Look. I "get" that many people came here illegally, had babies and those babies are citizens by birth. To claim this is just absurd:
But here's some description that adherents of a growing movement would prefer: Foreigners. Anchor babies. Illegals. Unwelcome. In other words, get the hell out; you don't belong. You never have.
And this? NOBODY thinks this is a good idea:
Among the proposals is a two-tier citizenship scheme - a birth certificate for those born of natives and another for those born of certain immigrants. Not so much a scarlet letter but a whole lot of scarlet certificates. About 8% of the 4.3 million U.S. born babies in 2008 were born of "unauthorized immigrants," according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
Oscar is just looking to cherry pick. The fact is, most of us are against illegal immigration and believe that "anchor babies" are not a good enough reason to let someone who has come here illegally stay. There must be a penalty, not a reward. This is why I oppose the DREAM Act among other things. If the children are citizens, the children should stay. Their parents should go back and wait in line. Do that a few times and the problem goes away. Yeah, it's harsh. Stupidity should hurt.
The message is clear. If people don't look like most of us, close the door. I wish I could say this was new.
More race-baiting by Oscar. In 2011, this is a bigger steaming pile than ever before. I know of no one who is against Hispanic immigrant because they "don't look like us". I know of many who are against illegal immigrants of all stripes.
Oscar again mis-characterizes the issue and wants us all to feel sorry. I don't.
Oscar: Do you feel the same about other illegal activities? You are ok with you car being stolen or your home burglarized? I didn't think so.
Secure the border. After that, all things are negotiable. Until then, none are.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Frank Rich as Dick Tracy
As in "no $#it, Dick Tracy".
Basically, this looks much like standard Frank Rich stuff. "Obama Good, Republicans Bad, TEAbaggers really bad...and stupid". Rich's comparison of Obama to Reagan and the use of the GE imagery is sickening at best. Reagan was a free-market capitalist, Obama is a Socialist and statist. GE is no longer an industry America can be proud of, but rather Immelt and GE signify the worst of crony capitalism: foisting expensive and useless goods on an unwilling public by fiat.
Rich's disdain for all things not Obama is clear in this paragraph:
This time we were spared a “You lie!” But once Obama segued into a rambling laundry list and the “prom night”bipartisan photo ops lost their comic novelty, the night’s storyline inevitably shifted to the reliable diva antics of Michele Bachmann, the founder of the House’s Tea Party Caucus. For all the Republican male establishment’s harrumphing, it couldn’t derail her plan to hijack the party’s designated State of the Union response with one of her own. More Katherine Harris than Sarah Palin, Bachmann is farmore riveting television bait than Paul Ryan, the bland congressman officially assigned the Bobby Jindal memorial slot after the New Jersey governor Chris Christie was savvy enough to take a pass.
It is unfortunate Joe Wilson did not provide us with truth again this year. That some Republicans fell for the "Prom Night" trick just tells us there are still too many RINOs. Paul Ryan is more Reagan than "bland". But Rich must paint him that way because to discuss his speech on its merits would be a losing proposition for Rich.
Obama must be laughing about how the party that spent a year hammering him for focusing on health care over jobs is now committing the same supposed sin. And one can only imagine his astonishment on Tuesday night, when the G.O.P. respondents to his speech each played Jimmy Carter to his Reagan by offering a grim double-feature of malaise and American decline. Hardly had the president extolled record corporate profits and a soaring stock market in his selectively rosy spin on the economy, than Ryan, who has the television manner of a solicitous funeral home director, was darkly warning that America could be the next Greece. Bachmann channeled Glenn Beck to argue that we are living in a nascent police state where government “tells us which light bulbs to buy” (G.E.’s, presumably).
Here, Rich is trying to infer that "all is well" while Republicans sound the alarm over the deficit, debt and spending of the Feds. I would hardly call the stock market "soaring" as it is not yet even close to its pre-recession highs. The housing market is still a disaster and Fannie and Freddie are mired in bad debt and corruption. While Ireland, Greece and others are being bailed out by the other Euros, there IS no one to bail the US out of debt approaching 100% of GDP. Rich seems to think that's OK. It's not.
The TEA party activists are wagging the dog, as it should be. The TEA Party got the GOP back in the majority. A majority of Americans identify with the same issues. The expectation is that Boehner, McConnell and the rest will do what we sent them to do. Get it back under control. Reduce the size and scope of government and put the people back in charge. Not GE, not the SEIU, not the EPA. 10th Amendment stuff. That is what we expect.
Basically, this looks much like standard Frank Rich stuff. "Obama Good, Republicans Bad, TEAbaggers really bad...and stupid". Rich's comparison of Obama to Reagan and the use of the GE imagery is sickening at best. Reagan was a free-market capitalist, Obama is a Socialist and statist. GE is no longer an industry America can be proud of, but rather Immelt and GE signify the worst of crony capitalism: foisting expensive and useless goods on an unwilling public by fiat.
Rich's disdain for all things not Obama is clear in this paragraph:
This time we were spared a “You lie!” But once Obama segued into a rambling laundry list and the “prom night”bipartisan photo ops lost their comic novelty, the night’s storyline inevitably shifted to the reliable diva antics of Michele Bachmann, the founder of the House’s Tea Party Caucus. For all the Republican male establishment’s harrumphing, it couldn’t derail her plan to hijack the party’s designated State of the Union response with one of her own. More Katherine Harris than Sarah Palin, Bachmann is farmore riveting television bait than Paul Ryan, the bland congressman officially assigned the Bobby Jindal memorial slot after the New Jersey governor Chris Christie was savvy enough to take a pass.
It is unfortunate Joe Wilson did not provide us with truth again this year. That some Republicans fell for the "Prom Night" trick just tells us there are still too many RINOs. Paul Ryan is more Reagan than "bland". But Rich must paint him that way because to discuss his speech on its merits would be a losing proposition for Rich.
Obama must be laughing about how the party that spent a year hammering him for focusing on health care over jobs is now committing the same supposed sin. And one can only imagine his astonishment on Tuesday night, when the G.O.P. respondents to his speech each played Jimmy Carter to his Reagan by offering a grim double-feature of malaise and American decline. Hardly had the president extolled record corporate profits and a soaring stock market in his selectively rosy spin on the economy, than Ryan, who has the television manner of a solicitous funeral home director, was darkly warning that America could be the next Greece. Bachmann channeled Glenn Beck to argue that we are living in a nascent police state where government “tells us which light bulbs to buy” (G.E.’s, presumably).
Here, Rich is trying to infer that "all is well" while Republicans sound the alarm over the deficit, debt and spending of the Feds. I would hardly call the stock market "soaring" as it is not yet even close to its pre-recession highs. The housing market is still a disaster and Fannie and Freddie are mired in bad debt and corruption. While Ireland, Greece and others are being bailed out by the other Euros, there IS no one to bail the US out of debt approaching 100% of GDP. Rich seems to think that's OK. It's not.
The TEA party activists are wagging the dog, as it should be. The TEA Party got the GOP back in the majority. A majority of Americans identify with the same issues. The expectation is that Boehner, McConnell and the rest will do what we sent them to do. Get it back under control. Reduce the size and scope of government and put the people back in charge. Not GE, not the SEIU, not the EPA. 10th Amendment stuff. That is what we expect.
Snowmageddon In Cheeseland?
The Beer: Wheat. In the fermenter. Belgian Tripel boiling away.
The Bicycle: Cleaned up and awaiting the Spring.
The VRWC: (Alleged) AGW my @$$.
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN MILWAUKEE/SULLIVAN HAS ISSUED A
BLIZZARD WATCH...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM TUESDAY AFTERNOON
THROUGH WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. THE WINTER STORM WATCH IS NOW IN
EFFECT FROM LATE TONIGHT THROUGH TUESDAY AFTERNOON.
* TIMING...LAKE EFFECT SNOW SHOWERS KICK IN LATER TONIGHT WITH
THE POTENTIAL PERSISTING INTO WEDNESDAY. IN ADDITION...A
STRONG STORM SYSTEM WILL AFFECT THE AREA TUESDAY INTO AT LEAST
WEDNESDAY MORNING.
* SNOW ACCUMULATIONS...4 TO 8 INCHES LATER TONIGHT INTO TUESDAY.
ADDITIONAL 6 TO 12 INCHES TUESDAY NIGHT INTO WEDNESDAY.
* WINDS...NORTHEAST 15 TO 30 MPH TUESDAY WILL SHIFT TO THE NORTH
ON WEDNESDAY. GUSTS OF 40 TO 55 MPH AND BLIZZARD CONDITIONS
ESPECIALLY IN OPEN AREAS AND NEAR THE LAKE SHORE TUESDAY NIGHT
INTO WEDNESDAY.
The good news? We will handle it better than New York did.
The Bicycle: Cleaned up and awaiting the Spring.
The VRWC: (Alleged) AGW my @$$.
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN MILWAUKEE/SULLIVAN HAS ISSUED A
BLIZZARD WATCH...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM TUESDAY AFTERNOON
THROUGH WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. THE WINTER STORM WATCH IS NOW IN
EFFECT FROM LATE TONIGHT THROUGH TUESDAY AFTERNOON.
* TIMING...LAKE EFFECT SNOW SHOWERS KICK IN LATER TONIGHT WITH
THE POTENTIAL PERSISTING INTO WEDNESDAY. IN ADDITION...A
STRONG STORM SYSTEM WILL AFFECT THE AREA TUESDAY INTO AT LEAST
WEDNESDAY MORNING.
* SNOW ACCUMULATIONS...4 TO 8 INCHES LATER TONIGHT INTO TUESDAY.
ADDITIONAL 6 TO 12 INCHES TUESDAY NIGHT INTO WEDNESDAY.
* WINDS...NORTHEAST 15 TO 30 MPH TUESDAY WILL SHIFT TO THE NORTH
ON WEDNESDAY. GUSTS OF 40 TO 55 MPH AND BLIZZARD CONDITIONS
ESPECIALLY IN OPEN AREAS AND NEAR THE LAKE SHORE TUESDAY NIGHT
INTO WEDNESDAY.
The good news? We will handle it better than New York did.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
National Anthem
Apparently, there are people who are complaining that this is disrespectful. I find it respectful and beautifully done.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Interesting Data
The Beer: Liberty Ale, enjoyed with a Packers win over the Bears.
The Bicycle: Not keeping my training schedule. It will hurt in March.
The VRWC: I was going to write about same-day voter registration and voter ID, but the data took me in a different direction.
I ran the numbers and find it extraordinary that, when the country as a whole had 56.8% turnout of the voting age population in the 2008 general election, Wisconsin had a turnout of over 10 points higher. In addition, six counties cast more votes than there were registered voters. Overall, 86% of registered voters cast their vote. The 86% seems to be historically accurate. So the "lack of voter turnout" is actually a lack of voter registration.
Interesting.
The Bicycle: Not keeping my training schedule. It will hurt in March.
The VRWC: I was going to write about same-day voter registration and voter ID, but the data took me in a different direction.
I ran the numbers and find it extraordinary that, when the country as a whole had 56.8% turnout of the voting age population in the 2008 general election, Wisconsin had a turnout of over 10 points higher. In addition, six counties cast more votes than there were registered voters. Overall, 86% of registered voters cast their vote. The 86% seems to be historically accurate. So the "lack of voter turnout" is actually a lack of voter registration.
Interesting.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Don't Read This Post
I'm bitter. Yeah, I said it and I mean it. For about 35 years, I have been calling from the mountaintops. I've been screaming the alarm. I've been telling everyone I know what was coming. I was called all the names you hear the folks on MSNBC use for Conservatives. I was beaten down, yet I continued to stay the course. None of you listened; you all thought I was nuts. You all were busy partying, having your fun lives while I was busting my hump. Working, raising children, finishing college, serving my country.
Here we are in 2008 and suddenly, this guy comes out of nowhere and wins the presidency and along with him come bullet-proof majorities, not only in both houses, but in state governments as well. Now you all are panicked. Now you all are involved. You are too late. I fear the battle may be won, but the war may be lost.
Too late. I tried. If you have been with me for all these years, thanks. Otherwise you, too get to reap the rewards of doing nothing. It took so little time to lose liberty.
Here we are in 2008 and suddenly, this guy comes out of nowhere and wins the presidency and along with him come bullet-proof majorities, not only in both houses, but in state governments as well. Now you all are panicked. Now you all are involved. You are too late. I fear the battle may be won, but the war may be lost.
Too late. I tried. If you have been with me for all these years, thanks. Otherwise you, too get to reap the rewards of doing nothing. It took so little time to lose liberty.
Who Decides?
Remember back in the day when the debate over moral absolutes raged? The Left was continually asking, "who decides?" Who is it that determines what is moral and ethical and right? I guess the answer is, they do.
Bjorn-Inge Larsen of the Norwegian Directorate of Health told reporters Friday that he expects voluntary measures limiting junk food advertising to eventually evolve into laws banning the practice in the same way that has occurred with tobacco.
Voluntary? In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means". It is Orwellian to even consider "mandatory volunteerism".
Ironic....and not in a good way.
Bjorn-Inge Larsen of the Norwegian Directorate of Health told reporters Friday that he expects voluntary measures limiting junk food advertising to eventually evolve into laws banning the practice in the same way that has occurred with tobacco.
Voluntary? In the words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means". It is Orwellian to even consider "mandatory volunteerism".
Ironic....and not in a good way.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Public Employees and Robert B. Reich
Reich thinks the GOP is scapegoating public employees. I think they set themselves up to be scapegoated.
Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar even as corporations refuse to hire more workers.
This is the typical class warfare that Reich and the Left have become so good at. Public servants produce nothing. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. Yet they do provide some essential services. But those services are paid for by the taxpayers and public employees have done a really good job of biting the hand that feeds them. It is the right of a private business to hire who they wish, when they wish to hire. The current wave of non-hiring is because of the "Progressive" policies of this administration and the uncertainty it brings.
It's far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public's work - sanitation workers, police officers, firefighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees - to call them "faceless bureaucrats" and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling budgets.
Obviously, Reich has never been to a contentious school board meeting, where teachers demand more money for a failing system and taxpayers are treated to, "We'll get it because we want it". Apparently, he's never been to the DMV or dealt with the Internal Revenue Service. He's never had to deal with the head of Homeland Security who refuses to secure the southern border of the United States (for God knows what reason), even though the citizens are calling for it.
They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take into account
level of education. Matched by education, public-sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts.
The Republican trick is to compare apples to oranges - the average wage of public employees with the average wage of private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be - all need at least four years of college.
The Republican trick is to compare apples to oranges - the average wage of public employees with the average wage of private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be - all need at least four years of college.
But the trick is by Reich. The grossly overpaid positions are the unskilled and those of teachers. In the school district in which I reside, teachers start, fresh out of college with a Bachelor of Science in Education at $40,000 for nine months of work. That annualizes to $50,000 per year. That exceeds the average starting salary for most non-technical (Mathematics, Engineering, Science) fields. For a failing system. Include the benefit package for public employees and the "30-and-out" that many receive and the system is far out of balance.
Here's another whopper: Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions that want only to fatten members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pension obligations are out of control.
But Reich himself indicates it's not really a whopper:
Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public-sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension.
The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans.
This is just untrue. No one is proposing "slashing" current pension obligations. The intent is to cut future liabilites by having public employees (especially teachers) to contribute to their retirement. That is not asking too much.
But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist that the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees.
Larger tax cuts? What "larger tax cuts" have been proposed? Why does the Left and people like Reich feel it is necessary to continue to browbeat those who have achieved? There is no Progressive socio-economic policy they can point to that is successful. Welfare and associated policies and iterations is a failure. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are failures. All have cost more and done less than intended. Public schools are a failure. No attempt has been made to fix any of these, only to throw more money at them. 50 years of experience show this to be the wrong answer. But the Progs continue to claim they are smarter than the rest of us. I think not.
Public servants are convenient scapegoats. Republicans would rather deflect attention from corporate executive pay that continues to rise as corporate profits soar even as corporations refuse to hire more workers.
This is the typical class warfare that Reich and the Left have become so good at. Public servants produce nothing. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. Yet they do provide some essential services. But those services are paid for by the taxpayers and public employees have done a really good job of biting the hand that feeds them. It is the right of a private business to hire who they wish, when they wish to hire. The current wave of non-hiring is because of the "Progressive" policies of this administration and the uncertainty it brings.
It's far more convenient to go after people who are doing the public's work - sanitation workers, police officers, firefighters, teachers, social workers, federal employees - to call them "faceless bureaucrats" and portray them as hooligans who are making off with your money and crippling budgets.
Obviously, Reich has never been to a contentious school board meeting, where teachers demand more money for a failing system and taxpayers are treated to, "We'll get it because we want it". Apparently, he's never been to the DMV or dealt with the Internal Revenue Service. He's never had to deal with the head of Homeland Security who refuses to secure the southern border of the United States (for God knows what reason), even though the citizens are calling for it.
They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take into account
level of education. Matched by education, public-sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts.
The Republican trick is to compare apples to oranges - the average wage of public employees with the average wage of private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be - all need at least four years of college.
The Republican trick is to compare apples to oranges - the average wage of public employees with the average wage of private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be - all need at least four years of college.
But the trick is by Reich. The grossly overpaid positions are the unskilled and those of teachers. In the school district in which I reside, teachers start, fresh out of college with a Bachelor of Science in Education at $40,000 for nine months of work. That annualizes to $50,000 per year. That exceeds the average starting salary for most non-technical (Mathematics, Engineering, Science) fields. For a failing system. Include the benefit package for public employees and the "30-and-out" that many receive and the system is far out of balance.
Here's another whopper: Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions that want only to fatten members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pension obligations are out of control.
But Reich himself indicates it's not really a whopper:
Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public-sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension.
The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans.
This is just untrue. No one is proposing "slashing" current pension obligations. The intent is to cut future liabilites by having public employees (especially teachers) to contribute to their retirement. That is not asking too much.
But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist that the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees.
Larger tax cuts? What "larger tax cuts" have been proposed? Why does the Left and people like Reich feel it is necessary to continue to browbeat those who have achieved? There is no Progressive socio-economic policy they can point to that is successful. Welfare and associated policies and iterations is a failure. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are failures. All have cost more and done less than intended. Public schools are a failure. No attempt has been made to fix any of these, only to throw more money at them. 50 years of experience show this to be the wrong answer. But the Progs continue to claim they are smarter than the rest of us. I think not.
Ted Thompson Got It Right
I don't write about sports here, but in this case, I am making an exception.
The Packers thrashing of the Falcons last night underscores that Thompson made the right decision to go with Rodgers over "that other guy". The Packers are going to the NFC Championship, that other guy led the Vikings to, well, nowhere. There are many decisions for which Thompson has been excoriated. We are finding out he's been more right than wrong.
GO PACK, GO!
The Packers thrashing of the Falcons last night underscores that Thompson made the right decision to go with Rodgers over "that other guy". The Packers are going to the NFC Championship, that other guy led the Vikings to, well, nowhere. There are many decisions for which Thompson has been excoriated. We are finding out he's been more right than wrong.
GO PACK, GO!
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Nice Job, Jim
Hoft over at Gateway is well on his way to taking the Conservative landslide of 2010 and turning it back over to the Dems and assorted Leftists in 2012.
Reince Priebus engineered a takeover of Wisconsin government from a well-entrenched and well-funded Democrat Party by a bunch of TEA Party-backed Conservatives, many of the no-name variety. I do not know Priebus personally, but know many REAL Conservatives who think very highly of him.
ThinkProgress is already trying to claim he's a RINO (think about that...a Prog site is trying to get us to believe Priebus is a RINO...think?) because the Law Firm he worked for (Michael Best and Friedrich) lobbied for stimulus, and claims Obamacare is Constitutional. But Priebus WORKS for the firm. He does not own the firm. Further, law firms do their client's bidding. Priebus had nothing to do with either of these. To claim he is a RINO based on these is as absurd as saying one is a RINO if he works for GE or the company for which he works has government contracts.
TP also claims Priebus was "implicated in voter caging". This is a lie, plain and simple. He was accused of involvement in alleged voter caging, but the fact is this was a private endeavour to show evidence of voter fraud. For TP to infer that voter fraud in Wisconsin is a figment of someone's imagination shows either TP's failure to bother with researching facts, or their intentional misleading of their readers. Voter fraud is well-documented in Wisconsin. In 2008, nearly 5000 more votes were cast in Milwaukee than there are voter registrations.
Hoft and Gateway Pundit can decide they will kill this goose, but it will relegate Conservatives to the wilderness for generations.
Reince Priebus engineered a takeover of Wisconsin government from a well-entrenched and well-funded Democrat Party by a bunch of TEA Party-backed Conservatives, many of the no-name variety. I do not know Priebus personally, but know many REAL Conservatives who think very highly of him.
ThinkProgress is already trying to claim he's a RINO (think about that...a Prog site is trying to get us to believe Priebus is a RINO...think?) because the Law Firm he worked for (Michael Best and Friedrich) lobbied for stimulus, and claims Obamacare is Constitutional. But Priebus WORKS for the firm. He does not own the firm. Further, law firms do their client's bidding. Priebus had nothing to do with either of these. To claim he is a RINO based on these is as absurd as saying one is a RINO if he works for GE or the company for which he works has government contracts.
TP also claims Priebus was "implicated in voter caging". This is a lie, plain and simple. He was accused of involvement in alleged voter caging, but the fact is this was a private endeavour to show evidence of voter fraud. For TP to infer that voter fraud in Wisconsin is a figment of someone's imagination shows either TP's failure to bother with researching facts, or their intentional misleading of their readers. Voter fraud is well-documented in Wisconsin. In 2008, nearly 5000 more votes were cast in Milwaukee than there are voter registrations.
Hoft and Gateway Pundit can decide they will kill this goose, but it will relegate Conservatives to the wilderness for generations.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
For "Smart People"...
They're really dumb. Evidence:
Gun Control - the very idea that some kind of control over guns is going to end "gun violence" ("gun violence"? Is that a boxing match between a .45 and a 9mm?) is absurd. Bad Guys use guns to do Bad Things. Bad Guys don't care about the law. That's why we call them "Bad Guys".
"World Peace" - Protesting in the United States over "World Peace" is another absurdity. It assumes that the United States is the leading cause of war in the world. This neglects the megalomaniacs in Africa and the Middle East. It ignores the hatred Iran has toward Israel. It ignores the tyrannical regime in NoKo, which cannot maintain power without the perpetual "enemy" of the South.
Big Government - Belief that "Big Government" can meet every human need, that Socialism will create some type of paradise on Earth flies in the face of history. Every government which has amassed strong central power has used it to oppress their people. The Greek and Roman Republics did not; the Socialist paradises of China, The USSR, and Cuba murdered their political opponents and starved their people for decades.
Evolution - Treating the theory of evolution as "fact" is again, absurd. These are the people who say, "Question Authority", but are unable to question their own orthodoxy.
There are many more examples. These are but a few. Feel free to leave more in the combox.
Gun Control - the very idea that some kind of control over guns is going to end "gun violence" ("gun violence"? Is that a boxing match between a .45 and a 9mm?) is absurd. Bad Guys use guns to do Bad Things. Bad Guys don't care about the law. That's why we call them "Bad Guys".
"World Peace" - Protesting in the United States over "World Peace" is another absurdity. It assumes that the United States is the leading cause of war in the world. This neglects the megalomaniacs in Africa and the Middle East. It ignores the hatred Iran has toward Israel. It ignores the tyrannical regime in NoKo, which cannot maintain power without the perpetual "enemy" of the South.
Big Government - Belief that "Big Government" can meet every human need, that Socialism will create some type of paradise on Earth flies in the face of history. Every government which has amassed strong central power has used it to oppress their people. The Greek and Roman Republics did not; the Socialist paradises of China, The USSR, and Cuba murdered their political opponents and starved their people for decades.
Evolution - Treating the theory of evolution as "fact" is again, absurd. These are the people who say, "Question Authority", but are unable to question their own orthodoxy.
There are many more examples. These are but a few. Feel free to leave more in the combox.
More Garbage In-Garbage Out
The year 3000? We really think we can look 1000 years into the future with any accuracy at all? With climate models that can't even model past climate with any degree of accuracy?
Marshall, lead researcher Nathan Gillett of the government agency Environment Canada, and their colleagues
Follow the link and you will find that Dr. Nathan Gillett is at University of East Anglia. Yea, THAT University of East Anglia. The UEA of "Hide the decline" and "nature trick". The Climate Research Unit. The one that wouldn't exist if they didn't continue to hype catastrpohicGlobal Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption Climate Challenge. The inability to stick with one term and one argument is reason enough to dispute all this. Add in the bad "science" that goes into it and the whole idea of (alleged) AGW and predictions a millennium in the future are ludicrous on their face.
I am wasting significant amounts of Carbon Dioxide in even commenting.
Marshall, lead researcher Nathan Gillett of the government agency Environment Canada, and their colleagues
Follow the link and you will find that Dr. Nathan Gillett is at University of East Anglia. Yea, THAT University of East Anglia. The UEA of "Hide the decline" and "nature trick". The Climate Research Unit. The one that wouldn't exist if they didn't continue to hype catastrpohic
I am wasting significant amounts of Carbon Dioxide in even commenting.
The Measure of the Man
This is a guy who will be well thought of long after he is gone from the Green Bay Packers. There is a former Packer who could learn a lot from his former understudy.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
It Is Personal
The rhetoric, especially today has become so personally inflamed that I am stunned. Not only at the attacks on us on the Right, but in the way in which we respond. The Left has been at war with the Right for most of my lifetime. They have bullied, beaten and bashed us incessantly. We push back and they become more shrill. I guess we are stuck with pushing back harder.
Nidal vs. Loughner - How the Media Responds
Hats off to the Chicks
Byron York positively nails this. There may be no more clear evidence of bias against the Right than this.
Toxic Political Tone
The Beer: A new batch of Liberty Ale and my first attempt at Bad Santa for next Christmas are happily fermenting away. The Bad Santa might be a little too happy.
The Bicycle: The Mountain Bike project is complete and I've (finally) started my winter routine. That first nice 40-or-so-degree day can't come soon enough.
The VRWC: The tragic shootings in Tuscon yesterday has most of us in a bit of a state of shock. After all, this doesn't happen in the United States. But apparently, the Associated Press has it all figured out. It is the "toxic political tone" caused by Sarah Palin and the TEA Party movement. Why, our side has been so hateful and dangerous that this was bound to happen. Never mind that the kid's favorite books included The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Never mind that this kid fits the profile of a troubled loner who is trying to get the attention of the world, who never mentions Sarah Palin or the TEA Party movement by name or inference. Never mind that the evidence indicates he has a tendency toward anarchistic beliefs. Since none of that fits the media template, it matters not.
The current "toxic political tone" in this country has been around for about 30 years. But politics has been literally bare knuckles for the entire history of the United States. Hamilton/Burr anyone? But the tone does ebb and flow.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected and the Progs went wild. Reagan was characterized as a stupid, senile old man. He was crazy and had his "finger on the button". He would lead us into nuclear war. Of course, none of this was true. During the 1988 Democrat National Convention, Ann Richards mocked George HW Bush with "Where's George" and "silver foot in his mouth". The media was more than happy to follow along by reporting every little mis-step in his life, none of which had anything to do with his presidency. During Clinton's presidency, the media became strangely silent. Despite reports of wrongdoing prior to taking office, despite numerous women coming forward claiming affairs and worse, all one could hear from the media was the proverbial crickets. His affair with an intern and subsequent purjury "didn't rise to the level of impeachment" (of course, multiple Republican officials had been [rightly] run out of office for similar misconduct, but never mind that, right?).
The disputed election of George W. Bush really got things going. I am not going to review recent history, I think anyone reading this recalls the excoriation, hate and ridicule directed at President Bush. Horrible things wee said, including direct calls for his assassination by the Left. And not just a few. Hollywood even produced a movie about assassinating him.
The point here is that according to the media, the "toxic political tone" is only a couple years old and was started by Sarah Palin and the TEA Party movement. Clearly, that is false. Clearly Jared Loughner is not motivated by the Right. He is a sick young man. As sick as those who are trying to make "political hay" out of this incident.
The Bicycle: The Mountain Bike project is complete and I've (finally) started my winter routine. That first nice 40-or-so-degree day can't come soon enough.
The VRWC: The tragic shootings in Tuscon yesterday has most of us in a bit of a state of shock. After all, this doesn't happen in the United States. But apparently, the Associated Press has it all figured out. It is the "toxic political tone" caused by Sarah Palin and the TEA Party movement. Why, our side has been so hateful and dangerous that this was bound to happen. Never mind that the kid's favorite books included The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Never mind that this kid fits the profile of a troubled loner who is trying to get the attention of the world, who never mentions Sarah Palin or the TEA Party movement by name or inference. Never mind that the evidence indicates he has a tendency toward anarchistic beliefs. Since none of that fits the media template, it matters not.
The current "toxic political tone" in this country has been around for about 30 years. But politics has been literally bare knuckles for the entire history of the United States. Hamilton/Burr anyone? But the tone does ebb and flow.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected and the Progs went wild. Reagan was characterized as a stupid, senile old man. He was crazy and had his "finger on the button". He would lead us into nuclear war. Of course, none of this was true. During the 1988 Democrat National Convention, Ann Richards mocked George HW Bush with "Where's George" and "silver foot in his mouth". The media was more than happy to follow along by reporting every little mis-step in his life, none of which had anything to do with his presidency. During Clinton's presidency, the media became strangely silent. Despite reports of wrongdoing prior to taking office, despite numerous women coming forward claiming affairs and worse, all one could hear from the media was the proverbial crickets. His affair with an intern and subsequent purjury "didn't rise to the level of impeachment" (of course, multiple Republican officials had been [rightly] run out of office for similar misconduct, but never mind that, right?).
The disputed election of George W. Bush really got things going. I am not going to review recent history, I think anyone reading this recalls the excoriation, hate and ridicule directed at President Bush. Horrible things wee said, including direct calls for his assassination by the Left. And not just a few. Hollywood even produced a movie about assassinating him.
The point here is that according to the media, the "toxic political tone" is only a couple years old and was started by Sarah Palin and the TEA Party movement. Clearly, that is false. Clearly Jared Loughner is not motivated by the Right. He is a sick young man. As sick as those who are trying to make "political hay" out of this incident.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Democratic Congress Woman Shot
Unacceptable
Updated: She has died, according to NPR and Fox News.
Update 2: Obviously there is much confusion. She is now reported to have survived for now. Much of the political Left is blaming the TEA Party movement. Sad that they are unwilling to wait for facts.
Updated: She has died, according to NPR and Fox News.
Update 2: Obviously there is much confusion. She is now reported to have survived for now. Much of the political Left is blaming the TEA Party movement. Sad that they are unwilling to wait for facts.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
The Sacred Constitution
This must be the new agenda by the Left. Confronted with more people reading and studying the Constitution, Progs are finding they can't just make $#!7 up any more. To paraphrase Patton from the movie: "Madison, you magnificent bastard! I read your Constitution!"
Tea Party constitutionalism blends several American traditions. One is the tradition of hostility to the federal government chiefly associated with the South, which adopted states' rights ideology in order to resist federal interference first in Southern slavery and then in Southern racial segregation. Now that the Republican Party, founded as a northern party opposed to the extension of slavery, is disproportionately a party of white Southern reactionaries, dominated by the political heirs of the Confederates and the segregationist Dixiecrats, the denunciation of many exercises of federal authority as illegitimate would have been predictable, even if the president were not a black Yankee from Abraham Lincoln's Illinois.
This is patently false and beneath contempt. It once again spreads the lie that TEA Party activists are racist and that this would never happen with a White president. "Southern reactionaries"? He must mean those great southerners like Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Jim Sensennbrenner, Mike Pence, Michelle Bachmann and others. Those of us who currently inhabit the TEA party movement or are aligned with it were furious over the spending of both parties and the last 7 administrations. In 1994, we thought we had won and would move into the world of smaller government. It didn't happen. We voted them out. In came the Progs and the debt increased three-fold. We became even more angry and voted them out. Those we just voted in should be aware that we have no patience for more of the same.
English-speaking democracies tend to be stable and free even when, like Britain, they lack a written constitution. But Latin American republics have been afflicted by dictatorship and civil war for generations in spite of having formal constitutions modeled on that of the United States. The contrast demonstrates that the true security for freedom is a culture of constitutionalism, not a particular constitution, or any written constitution at all. The details of a particular democratic political system -- presidential or parliamentary, bicameral or unicameral, unitary or federal -- are ultimately less important than the unwillingness of the citizens to resort to violence when they lose an election, unlike the Confederate ancestors of so many of today's white Southern Republicans, who tried to destroy the country upon losing an election.
To claim that countries without a constitution are more free than the United States is absurd. Brits are saddled with high taxes, speech codes, laws that prevent the free expression of ideas, especially those which may be offensive to a favored (or feared) constituency. It allows laws that may be anathema to the traditions and cultures of those who live there (Sharia). And the author compares two different cultural systems, not two Constitutional systems. Latin American countries are afflicted, not because of the Constitutionalism, but rather their cultural biases, many carried over from the Old World. We have moved beyond those biases. The Confederates did not resort to violence because they lost an election, but rather because they felt their liberties were being rescinded. Whether they were correct or not in their beliefs is a long answered question, although, having lived in the South for 25 years, I understand the "War of Northern Aggression" mindset. And it is certainly not (yet) the belief of the TEA Party activists. If it was, we'd already be shooting.
But the joke is on Americans, not the French. Indeed, the 50 states are very "French" in their populist approach to constitutionalism. Most states in the Union have gone through several constitutions, with no apparent harm. Many of today's state constitutions in the Northeast and West Coast date back only a few generations to the Progressive era, and show the influence of belief in apolitical, technocratic executives in the number of state officials appointed by a strong governor.
This is too easy. The French are now in the midst of economic and social chaos, in part because they have no loyalty to a Constitution; that is, there are no rules. The states of the West Coast and Northeast are in similar straits. California is a basket case and other "progressive" states, such as my own here in Wisconsin are not far behind.
The essence of American republican liberalism is found in Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Indepedence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
We already have the ability to alter our Constitution through the amendment process. We also have the ability to abolish it, but I doubt that with those like the author, insisting we abolish it, that we would have the free society that we (even) now enjoy.
Progressives like the author believe we should be more "egalitarian", that is we should all be more equal. The only problem with egalitarianism is that it doesn't work. It punishes those who achieve and rewards sloth. It kills the human soul. The author never explains why he thinks the Constitution should be changed, only that it should because everyone else does it. In a world in the midst of social and economic chaos, that is the worst reason of all.
Tea Party constitutionalism blends several American traditions. One is the tradition of hostility to the federal government chiefly associated with the South, which adopted states' rights ideology in order to resist federal interference first in Southern slavery and then in Southern racial segregation. Now that the Republican Party, founded as a northern party opposed to the extension of slavery, is disproportionately a party of white Southern reactionaries, dominated by the political heirs of the Confederates and the segregationist Dixiecrats, the denunciation of many exercises of federal authority as illegitimate would have been predictable, even if the president were not a black Yankee from Abraham Lincoln's Illinois.
This is patently false and beneath contempt. It once again spreads the lie that TEA Party activists are racist and that this would never happen with a White president. "Southern reactionaries"? He must mean those great southerners like Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Jim Sensennbrenner, Mike Pence, Michelle Bachmann and others. Those of us who currently inhabit the TEA party movement or are aligned with it were furious over the spending of both parties and the last 7 administrations. In 1994, we thought we had won and would move into the world of smaller government. It didn't happen. We voted them out. In came the Progs and the debt increased three-fold. We became even more angry and voted them out. Those we just voted in should be aware that we have no patience for more of the same.
English-speaking democracies tend to be stable and free even when, like Britain, they lack a written constitution. But Latin American republics have been afflicted by dictatorship and civil war for generations in spite of having formal constitutions modeled on that of the United States. The contrast demonstrates that the true security for freedom is a culture of constitutionalism, not a particular constitution, or any written constitution at all. The details of a particular democratic political system -- presidential or parliamentary, bicameral or unicameral, unitary or federal -- are ultimately less important than the unwillingness of the citizens to resort to violence when they lose an election, unlike the Confederate ancestors of so many of today's white Southern Republicans, who tried to destroy the country upon losing an election.
To claim that countries without a constitution are more free than the United States is absurd. Brits are saddled with high taxes, speech codes, laws that prevent the free expression of ideas, especially those which may be offensive to a favored (or feared) constituency. It allows laws that may be anathema to the traditions and cultures of those who live there (Sharia). And the author compares two different cultural systems, not two Constitutional systems. Latin American countries are afflicted, not because of the Constitutionalism, but rather their cultural biases, many carried over from the Old World. We have moved beyond those biases. The Confederates did not resort to violence because they lost an election, but rather because they felt their liberties were being rescinded. Whether they were correct or not in their beliefs is a long answered question, although, having lived in the South for 25 years, I understand the "War of Northern Aggression" mindset. And it is certainly not (yet) the belief of the TEA Party activists. If it was, we'd already be shooting.
But the joke is on Americans, not the French. Indeed, the 50 states are very "French" in their populist approach to constitutionalism. Most states in the Union have gone through several constitutions, with no apparent harm. Many of today's state constitutions in the Northeast and West Coast date back only a few generations to the Progressive era, and show the influence of belief in apolitical, technocratic executives in the number of state officials appointed by a strong governor.
This is too easy. The French are now in the midst of economic and social chaos, in part because they have no loyalty to a Constitution; that is, there are no rules. The states of the West Coast and Northeast are in similar straits. California is a basket case and other "progressive" states, such as my own here in Wisconsin are not far behind.
The essence of American republican liberalism is found in Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Indepedence: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
We already have the ability to alter our Constitution through the amendment process. We also have the ability to abolish it, but I doubt that with those like the author, insisting we abolish it, that we would have the free society that we (even) now enjoy.
Progressives like the author believe we should be more "egalitarian", that is we should all be more equal. The only problem with egalitarianism is that it doesn't work. It punishes those who achieve and rewards sloth. It kills the human soul. The author never explains why he thinks the Constitution should be changed, only that it should because everyone else does it. In a world in the midst of social and economic chaos, that is the worst reason of all.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Kind of a Long Time
Marooned indicated he has been on Blogspot for 5 years now and I though, "How long have I been doing this?"
I've been here since 2008, but before that, I was at Xanga. My oldest post is from 2005, but from the sound of it, I had been posting longer. It is mostly the same type of stuff I post here. Before blogging, it was "letters to the editor"; I've written zillions. I was Conservative LONG before it was cool. I've been spouting my opinion to the unwilling masses since I was a teenager. I was characterized as a kook, a hater, and all the other accusations you see thrown at anyone on the Right now. I guess I'm fairly impervious to it and have no problem responding in kind. I got tired of being bullied a long time ago.
So there it is and here I sit.
I've been here since 2008, but before that, I was at Xanga. My oldest post is from 2005, but from the sound of it, I had been posting longer. It is mostly the same type of stuff I post here. Before blogging, it was "letters to the editor"; I've written zillions. I was Conservative LONG before it was cool. I've been spouting my opinion to the unwilling masses since I was a teenager. I was characterized as a kook, a hater, and all the other accusations you see thrown at anyone on the Right now. I guess I'm fairly impervious to it and have no problem responding in kind. I got tired of being bullied a long time ago.
So there it is and here I sit.
"Electricity Prices Will Necessarily Skyrocket"
As will all energy sources. $5.00 a gallon for gasoline is intentional. It is not the result of "peak oil" or China, or India.
The intention is to drive Americans away from"evil" fossil fuels and into the unicorn dust of solar and wind power. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) indicates that all fuels will skyrocket within the next 6 months. As high as $180 per barrel of West Texas Intermediate. Big Environmental has been able to co-opt government to the point where it is nearly impossible to exploit coal, oil and natural gas reserves in the United States. Nearly 800 billion barrels of oil equivalent are available in shale in the Western United States. 11 billion barrels off the west coast, likely more in ANWR. More off the East Coast and in the gulf. We have more energy in coal than the Middle East has in oil. And we can touch none of it.
In the meantime, the Obama Administration wants us to take food out of the supply to make ethanol, an inferior fuel that is little better than a "wash" in energy balance (and some say much worse) and does nothing to "help the environment" (which, by the way is doing fine compared to when I was a child). They want us to take inferior energy sources in the form of solar and wind which I have chronicled so many times in these pages that you can probably find it easily. The Progressives pay lip service to the idea of nuclear, but shut down the Yucca Mountain repository (it is not a "dump" - in no way does a big ol' Waste Management truck back up and dump out a bunch of nuclear waste. Again, the iconography is intentional).
We are in a huge dilemma here. We are up that proverbial waterway of fecal matter with no means of propulsion. By summer, expect to be, economically where we were 2 years ago. And it is intentional. Want to talk "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Want to talk treason of the highest order? This is it. I accuse this Administration and the Progressives in general of treason against the United States of America for intentionally destroying the economy and National Security of the Country through energy policy. Any takers?
The intention is to drive Americans away from"evil" fossil fuels and into the unicorn dust of solar and wind power. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) indicates that all fuels will skyrocket within the next 6 months. As high as $180 per barrel of West Texas Intermediate. Big Environmental has been able to co-opt government to the point where it is nearly impossible to exploit coal, oil and natural gas reserves in the United States. Nearly 800 billion barrels of oil equivalent are available in shale in the Western United States. 11 billion barrels off the west coast, likely more in ANWR. More off the East Coast and in the gulf. We have more energy in coal than the Middle East has in oil. And we can touch none of it.
In the meantime, the Obama Administration wants us to take food out of the supply to make ethanol, an inferior fuel that is little better than a "wash" in energy balance (and some say much worse) and does nothing to "help the environment" (which, by the way is doing fine compared to when I was a child). They want us to take inferior energy sources in the form of solar and wind which I have chronicled so many times in these pages that you can probably find it easily. The Progressives pay lip service to the idea of nuclear, but shut down the Yucca Mountain repository (it is not a "dump" - in no way does a big ol' Waste Management truck back up and dump out a bunch of nuclear waste. Again, the iconography is intentional).
We are in a huge dilemma here. We are up that proverbial waterway of fecal matter with no means of propulsion. By summer, expect to be, economically where we were 2 years ago. And it is intentional. Want to talk "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Want to talk treason of the highest order? This is it. I accuse this Administration and the Progressives in general of treason against the United States of America for intentionally destroying the economy and National Security of the Country through energy policy. Any takers?
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Deface The Nation
H/T JACG
This is amazing. Blaming Bush for the deficit? Wasserman-Schultz is either stupid or a liar. Weiner is a Wiener. I thought Kelley kicked his ass and hope he continues to do so in this session. You can also see what the Democrat plan is. Same as always:scare the Seniors. "Republicans want to take away your Social Security and Medicare". The GOP better figure this one out and counter it quickly. It's clear where Harry Smith stands as well. It is well worth the watch to see the Democrats lie through their teeth. "1,000,000 jobs"? Where did THAT come from? Are you kidding me? Again, Wasserman-Schultz is fabricating stuff.
I just lose my mind over this stuff.
This is amazing. Blaming Bush for the deficit? Wasserman-Schultz is either stupid or a liar. Weiner is a Wiener. I thought Kelley kicked his ass and hope he continues to do so in this session. You can also see what the Democrat plan is. Same as always:scare the Seniors. "Republicans want to take away your Social Security and Medicare". The GOP better figure this one out and counter it quickly. It's clear where Harry Smith stands as well. It is well worth the watch to see the Democrats lie through their teeth. "1,000,000 jobs"? Where did THAT come from? Are you kidding me? Again, Wasserman-Schultz is fabricating stuff.
I just lose my mind over this stuff.
Milwaukee Jobs Now
At MilwaukeeJobsNow.org, a bunch of Lefty whiners are lamenting the loss of the car-speed train and wondering why Walker, who has yet to be sworn in, is not already magically creating jobs. Interestingly, many are Black and apparently unaware that Talgo will not hire Blacks. I'm also wondering why 19th District Assembly Representative Jon Richards wasn't all that concerned about jobs when he and the rest of the Democrats had 2 years of complete control. This is a completely bogus issue and needs to be exposed as such.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
(More Than) Four Reasons Why Ed Kilgore Is In Denial
Writing in The New Republic, Ed Kilgore seems to think there was some level of bipartisanship on the part of Democrats in like...forever.
The truth is that, due to the ideological sorting-out of the parties over the past several decades—and in particular the hyper-radicalization of the GOP since 2006—our political system is in the throes of a battle over fundamentals. Democrats and Republicans are engaged in the most intractable face-off over core philosophical questions that Washington has seen in a very long time.
Truth? Hyper-radicalization of the GOP? While the GOP has moved Right (and I consider that a good thing), the hyper-radicalization is clearly on the Left. The Left is no longer the party of the working man and the middle class. It is the part of the radical environmentalists, the teachers unions, the public employee unions and the Socialists. I'd call that radical. This remains a Center-Right nation by every measure and for Kilgore to say otherwise flies in the face of every poll conducted for 20 years and certainly flies in the face of the most recent election (in spite of what Democrat Underground might want you to believe).
With George W. Bush out of power, conservatives have rejected the very idea that government spending can stimulate the economy—despite it being a fundamental lesson from Economics 101.
Truth: Conservatives never liked government over-spending and most of us were apoplectic over the spending on Medicare Part D. But the last two years (and the spending that went with it) was a result of Democrats controlling the House and Senate, just as the GOP controlling both houses during the Clinton years produced a balanced budget. We see that even now. Three branches controlled by the Left and spending which has quadrupled the debt and done little-to-nothing. And I want to know what school Kilgore went to. Keynesian economics has been debunked since Kennedy and the Left keeps coming back to it. We are in a terrible situation right now. States are nearing default and US debt rating is on the verge of downgrade. Hyperinflation is on the horizon. Kilgore must see this, right?
In addition to demanding lower and lower marginal income and capital gains tax rates on the highest earners, conservatives are now publicly complaining that the working poor are not taxed enough, and calling for total exemptions from taxation of both investment and inheritance income.
Truth: Kilgore's assertion here is far from true. We are taxing job creators at ever-higher levels and it has to stop. There are few calling for no taxation of investment and inheritance, but for the government to confiscate such a large portion is absurd. It is only for the sake of confiscation and redistribution that they do so. A top rate of 50% is nothing more than punishment. Everyone in this country should pay something. We are on the verge of a majority being able to vote themselves a raise from the federal treasury. Make everyone pay something or abolish the income tax. As Kilgore states in the same paragraph, I support the idea of a consumption tax. Income tax is strictly to punish earners and redistribute wealth. A consumption tax is still "progressive", those who make (and spend) more pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.
Conservative legal thinkers have long deplored the judicial consensus on regulation that has generally prevailed since the 1930s—under which the Supreme Court adopted a view of the Constitution’s Commerce and Spending clauses that enabled federal involvement in a wide range of issues from banking to the environment.
The founders never intended for an unelected bureaucracy to control every aspect of our lives and the Supreme Court got it wrong (intentionally, I suspect). Laws are made by Congress and are not to be delegated. Regulations carry the force of law. That is, you can go to jail for violating say, an EPA regulation as easily as if you rob a liquor store.
Even foreign policy has become deeply ideological during the past few years, as illustrated by the controversy over whether President Obama is enough of a believer in “American exceptionalism.”
Truth: The President does not believe in American Exceptionalism (and neither, I might add does Ed Kilgore). "I believe in American Exceptionalism.....the same way Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism". He also apologizes for the United States. He invokes the UN, not US law. Kilgore goes on to state:
Now it has increasingly come to mean the conviction that any legal or ideological limitations on America’s freedom of action—even limitations originally proposed by the United States itself—are deeply offensive to the country’s very purpose.
The implication is that he believes powers outside of the United States should have a say in our freedom of action. For example, the UN. And it is deeply offensive. The United States should be able to take whatever action is in the National Interest. If We The People don't think it's ok, we will say so.
But, while conservatives are positively disposed toward entitlement cuts, any deficit deal will be a fantasy if it does not include tax increases—and those are anathema to conservatives. The alternative is a budget that cuts entitlements so far that rank-and-file Democrats will never agree to it. Meanwhile, the enthusiasm of a few libertarians for defense-spending cuts should not be mistaken as a general Republican position—witness the GOP’s enthusiasm for massively expanded missile defense systems and its general support for Obama’s continued engagement in Afghanistan.
Truth: Tax increases demonstrably reduce revenue to the Federal Government. They kill commerce. Tax reductions at the margins on the other hand, demonstrably increase Federal Revenue. Congress just spends it. Entitlements are not a legitimate function of the Federal Government. Defense is specifically called out in the Constitution. Since Iran and NoKo don't really seem to care about being Mutually Assured of Destruction, missile defense seems a more reasonable course than a START treaty with Russia. Entitlements are nearly 50% of the budget. Seems to me to be a good place to start.
And in that respect, pols may be representing public opinion more than you might think, as recently explained by polling expert Mark Blumenthal, who has found that when most partisans (particularly Republicans) say they are for “bipartisan compromise” they mean the other party should give in.
Truth: Blumenthal is a Lefty who posts at HuffPo. If it were true that Republicans expect Democrats to cross over, Social Security and Medicare would be reformed, the income tax would be abolished and Obamacare would not exist. But the fact is, it is the Progressives in the GOP who keep jumping ship. Without Collins and Snowe, Obamacare never sees the light of day.
Where has this bipartisanship Kilgore laments been for the last two years? How about "We Won"? How about crossing the Capital, gavel in hand, above ground to rub Obamacare in the face of Conservatives? How about a Lame Duck session that pushed even more unpopular legislation, only to meet an agenda the Left knew was dead.
There is no honor and no bipartisanship among the Left. Just like the thieves they are.
The truth is that, due to the ideological sorting-out of the parties over the past several decades—and in particular the hyper-radicalization of the GOP since 2006—our political system is in the throes of a battle over fundamentals. Democrats and Republicans are engaged in the most intractable face-off over core philosophical questions that Washington has seen in a very long time.
Truth? Hyper-radicalization of the GOP? While the GOP has moved Right (and I consider that a good thing), the hyper-radicalization is clearly on the Left. The Left is no longer the party of the working man and the middle class. It is the part of the radical environmentalists, the teachers unions, the public employee unions and the Socialists. I'd call that radical. This remains a Center-Right nation by every measure and for Kilgore to say otherwise flies in the face of every poll conducted for 20 years and certainly flies in the face of the most recent election (in spite of what Democrat Underground might want you to believe).
With George W. Bush out of power, conservatives have rejected the very idea that government spending can stimulate the economy—despite it being a fundamental lesson from Economics 101.
Truth: Conservatives never liked government over-spending and most of us were apoplectic over the spending on Medicare Part D. But the last two years (and the spending that went with it) was a result of Democrats controlling the House and Senate, just as the GOP controlling both houses during the Clinton years produced a balanced budget. We see that even now. Three branches controlled by the Left and spending which has quadrupled the debt and done little-to-nothing. And I want to know what school Kilgore went to. Keynesian economics has been debunked since Kennedy and the Left keeps coming back to it. We are in a terrible situation right now. States are nearing default and US debt rating is on the verge of downgrade. Hyperinflation is on the horizon. Kilgore must see this, right?
In addition to demanding lower and lower marginal income and capital gains tax rates on the highest earners, conservatives are now publicly complaining that the working poor are not taxed enough, and calling for total exemptions from taxation of both investment and inheritance income.
Truth: Kilgore's assertion here is far from true. We are taxing job creators at ever-higher levels and it has to stop. There are few calling for no taxation of investment and inheritance, but for the government to confiscate such a large portion is absurd. It is only for the sake of confiscation and redistribution that they do so. A top rate of 50% is nothing more than punishment. Everyone in this country should pay something. We are on the verge of a majority being able to vote themselves a raise from the federal treasury. Make everyone pay something or abolish the income tax. As Kilgore states in the same paragraph, I support the idea of a consumption tax. Income tax is strictly to punish earners and redistribute wealth. A consumption tax is still "progressive", those who make (and spend) more pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.
Conservative legal thinkers have long deplored the judicial consensus on regulation that has generally prevailed since the 1930s—under which the Supreme Court adopted a view of the Constitution’s Commerce and Spending clauses that enabled federal involvement in a wide range of issues from banking to the environment.
The founders never intended for an unelected bureaucracy to control every aspect of our lives and the Supreme Court got it wrong (intentionally, I suspect). Laws are made by Congress and are not to be delegated. Regulations carry the force of law. That is, you can go to jail for violating say, an EPA regulation as easily as if you rob a liquor store.
Even foreign policy has become deeply ideological during the past few years, as illustrated by the controversy over whether President Obama is enough of a believer in “American exceptionalism.”
Truth: The President does not believe in American Exceptionalism (and neither, I might add does Ed Kilgore). "I believe in American Exceptionalism.....the same way Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism". He also apologizes for the United States. He invokes the UN, not US law. Kilgore goes on to state:
Now it has increasingly come to mean the conviction that any legal or ideological limitations on America’s freedom of action—even limitations originally proposed by the United States itself—are deeply offensive to the country’s very purpose.
The implication is that he believes powers outside of the United States should have a say in our freedom of action. For example, the UN. And it is deeply offensive. The United States should be able to take whatever action is in the National Interest. If We The People don't think it's ok, we will say so.
But, while conservatives are positively disposed toward entitlement cuts, any deficit deal will be a fantasy if it does not include tax increases—and those are anathema to conservatives. The alternative is a budget that cuts entitlements so far that rank-and-file Democrats will never agree to it. Meanwhile, the enthusiasm of a few libertarians for defense-spending cuts should not be mistaken as a general Republican position—witness the GOP’s enthusiasm for massively expanded missile defense systems and its general support for Obama’s continued engagement in Afghanistan.
Truth: Tax increases demonstrably reduce revenue to the Federal Government. They kill commerce. Tax reductions at the margins on the other hand, demonstrably increase Federal Revenue. Congress just spends it. Entitlements are not a legitimate function of the Federal Government. Defense is specifically called out in the Constitution. Since Iran and NoKo don't really seem to care about being Mutually Assured of Destruction, missile defense seems a more reasonable course than a START treaty with Russia. Entitlements are nearly 50% of the budget. Seems to me to be a good place to start.
And in that respect, pols may be representing public opinion more than you might think, as recently explained by polling expert Mark Blumenthal, who has found that when most partisans (particularly Republicans) say they are for “bipartisan compromise” they mean the other party should give in.
Truth: Blumenthal is a Lefty who posts at HuffPo. If it were true that Republicans expect Democrats to cross over, Social Security and Medicare would be reformed, the income tax would be abolished and Obamacare would not exist. But the fact is, it is the Progressives in the GOP who keep jumping ship. Without Collins and Snowe, Obamacare never sees the light of day.
Where has this bipartisanship Kilgore laments been for the last two years? How about "We Won"? How about crossing the Capital, gavel in hand, above ground to rub Obamacare in the face of Conservatives? How about a Lame Duck session that pushed even more unpopular legislation, only to meet an agenda the Left knew was dead.
There is no honor and no bipartisanship among the Left. Just like the thieves they are.
Conservative? Or Some Other Litmus Test
Fuzzy did a great job of saying what I wanted to say and I'm going to add to it.
What do we, as Conservatives want to be? Is our litmus test an as-written view of the Constitution and fiscal responsibility? Or are we going to split ourselves along the lines of abortion (which I abhor), gender, race religion and sexual orientation?
This comes about because of the withdrawal of certain groups from GoPAC because of the participation of GOProud. The argument was made to me today that their participation is an embracing of the "Gay Agenda". I argue it is no...such...thing.
Participation in Conservatism should not, must not be limited to those whose lifestyle fits our own view of what it should be. We cannot survive without being a "Big Tent". The only litmus test must be based on the Constitution and on fiscal responsibility. There are many things on which Conservatives disagree regarding their personal lives. Will we barr Conservatives who have had extramarital affairs? What about fornicators? What about those who are not Christian?
I say to those who cannot accept others because of disagreements not related to the two basic requirements above, "Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. We are stronger with them than with you."
What do we, as Conservatives want to be? Is our litmus test an as-written view of the Constitution and fiscal responsibility? Or are we going to split ourselves along the lines of abortion (which I abhor), gender, race religion and sexual orientation?
This comes about because of the withdrawal of certain groups from GoPAC because of the participation of GOProud. The argument was made to me today that their participation is an embracing of the "Gay Agenda". I argue it is no...such...thing.
Participation in Conservatism should not, must not be limited to those whose lifestyle fits our own view of what it should be. We cannot survive without being a "Big Tent". The only litmus test must be based on the Constitution and on fiscal responsibility. There are many things on which Conservatives disagree regarding their personal lives. Will we barr Conservatives who have had extramarital affairs? What about fornicators? What about those who are not Christian?
I say to those who cannot accept others because of disagreements not related to the two basic requirements above, "Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya. We are stronger with them than with you."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)