What Do Conservatives Want?

So, over at the HQ this morning, commenter jwest raised an interesting point.  His comment is too long to quote in its entirety, but the gist seems to be this:  Conservatives, especially in the blogosphere, are too ready to pull out the Long Knives whenever one of our allies (actual allies- a Perry, or Walker, or Cruz, or Lee) makes a tiny misstep.  So we should probably make some decisions, as a movement, about where we really stand.

So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader).  I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.

1: Immigration/Border

On immigration, has anyone defined what the word "amnesty" means? We can't simply say "follow existing law", because than entails kicking in doors at 2am and dragging mothers away from their children (which looks bad on the evening news). It would be good to have a well written position on what true conservatives want.

Amnesty means "officially not administering just punishment for a crime."  Any "path to legalization" or "path to citizenship" is Amnesty.

Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it).  Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens.  Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals.  Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.

2: ObamaCare/Health Care/Health Insurance

On healthcare, certainly everyone wants Obamacare repealed, but that's not a position. Never in the history of the U.S. has the government been able to give citizens free shit and then turn around and take it back. Those who think this is an option just aren't being serious. We need a conservative plan on what is going to replace Obamacare.

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

The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance.  The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance.  Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).

3: Defense (esp. Defense Budget)

On defense, some are taking the position that patriotism can be gauged by how much we spend on the military. Others know that at some point, enough is enough. It's hard to make the case of being a budget hawk while handing out blank checks. We should nail this down so that voters know where we're at.

I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money.  I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much).  Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient.  If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.

4: Social Security

On Social Security, for decades the holy grail of the conservative side of the aisle was a plan to privatize SS. If this is still the plan, it could be marketed in such a way as to gain the black vote. Of course, our side needs to agree on plan first.

One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA.  Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's.  For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan.  Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.

I'll add on top of that:

5: Taxes

A massively simplified tax code.  Flat tax, fair tax, even a progressive/graduated tax which is simple to understand would be far better than what we have today.  I don't think, realistically, we'll ever get a true "flat tax," and the "fair tax" scares me unless we can repeal the 16th Amendment.  Repeal the estate tax, drop corporate taxes to around 15%, stop taxing capital gains (and maybe dividends).

6: Budget

A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country.  Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).

What are your thoughts?  Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.

Let The Vetting Begin

Democrats are pushing San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro as "the next Barack Obama."  If that's going to be the case, then I believe he deserves a much more thorough vetting than the current Barack Obama. (Side note: if you're the leader of your party, and the party is already talking about the next you, you have a problem.)

Luckily for us, the great team over at Breitbart.com is already getting started, and boy is their first entry a doozy.  It turns out that Julian Castro is the next Barack Obama- an America hating, pro-socialist demagogue who learned radicalism from a young age and, it seems, has never once considered the logical flaws in his ideology.

You see, Julian Castro is as much a beneficiary of the affirmative action state as Barack Obama.  His article which is quoted extensively by Mr. Johnson, was written at Stanford.  Despite the fact that, as an Ivy League school, any evidence of some "majority oppression" would have been highly evident there, Mr. Castro was accepted and (unlike Barack Obama) apparently actually published something.  The very idea, however, that any "majority oppression" was overstated, if not imaginary, never seems to cross his mind.

Most of that is due to his upbringing.  It turns out his mother was one of the founders of the group now known as La Raza, and a firm believer in the Reconquista movement.  The author at Breitbart doesn't get too much into Reconquista, so let me explain it in broad terms.

Mexico once controlled most of the United States Southwest.  From holdings in Louisiana, through Texas, up to Colorado, and over to California, most of what we now call the Southwest was formerly Mexican territory.  The first of that to change was Louisiana, when Spain ceded all its territory there to the French.  Next to go was Texas; when the combined White settlers and Mexican nationals (collectively called Texicans) rebelled against the nation of Mexico and won our independence.  After that it was a slow but inexorable slide to the current boundaries.

Those who believe in Reconquista conveniently forget that a good half of the Texan Patriots were Mexican nationals.  They forget that "Free Mexico" never was.  And they believe that the Southwest, from Texas to Colorado, to California is "rightfully" theirs, and that they should take it back.  This is La Raza's goal, the idea which lead to their creation.  They call the Southwest "Aztlan," which is really funny, since it was the Mexican government, still beholden to Spain, which mostly wiped out the rather barbaric Aztec culture.

That San Antonio, home of Texas's most vivid symbol of resistance and determination, could have elected someone who supports Reconquista boggles my mind.  In the home of the sacrifice of so many of our relatives (yes, I had an ancestor who died at the Alamo), you would think the people would be more skeptical of La Raza and what it really stands for.

As for Mr. Castro and his Reconquista brothers and sisters: in the words of those Texans so long ago, "Come and Take it."

On Abortion and Rape: Why Are We Talking About This?

So, by now you know all about Representative Akin's remarks regarding abortion and rape.  If you live under a rock, the short version is that he said that women have a natural process which makes it harder to get pregnant when you're raped, so only those who are pregnant by "legitimate rape" should be able to get abortions.  Gah.

So, friend of the blog and twitter buddy @tsrblke who also happens to be a Ph.D. candidate in bioethics and a faithful Catholic sent me his thoughts.  I'll follow up with mine.

The question of abortion is rape is a moral quagmire, and frankly you’re not going to win over either side by trying to split the middle.  Frankly, an exception for rape and incest is a bit internally inconsistent if you truly believe that the product of conception is an innocent human life.  So what to do gets dicey at best.  It’s also a question the Catholic Church has had to deal with for years given its front line status operating hospitals.  So let’s look at the Catholic Ethical and Religious Directives (#36 specifically):

“36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

Now many people will look at this initial response and go “OMG! Catholic Church!! Birth Control!!!!!!!” but read it again.  The church’s objection to birth control is the separation of the unitive and procreative functions of sex.  That’s really not at issue in rape. Some theologians have gone on to say that in the case of rape the sperm actually represent continued assault and the effect of that should be mitigated to the extent that it doesn’t harm and innocent life.

So how does this apply to the non-Catholic Akin?  The answer is simple.  When presented with the question you simply answer in much the same way: “The question of abortions in the case of rape is complicated. Rape is hard on the victims, but since I believe that life begins at conception it seems wrong to resort to abortion to solve these problems.  Furthermore, it isn’t helpful to rape victims.  The primary concern should be getting rape victims treatment they need, such as emergency contraception, as soon as possible. We need to strengthen systems that encourage reporting and help frontline care in hospitals.  In doing so we can prevent the pregnancies all together and avoid having to make the woman choose between two horrible options.”

Now my comments:  Why the heck wasn't Rep. Akin smart enough to keep his yap shut?  Let's say you believe in a complete ban on abortion.  Why on earth would you advertise that?  It even turns of a fair number of people on your own side.  And then it distracts from what this election should be about.

All due respect to tsrblke, here is my answer:

"Abortion is not the issue in this election.  People have differing views, and most of them are quite sincere in their beliefs.  Rape is a horrific crime, and the perpetrators of such crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.  However, what is more important is that the health insurance law known as ObamaCare makes it harder for women with legitimate health needs- whatever those may be- to get the care they need.  Meanwhile, it balloons the budget beyond levels that are merely unsustainable.  Let us fix those issues, which have very serious implications for our survival as a nation, and then we can come back to the question of when abortion should be allowed versus when it should be disallowed."

Ladies and gentlemen of the GOP- this is an economy election, and as I've demonstrated here, every social issue has some hook that you can use to talk about the economy.

To quote the iconic Yellow Leader: "Stay on target."

On Marriage

So, apparently Dan Cathy, current CEO of Chick-Fil-A Restaurants, made liberals cry the other day when he said that it was the height of hubris to believe that humans, not God, define marriage, and asked God to have mercy on us for believing otherwise.  Liberals decided this makes him a big meany, and that they should vociferously boycott Chick-Fil-A Restaurants.

First off- good, that means there might be enough fewer people at the CfA drive-through when I go to lunch today that the line doesn't wrap all the way around the building. 

Secondly, let's examine the idea he put forward- does Man, or God (or, if you prefer: The Universe) define marriage?

Now, to some extent, man defines marriage.  Inasmuch as there is a societal construct called "marriage" that has varied from society to society, and that many societies have put the force of law behind that institution, marriage is "man made."  We even call it "the marriage contract," for this reason.

However, if we examine nature, we find that God (or 'The Universe') defines marriage far more than man does.  As CS Lewis once pointed out, different societies may have differed on marriage in that they differed about how many wives one could have, or how easy it was to dissolve that contract, but all societies everywhere have believed it wrong just to "have any woman you liked."  Even animals, to one extent or another, follow these rules.

Now, much ado has been made about specific instances of "homosexual behavior" found in animals.  These seem to fall into two categories- the truly abnormal, and what might be called, for lack of a better descriptor, "critical thinking in sexuality."  Truly abnormal instances, like the so-called "gay penguins," are remarkable specifically because they are abnormal.  Even those who believe in Darwinian evolution must concede that if homosexuality were the norm in animals, we'd have a lot fewer animals. 

Liberals often, however, point to supposed "normal" homosexual behavior in some simian species, especially varieties of monkey.  Even there, however, they have to admit that in the vast majority of cases the issue is not that the moneys are actually "homosexual," but rather that they tend to be males who have no chance of breeding with the females.  One might say, "They have certain needs..." 

In neither case is it considered "normal" behavior.  It seems pretty clear that the "normal" mode of nature is heterosexual.  Inasmuch as marriage as we know it is simply putting some limits on otherwise base and animal behavior, then we could say that God (or the Universe) defines marriage, not man.

Of course, if you're religious at all, you don't need to go through that thought process.  God has spoken, and he defined marriage as a heterosexual union between one man and one woman.  We got to the same place, but much simpler.

All of this backs up what Mr. Cathy said.  Nothing Mr. Cathy said was discriminatory or bigoted.  He didn't pass judgment on gay couples, simply on society for enabling or encouraging the behavior.  As a social conservative, I must say I agree with him.  You'll even note he never said anything about banning the behavior, simply not condoning it- which are two very different things.

In Defense of Liberty

The Honorable Rick Perry

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Dear Governor,

As you are no doubt aware, the United States Supreme Court just upheld one of the most egregious usurpations of State and Individual Liberty in American History.  By declaring the Individual Mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act) a tax, they did not merely uphold this tyrannical statute, they did so while directly contradicting themselves (if it were really a tax, rules state they cannot rule on the law until the tax has gone into effect) as well as the law itself (the word “tax” never occurs regarding the Mandate).

By upholding the Act, the Supreme Court has effectively decided that it is within the purview of the Federal Government to levy a tax on breathing.  The individual mandate, as you know, is not a tax on voluntary economic activity.  Rather it is a tax on voluntary economic inactivity.  Simply being alive and choosing not to carry an insurance policy is enough to force you to pay the tax.  This is not true of any other tax.  Income taxes are not owed if you make no income; they tax economic activity, not economic inactivity.  Sales taxes are not owed if you do not purchase anything; they tax economic activity, not economic inactivity.  Cigarette taxes and gasoline taxes are similar examples; to avoid the taxes, do not engage in the proscribed economic activity.

This is a perversion of everything our forefathers fought to achieve.  It is tyrannical and unjust.  The Act is blatantly unconstitutional, and the Court has ignored the constitution in deference to its precious “precedent.”

Mr. Governor, we, the people of Texas, have nowhere else to turn.  Our congressional leaders have failed us.  The Courts of the United States have failed us.  I humbly beseech that the State of Texas defend us from this tyrannical overreach.

To that end, I would ask that the State of Texas act in the following ways:

1)      That no State resources be used to enforce this act of tyranny.

2)      That the State would officially affirm, via legislation, the same.

3)      That the State act to shield those persons who refuse to comply with this tyranny from the Federal Authority.

Mr. Governor, I understand what I’m asking.  I understand that this would be a huge and possibly irreversible step.  I understand that it is a gamble and, to some extent, “asking for trouble.”  Nevertheless, I believe it to be the right course.  I believe that the Natural Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are not outmoded ideas.  I believe the rights upheld in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not antiquated notions.  And I believe that they must be vigorously defended.

With Sincere Respect,

Just Kill It Already

Beginning my new series of posts about the popular provisions of Obamacare, you should find the first up on The Axiom Report (see my side bar) today.  I'll update this post when it goes live. Update- It's Live

The first post is fairly information dense and it sets up a lot of things you'll need to know for the rest of the posts to make sense.  So here's the Reader's Digest version, but really do click over and read the whole thing.

1- There are essentially 3 kinds of Health Insurance Plans: Fully Funded Group, Fully Insured Group, and Personal.

2- The only two that insurance companies get to use to spread their own risk are the Fully Insured Group and Personal policies.

3- Group insurance is often subsidized, partially or fully, while you pay 100% of any Personal policy premiums.

Now, you may be asking why I feel qualified to talk about these things.  I worked for BlueCross BlueShield of Texas, processing claims and then providing phone and written customer service for the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool for about three years.  After that, I stayed in Health Care IT until about 18 months ago. I've worked at a Claims Clearing House, assisting doctors and hospitals with getting their claims billed and submitted properly so they could be paid more quickly, and at a COBRA and FSA administrator.  I know health care.  Specifically, I know health insurance, how it works, and how it does not work.

Jessie Jackson Jr., Economic Genius

Today, Jessie Jackson Jr announced a plan to increase the national minimum wage from $7.25/hr to $10.00/hr.  The New York Times (no link for the 'Fish Wrap of Record') says that "The argument in favor of raising the minimum wage as a form of economic stimulus goes to the heart of the debate in government and business spheres about whether more spending needs to be part of the prescription for strengthening the economy." 

This idea is based on four false premises, and I think they deserve a little bit of attention.

False Premise 1: The "Income Gap" is, by definition, bad.

Thomas Sowell Debunks this quite handily.  For one thing, as he points out repeatedly, when we talk about income levels, we're ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people move through those brackets, both up and down, over the course of their lifetimes.  Someone making $15,000/yr this year might be making 30, or 60, or even 90+ thousand dollars a year in just two or three years' time.  Someone making $250,000/yr this year might be down to the high double digits of thousands the very next year.  This volatility is especially true at the top and bottom ends of the spectrum.

Further, if "income inequality" is bad, that would require that it's opposite- "income equality" was both good and possible.  We have no evidence for the former, and we know that it isn't possible.  There will be some people who make more than others, often by a very large margin.  Even in supposedly "equal" Soviet Russia the Party Officers made far more money than the average citizen.  There were those who provided much needed material who were able to leverage that into very high incomes- and this in a Communist State.

False Premise 2: Higher Wages are good for low wage workers.

Again, Thomas Sowell debunks this.  The Minimum Wage, he points out, isn't really.  The actual minimum wage is always zero; you could just not have a job.  What the Federal Minimum Wage really does is prices young and inexperienced workers out of the job market.  Why higher a high school kid for $10.00/hr when I can get a college graduate for the same amount?

Just as importantly, an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage leads to inflation: as more people are able to afford to pay more for goods and services, not to mention the cost of providing those same goods and services going up, things begin to cost more.  When that happens, the people it hurts most are the ones who are still at the low end of the spectrum.  The middle class can tighten their belts, drop the cable, and survive.  The Rich may not even have to do that.  It is the poor who are most adversely affected by the "invisible tax" that is inflation.

False Premise 3: Low Wages are the "fault" of business

Wages, in many ways, are the "price" for an employee.  That may be an uncomfortable fact, but it is a fact nonetheless.  Because, in many ways, employees are also commodities, they- just like any other "consumable" are subject to the laws of supply and demand and a competitive marketplace.  That means employers will pay as little as they can get away with, while employees will ask for as much as they can (at least: in theory- the real world is often more complicated than theory- but it certainly isn't less complicated, which Minimum Wage laws assume).  When you put any kind of "price control" on a commodity (in this case, a Minimum Wage on workers), you interfere with the market place.  Such interference almost always has severe negative results.

Further, Businesses hire based on need.  When they need a new employee, they'll hire one.  When prices are higher, they will put off hiring employees for longer, and will higher fewer than they would when prices are lower.  In many cases, businesses will put off growth rather than hire new personnel when the economy is bad enough- and Minimum Wage laws only add to that.

False Premise 4: The Minimum Wage should be a "Living Wage."

I'm not sure when this got started, but it's laughable on its face.  The people who will be making minimum wage for more than a year or so are students.  Particularly, they are high school students who are not paying their own way.  Heck, my first job (at a pizza place in semi-rural Texas) paid slightly over minimum wage.  Very few people actually make the minimum, and the ones who do are in jobs that are not designed to support a family.  People with families, or even without families but who need to be supporting themselves, will almost always be in jobs that provide for them.

What a Minimum Wage actually does is to increase what is required for a "living wage" by increasing demand, thereby increasing inflation, and thereby reducing the spending power of the dollar.  In short, a Minimum Wage actually makes everyone poorer.  That professional who was making $60,000/yr can now afford less than they could before the minimum wage had gone up.  The ripples are so far reaching that it almost defies cataloging.

I'm under no illusion that the Federal Minimum Wage will be repealed (it should be), but to increase it again, especially under the demagogic auspices of "income equality" or "fairness" would be disastrous- especially in our already very frail and fragile economy.

Apropos of Nothing

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

The Growing Police State: Internet Trolls Edition

No one likes Trolls.  No, I'm not talking about the little dolls with the neon hair.  I'm talking about internet trolls.  Those people who get into your comment thread just to drop a load and move on.  Or they like to say mean, nasty, sometimes hurtful things about people.  Over at the Ace of Spades HQ, we have a rather novel way of taking care of them: we make fun of them, and ridicule them mercilessly.  It seems to work- we don't have very many trolls.

But the NY State Assembly doesn't seem to think that people are able to take care of their own troll problem, so they've decided to write a bill making anonymous internet comments illegal.  This does seem to include using pseudonyms as well.  So if you don't post with your real name and some real contact information, your comment must be taken down by the site administrator once they are made aware of it.

As Wired magazine pointed out (link in the original article), this would have banned the Federalist Papers from online distribution.  What makes this worse, is that it's being pushed by Republicans.  I thought we were supposed to be pro-free speech.  What happened?

As if that were not bad enough, we get this great quote from Thomas O'Mara, the NY Senate's sole sponsor of the legislation, when he was questioned about the 1st Amendment violations this legislation would cause, "Today is the first day that these issues have been raised," and further, "I haven't gotten any comments from my colleagues in the Senate who said that this wasn't a good idea."

Really, Mr. O'Mara?  Could you possibly have beclowned yourself any more?  Protip: If your legislation would regulate speech or writing, it's probably going to have First Amendment implications, and you should circular-file it forthwith.  If you really hadn't thought of the 1st Amendment implications, then you're an idiot and not qualified for office.  If you did think of those, and just sort of hoped no one would notice, you're a lying tyrant and not fit for office.  Either way, I'm not thinking you should be in office.

And to all of those "colleagues" who didn't say the legislation wasn't a good idea: the same goes for you.  You should have thought of the First Amendment.  If you didn't, you're an idiot who isn't fit for office.  If you did, you're a tyrant who isn't fit for office.  So which is it?

The Growing Police State: JPMC Edition

Recently, JP Morgan Chase disclosed that it had lost around $2bn in trades designed to increase it's security.  Notwithstanding the monumental screw-up that must be, the Left has leaped at the chance for more regulation.  We're told that JPMC losing $2bn in completely legal trades means those trades should not be legal.  We're told that US Commissions (specifically the SEC and the CFTC) should have the authority to oversee transactions in foreign markets.

Today, the Chairmen of those two committees testified to just those ideas- and their steps to implement them- before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.  There testimonies are here and here.

Now, I am not going to defend JPMC for making bad bets.  That was a stupid thing to do: when you're securing against risk, you do that by accepting a lesser return in exchange for greater security.  This is Finance 101, and certainly something of which they were aware.  However, $2bn is roughly 2% of their Revenue for all of 2011.  Think about that.  For a family making 60,000/yr, that would be like losing $1200.00 at a casino. That's significant, yes, but hardly earth-shattering.  Yet we're now supposed to believe that it shows some major fault in "the system."

The major fault in the system is this: our crazy regulatory environment that creates loopholes like the one JPMC used to make the trades in the first place.  It's the regulatory environment that makes companies look to foreign investment and securities as more cost effective (and therefore more secure) than domestic investment and security.  It's the regulatory environment in which unelected, executive-branch committees can, with little or no repercussion, write their own "rules."  That is: they can create Laws- backed by the Justice System of the United States, without those rules ever being voted on by a single elected representative.  Instead, the Congress cedes its legislative authority to these "Commissions" and avoids having to take a stand on these rules.  Instead, they can issue vague guidelines.

And that is just what is going on here.  In 2009, the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform act was passed.  It created exactly the environment in which JPMC made what seemed like a rational decision to invest holdings- to increase security- offshore in London instead of here- under the ever pressent eye of the SEC.  Rather than consider the possibility that a simpler, more rational approach might actually serve the purposes better, we're told that we need more regulation and more rules.  All the while, the noose around American Corporations' necks draws tighter.

Eventually, it will simply not be cost effective to do business as an American Company anymore.  Don't expect JPMC to close up shop, then.  No, expect them to move all their corporate holdings to some other, less regulated, environment.  Unless, of course, the Congress sees to it that there's no escape.

A Rorshach Test

If you understand why I despair for the country after this quote from Barack Obama (noted Stuttering Clusterf*ck of a Miserable Tyrant), then you're probably Conservative.  If you don't, you're probably Liberal.  So, with no further ado:

"When you're president, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying for their retraining."

The Growing Police State: Ice Cream Stand Edition

In Massachusetts, in Great Brook Farm State Park, there is a working dairy farm which also sells ice cream.  Well, there was.  You see, the man who operates this working dairy farm, largely as an educational service, had the unmitigated gall to make improvements without permission, mostly to a barn -built in 1910- which is beside the ice cream stand itself.  This infraction had to be punished, so the ice cream stand was shut down by the State: who then posted armed guards.

What, were they afraid of an Ice cream Rebellion?  Were hundreds of small children and their parents going to storm the ice cream stand?

Even granted that building improvements do require permits (something about which I'm highly ambivalent), and even granting that construction would require the ice cream stand itself to be reinspected, I don't understand the armed guards part of this.  Indeed, a basic health and safety inspection should take a couple of hours, tops, yet the stand was shut down in the late afternoon on Friday, just before a busy weekend.

So, in addition to depriving families of yummy, yummy ice cream, the State has put 13 more people out of jobs (yeah, it's not very many, but when 23+ million people are unemployed, do we really want to add to that number) and deprived the operator of the Farm and Ice cream Stand of a vital weekend's worth of revenue.

This is Government run amok.  This is what will inevitably happen when we allow Government to become our parent, instead of the "referee" it should be.  You see, I'm pretty sure (with the exception of the armed guards thing- not sure what that's about) that each individual government official involved was just doing his job.  Someone noted the improvements were made without a permit, so he notified the inspector types.  The inspector types probably didn't even get around to looking at it until Friday afternoon at some point.  Then they had to do their paperwork type stuff, so it wasn't until late in the day when they could get there.  Then, since the people who needed to approve the stand for reopening are almost certainly Government Employee Union members, they left for the weekend.  So, of course, the stand couldn't reopen immediately- the inspection has to be done.  And so on.

Is this what we want?  Do we want some nanny state government which controls our every action; our every interaction?  Because, to make things "fair," the bureaucracy cannot stop to consider circumstances before enforcing rules.  Everyone must be held to the same standard, regardless of circumstance, because to do otherwise would not be "fair."  And that doesn't even take into consideration resource limitations; there are only so many hours in the day, after all.

So welcome, Americans, to the Police State.  Where your Ice cream Stand will be Safe! or it will be guarded by police to prevent that evil capitalist from selling you ice cream.

The Growing Police State: Your Dog Edition

Arlington, TX has a new rule regarding tethering your dog: don't.  Citing a study (though I can find no direct link to said study) which claims that tethered dogs are much more violent than non-tethered dogs, the Arlington City Council approved an ordinance which prohibits tethering your dog (that is: tying it to tree, or a post, or whatever) unless you "maintain physical control" of the animal.

At the linked article, a sob story is given of a woman who went up to a strange dog to pet it and was attacked.

Let's take this apart, shall we?  First, the sob story: who goes up to a strange dog?  I was taught not to do that when I was a child.  It's pretty well common sense.  People sometimes train their dogs to be aggressive.  Other dogs are aggressive despite training.  If the owner isn't around, and you don't know the dog, you don't approach it.  It's that simple.  That's why people call animal control when they see a dog just wandering around.  Part of it is for the dog's safety, but it's mostly so the dog doesn't attack and maul some child or elderly person.  I'm sorry, you don't get to be mad that a strange dog reacted to you, a stranger, in the way that dogs react to strangers.

Now, for the ordinance: it's stupid.  It is, once again, the government providing a too-big solution for a largely imaginary problem.  We already have rules on the books against letting your dog bite people.  We don't need another one.  Additionally, sometimes dog owners need to tie up their dogs.  Sometimes for extended periods.

Case in point: for a while, one of my dogs (I still have him) had a very bad habit of escaping his pen (we had a shared yard), and then the yard itself.  The pen was one of those 10x10 chain-link enclosures.  It wasn't an optimal place to keep him, but a) it was temporary, and b) I didn't have much other choice.  Except, once he started escaping, that didn't work either.  So, when I had to leave him outside, I had to tether him.  And, yes, he was territorial (most male dogs are), and, yes, he growled at people he didn't know who approached the house.  Color me stunned.

Having a law that says we couldn't do that would not have helped the situation.  We didn't have another viable option, at the time, so basically an ordinance like that would have been an extra tax: we wouldn't have had much option beyond just paying the fines. 

Now, I'm not saying that everyone who leaves their dogs tethered in their yard is in the same situation.  I am saying that, unless the dog escapes and attacks you, it's not your business.  If the dog does escape and attack you, the laws already reflect the fact that I'm liable for that.  Depending on the severity of the attack, or if it has happened more than once, I may even be criminally liable.

Certainly a lot of do-good reasons can be given for this law.  The cited study is one such.  Preventing animal cruelty is another.  Once again, however, I have to point out- we already have laws on the books about what happens when your dog hurts someone.  We also already have laws on the books against treating your dog cruelly.  So what purpose does this law serve?

Well, it doesn't serve the purported purpose- that purpose was already being served adequately.  Remember, the case used to show the importance of the law was a woman walking up to a strange dog and being attacked.  The dog hadn't escaped.  It didn't approach the woman.  She approached the dog.  No, the only purpose the ordinance actually serves is to further criminalize the populace.  If you happen to have a case where tethering your dog for a time would be the optimal solution, you now either have to be a criminal or you have to choose a sub-optimal solution.

However much the Arlington City Council says so, this is not about protecting the public.  It is not about protecting dogs.  It is about controlling the public and making a criminal offense out of what was previously perfectly legal behavior.

And the Police State continues to grow.

When You Can Reasonably Mistake 'Million' for 'Billion,' Something is Wrong

Over at the Ace of Spades HQ (permalinked in my side-bar), on one of the threads we got to discussing President Obama's Health Care law, and the fact that it guts $500 Billion from Medicare (all the while, Democrats are screaming that Republicans want to end Medicare.  Go figure.).  When that point of discussion first came up, I said 'Million.'  That was a mistake of memory, not of typing, for me.  I had simply forgotten the enormity of the cut to Medicare.

Now, consider that both of those numbers are believable numbers.  Consider further, that most people would see $500 Million as a very, very deep cut in spending.  But the number is $500 Billion.  As one commenter said "$500 Million is a pitance[sic]." 

In this day of Trillion Dollar deficits, in this day of a $16 Trillion, and counting, national debt, it is all too easy to look at $500 Million dollars as a pittance.  How disgusting.  It is immoral in the extreme for our government to so burden us, our children, and our grand-children to the n-th generation.

Our Government does far too much.  It spends too much money on things where it has no business.  It intervenes in areas it has no authority.  It continues to grow like a parasite devouring its host.  This must end.

The election in November will not be about ending this monstrosity of a Government, but it will be about checking it's growth, or about accelerating.  The election in November will be about whether or not we continue to heap mountains of debt on our posterity, or if we "tap the breaks" and attempt to get things under control.  But the war will not be won in November, even if we win the battle.  It will take many battles, each exerting a little more control on the Government.

Make no mistake, however:  We are fighting for Liberty.  The current war is not one fought with guns.  It will not have a body count (God willing).  It will not have historic battlegrounds.  It is a war all the same, and we must fight it.  And, given that we have true compassion for people, and therefore limits on how far we will go at any one time, we must when numerous battles to regain a little lost ground.  Our opponents must only win one to move us far closer to the slavery of socialism.

President Out and Proud Wants You Distracted

Willing to sacrifice his own life, and those of his men, for the Greater Good, Gold Leader (portrayed by Angus MacInnes) told his men, "Stay on Target."

Barack Obama is more than happy that the current discussion is about Same-Sex Marriage.  Sure, it hurts him with people whose votes he wasn't going to get anyway, but it doesn't hurt him much with his base.  On the other hand, it has served as a great "SQUIRREL!" for the Country At Large.

And so, in honor of President Shiny-Object, I tell you: Stay On Target.

Why the Police State Matters: Barack Obama's Enemies List

Readers of this blog know I have a semi-regular series of posts "The Growing Police State," in which I chronicle the further intrusion into our private lives by the Government.  I don't actually go looking for those stories- in fact, I often have to choose which ones to highlight.

Today reminds me why I do so, however.  This piece, from Kim Strassel with the Wall Street Journal, highlights positively chilling behavior by the Democrat political machine.

In January, the Obama Campaign "outed" several donors to Mitt Romney.  These are private citizens guilty of nothing more than opposing Mr. Obama's re-election.  Yet they were highlighted, targeted, by the Obama Campaign to punish them for supporting Mr. Romney, and to intimidate future potential donors.  Far worse than President Nixon's "Enemies List," which was simply foolish, this is has evolved into an attempt to fully destroy at least one of the men on Mr. Obama's own "enemies list."

It is no secret that I believe Barack Hussein Obama to be a tyrant.  I believe he sees himself not as "presiding" over the United States, but ruling it.  His actions speak for him.  He has violated written law by interfering in bankruptcy proceedings.  He has violated written law by sending foreign aid money to countries banned from receiving same.  He attempts to rule by fiat, and has appointed extra-constitutional officers and given them Cabinet-like powers.

And now he is targeting private citizens.

I don't care who you are: this cannot stand.  This is not a mere partisan matter.  This transcends Republican and Democrat, or it should.  This is not about mere politics, but about the President of the United States using the resources of a major political party to target private citizens for reprisal.

US House of Representatives and Senate, this means you.  You have the power to reign in this tyranny.  You must do so, if you love this Republic which our forefathers have built.

The Growing Police State: Urinal Edition

From the Daily Caller comes an article highlighting new stupidity from the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Whatever you think about the benefits or motivations behind the ADA, one cannot deny they cost our businesses money, and make things evermore difficult for them.  In this case, now they have to "protect" people who are shy about urinating around others.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen (mostly gentlemen on this one, I'd think) being "gun shy" is now a "disability" for which your employer must provide "reasonable accommodation."  Now, currently, they're talking about drug-tests.  The theory goes that taking a drug-test with someone in the room infringes on the rights of people with paruresis- the in ability to take a leak when someone else is watching.

Now, the issue here is not paruresis.  Though, the not-so-slippery slope there is this: how long before someone so "afflicted" claims the right to a private bathroom?  No, the point is the ADA itself.  Specifically the fact that they are now including "bladder and brain functions as major life activities."  That sounds so reasonable.  It sounds so "fair."  In reality, it means that almost anyone can get a doctor to sign off on some disability and force their employer to provide "reasonable accommodation," a thing which is rarely actually reasonable.

Have a phobia of the sun?  Well, that's brain activity, so now your 8 - 5 employer must allow you to work overnight.  Never mind that they have no need for a night-shift, and that it's more problematic for them to come up with something for you to do than just to let you go- nope, now you're protected by the ADA. 

Now, I completely understand having wheelchair ramps and elevators for the physically disabled.  I understand having alternative input devices on computers.  But those things allow you to hire someone who will still provide value.  How many "phobias" and "disorders" will employers now have to "accommodate" despite the fact doing so actively costs them money?  This is stupid.  This is, once again, the Government deciding it knows better than you do how to run your life, or, in this case, your business.

If ever it had a purpose (I have my doubts), the ADA has served them.  At this point, it simply regulates just to validate its own existence.  It is time remove it.

Defending Our Liberty: Positive Signs

So, this morning, the House added an amendment to a spending bill (HR 5326) that would prohibit the Department of Justice from suing States to stop State Immigration laws (such as Arizona's).

Now, I don't actually approve of the way this was done- if it's important enough to do, it should be important enough to have its own bill number.  However, I will take the time to applaud the House (well, a little golf-clap, anyway) for the spirit of the idea.  Immigration Policy is certainly a Federal Issue.  However, within a State, the State should have the authority- so long as it does not directly contradict Federal Law, to decide how it enforces said policy.  In the case of Arizona's law, and others like it, the laws have basically been reaffirmation of current Federal Law, and specific direction to Law Enforcement to enforce said Federal Law.

This is a positive step.  This is an affirmation that the States are Sovereign Entities within their own borders, and have a great deal of autonomy therein.  With a few more steps like this, perhaps we can begin moving back to a sane legal environment.

Not a Dollar's Worth of Difference? You're Mistaken.

Via Fox News, but written by the AP, comes this article.

It's fairly even handed, actually, though I feel it necessary to correct some of the fairly obvious bias.

So, here's one example.

The first position they discuss is "Abortion Rights."  It's funny how "Abortion Rights" never seem to include the rights of that yet-to-be-born child, but anyway, here's what the article says about Mitt Romney:

Romney: Opposes abortion rights. Previously supported them. Says state law should guide abortion rights, and Roe v. Wade should be reversed by a future Supreme Court. Said he would end federal aid to Planned Parenthood.

Right there at the beginning, it gives it away.  Romney does not oppose "abortion rights."  He opposes "abortion on demand."  He opposes giving abortions to minors without informing their parents.  Mostly he opposes (he says) a Federal structure for abortion law, and would return it to the States.

More important, however, look at how this is phrased: He "opposes abortion rights."  You see, ladies, you have a Right- given to you by God (or the Universe, or whatever) to have an abortion.  And, because it is a Right, and not a privilege,  the Government must secure that right- to the point of forcing people who object to abortion to help you pay for it, if you can't afford one one your own.

There's far too much to quote in a blog post, but go read the whole thing- keeping in the front of your mind the bias held by the writers.  Note where Obama is given praise for things he's "accomplished" even when those things are negative, and the general negative tone on Romney's positions.

But, more importantly, pay attention to the actual substance of the positions themselves.  We are dealing with two fundamentally different world-views in this election.  You have a choice between Neo-Marxism, and the Capitalist system which has lead this country to be the most prosperous in the world.

Papers, Please

"He who would sacrifice freedom for a little security deserves neither" -Ben Franklin (attrib)
"Never give up your freedom." -Larry Niven

In recent days, a couple of very disturbing things on the Liberty front have happened, almost without note.

First is this little nugget of a press release.  For those who don't want to click over, the Houston METRO service (along with Houston PD, Harris County Sheriffs, and the TSA) have decided that merely riding on a bus is behavior sufficiently suspicious that uniformed and plain clothes officers should be riding the buses looking for "latent criminal activity."

Second is this precious gem of a 4th Amendment violation from no less than your US Senate (Yes, that's Infowars, but they link to the specific legislation, don't worry).  For those who don't want to click over to that one, starting with the 2015 model year (that would be 2014, for the record) all passenger motor vehicles must have a recording device (like an airplane's 'black box').

Now, what I want to point out about both of these instances is that they're couched so reasonably.  See how seductive the siren's song is.  "It's for your safety."  "The information will remain private."  Ultimately, these come down to the Government saying "Trust us, we know what's best for you."

These are only two examples of a creeping tyrannical state that has been on the rise since at least the late 1930s.  As the Federal Government has seized more control over what should be State and Local functions, the States and Cities have been seizing more control over your personal habits.  As the Federal Government sees the States taking control of things, they, in turn, take control of those things.  It's a never-ending, vicious cycle.  And for decades we've just accepted it.

Well, we shouldn't accept it.  We shouldn't trust the Government- the government has proven too untrustworthy.  From TSA screeners patting down small children, to the Secret Service debauching it up while on assignment with the President, to the State Department illegally extending aid to Egypt.  Obviously the Government does not believe it is accountable for its actions, so what security do we have against it?

It is time for Americans to stand up for our Freedoms and let the Government know that we'll take care of our own personal security.  We don't need Big Sis to watch out for us.  We don't need a police state that has enough manpower to make sure there is a police officer on every bus or train.  We don't want our movements recorded "just in case."  We're big boys and girls, and we can be responsible for ourselves.

To our Senators and Congressmen (especially those from Texas, of whom I am a constituent), I call on you to reject these over-reaches of Governmental authority.  Reduce government and give me back my freedom.  Or it won't be too long before the phrase "Papers, please" will be a common command to US Citizens.

For the rest of you- contact your Senators and Congressmen.  Contact your State and Local Governments.  This continuing overreach cannot stand.


(ht- commenter 'Vic' at the Ace of Spades HQ)