they merely need to subpoena the information they want.

According to CNET, the bill does the following:
* Grants warrantless access to Americans' Electronic Data to over 22 Federal Agencies.  Only a subpoena would be required.
* Allows State and Local officials warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence which is "stored on systems no offered 'to the the public,' including university networks."
* Allows any law enforcement agency warrantless access without judicial review if they invoke an "emergency."
* Requires providers to notify the Government if they are going to warn users that their data has been targeted.
* Increases minimum time for the government to notify users from 3 days to 10 days, and allows for postponement for up to 360 days.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, the 4th Amendment allows us to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."  Further, that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized."

I'm so sorry that it's more difficult to our Feudal Lords to prosecute us when they have to observe the niceties of proving probable cause before a judge, but that's the way the rules work.  This is flagrant disregard of the 4th Amendment, and must be stopped forthwith.

Join me in calling for Republican to Filibuster this legislation.  It is not enough that it be defeated in the House, if it were to be so defeated, our Senators must rise up and protect our Constitutionally preserved rights.

Are you angry yet?

Are You Angry Yet?

The Government is stealing your private property.  Have you noticed?  Are you angry?

Private Property rights are the source from which all Liberty flows.  Private Property rights are based on the idea that you have a limited number of hours of life, and you should be able to spend them how you choose, and dispose of the produce of your labor as you choose.  The income tax is a tax on the produce of your Labor.  It is, in essence, the Government proclaiming that it, not you, owns your labor and that it, not you, gets first choice of how the produce of that labor is spent.

Are you angry yet?

One of the things one can do with the produce of his labor is accumulate private property, especially real property (that is: land).  When the government taxes your property, they are claiming that they own it, not you, and that they get first choice of how to dispose of it, not you.

Are you angry yet?

Between the income tax and the property tax, the Government is stealing hours of your life away.  Then, once you die, they again seize your property.  So-called "inheritance taxes" are ostensibly designed to prevent people from becoming "too" rich.  Even if such were possible it would be evil- I should be able to accumulate as much property as I am able, and then should be able to dispose of it as I choose- including willing it to my descendents upon my death.  In the real world, of course, the very rich find ways of avoiding the death tax, while it is the upwardly mobile who are most punished by it.

Are you angry yet?

If the President has his way with the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, more of your income will be seized by the state through your income taxes.  Spending will be cut drastically (generally a good thing, really) with no plan or design to guide the cuts (a bad thing).  One consequence of this will be States increasing their own taxes (income, property, or both) stealing yet more of your income to use in ways you might actively oppose.  Additionally, the death tax, currently in abayance, will return at 55%  More than half of the wealth of the moderately successful will be seized upon their deaths, while the truly rich will have already divested themselves of direct ownership of their assets- thus avoiding most of the brunt of such a tax.

Are you angry yet?

If you aren't, you should be.  If you are, what are you doing about it?

Fratricide: Bakers' Union Kills Nearly 13,000 Other Union Jobs

Well, they did it.  Hostess said Wednesday that if the Bakers weren't back to work by end of day Thursday, they'd liquidate.  The Teamsters (hardly a friend of corporations) backed them up, saying that Hostess really couldn't afford a better deal than it was offering.  The Bakers still didn't believe them, and refused to return to work.

This morning, Hostess has declared it will seek judicial permission to liquidate its assets, shutter all of its plants, and lay off approximately 18,000 mostly union workers.  The Bakers union was the second largest, after the Teamsters, for Hostess.  The represent about 5,000 employees.  These 5,000 employees decided that it was better that no one get anything than that they take an 8% pay cut.

Think about that.  Rather than take 92% of their prior pay rate, they would rather take 0% and force the other workers (again: largely union workers) also to get 0% of their prior wages.

Heck of a job.

Now, I'm not sure what the Bakers Union told the employees, but I suspect people didn't really think things all the way through.  You see, when a company normally lays off employees, they are eligible for some benefits.  These include Unemployment and COBRA.  When a company liquidates, however, all of those benefits go away.  That includes for people currently on them.  So it's not just current employees who are being screwed over by the bakers, it's employees who had been fired, laid off, or otherwise left the company in the last 18 months.  I'm sure in this time of (real) 14+% unemployment, they'll really appreciate not having access to Unemployment benefits or COBRA.

Then there are retirees.  Pensions?  Gone.  Retiree health benefits?  Gone.  The company will discharge all of those liabilities in bankruptcy.  The bakers union has absolutely destroyed well upwards of 18,000 lives, because they didn't want to take an 8% pay cut.  Zero percent was better, in their minds, than 92%.

Now, it's easy to pin this just on the bakers union.  In this particular case, it's where the blame belongs.  But there is a larger point, here.

Unions often talk about a fraternity, or a sense of mutual respect even between unions.  One of the reasons strikes are often effective is that when one union strikes, others often will in solidarity.  Unions help each other out.  Union members respect members of other unions.  They're not like those icky Scabs who just want to work for a wage, and don't particularly care about Sticking It To The Man. 

But when it comes down to it, they'll throw that fraternity away.  Their selfish desires mean they'll use the other unions, but they don't really care about them.  If they think they can get more, even if losing the gamble means ruining other lives, they'll take the gamble.

And why shouldn't they?  It's not the union bosses who are going to be out of a job on Tuesday.  They won't be the ones losing their pensions and benefits.  The union bosses won't be looking for work in this economy.  What skin is it off their nose if these 18,000 families suddenly have no, or at least greatly reduced, income?