TEA Party Rage?

The Beer:  I've been delinquent in my brewing.  I purchased an apple press, I have apple trees, so I think it's hard cider next.  If I can get my hands on more Door County Cherries, I'll work up another Cherry Wheat or Cherry Porter.  It's getting close to cracking a Bad Santa.

The Bicycle:  I Raced The Lake last weekend.  90 miles around Lake Winnebago.  A real-live race.  It was cool.  I did well for an old guy.  But I also hurt myself and am now on the DL.  We'll see what next week brings.

The VRWC:  Patricia Murphy says the TEA Party "rage" has died.  Dead, gone, toast?  Meh.  Her point doesn't seem to match the headline.

Lindsey Graham still has a target on his back, as do Olympia Snowe and the rest of the RINO contingent.  The TEA Party activists have to communicate a very clear vision that resonates with the general electorate.  Right now, we are being outflanked by a media talking point that we are "domestic terrorists", we have no "vision" other than to eliminate government.  We must take the offensive on our message.  As I have said numerous times, the TEA Party folks are the adults in the room.  We seem to be the only ones with the courage and fortitude to say "Stop!"  We are the only ones who recognize compromise is always in the direction of bigger government, more spending and greater debt.  We are the only ones who see the coming train wreck and know we have the means to prevent it.

What should the TEA Party groups be setting out?  Here is what we know:

• All federal regulations are unconstitutional.  Every...single...one.  Congress does not have the authority to delegate lawmaking.  Federal Regulations have the force of law.  They are unconstitutional.  How does one get past the "You don't care about clear air, clean water,the elderly, the hungry, blah, blah, blah?"  Force Congress to make the regulations or pass regulatory rulemaking over to the states.  No, that isn't delegation.  It's the Tenth Amendment.
• Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not the purview of the feds, either.  

We have to put these in the light of an alternative.  Yes, people will still be protected.  No, you won't be thrown out in the street to die.  But you will have to make your own way.  We can't afford to do it differently. Provide incentives for families and communities to take care of their own.  Continue to target RINOs.  Recognize that cuts must be made whether they affect us directly or not.  Otherwise we are hypocrites.

On Thugs, Liars and Cowards

I was accosted by someone the other day who told me he had no intention of performing his job.  Since it was just the two of us, I invited him to restate his intentions in front of his boss.  His words?  "I have no idea what you are talking about."  That made him a liar and a coward and I told him to his face.

What makes a liar and coward?  I do not necessarily believe those who flee danger are cowardly.  They are certainly not heroes,  but I don't know that I would label them as cowards.  What about a liar?  Does everyone who misrepresents get that label?  I say,"no".  A liar and coward is someone who is unwilling to live up  to their mistakes and the natural consequences thereof.

The thugs who vandalized and protested at Messmer this past week and who continue to stalk Governor Walker  are such people.  Watching the video, it is clear that these are people who are unwilling or unable to accept the results of the election.  They are unable to accept that they are the problem.  They are willing to lie about anyone who opposes them and engage in the thuggery you see.  They are brave in large numbers, yet act cowardly when confronted alone.

In fact, Leftists in general are cowards.  They are unwilling to make hard choices.  They are unwilling to part with their own money, but more than happy to spread your wealth.  Want evidence?  Walk up to  your Leftist neighbor and let them know they have more money, newer cars and a nicer house.  They should give you enough of their money to make you equal and hand over one of the cars while they're at it.  They will look at you like you are from another planet.

Their cowardice is also evident in their dealing with war.  When the President was George W. Bush, Iraq and A-stan were "wars for oil", "illegal wars", "wars of an imperialistic President".  The prison at GITMO and rendition were "illegal" and waterboarding was "torture".  Under Obama, the anti-war movement is strangely silent as we add an (truly) illegal war and at least two more "wars" in Yemen and Pakistan.  Were they cowards and liars then?  Or now?

To be a Leftist is to be a liar and coward.  I am more than happy to say it face to face.

Thugs Vandalize, Protest at Messmer....

Milwaukee Urinal-S#!thole is silent (I'm not even going to link to that fishwrap)


Union thugs protested Scott Walker at Messmer High School today.  Thugs also vandalized the school last night.  Same thugs?  Would it surprise you if it was?











Larry Miller of the MPS board of Directors should be ashamed. He's a thug just like all of those who protested. They would rather sentence inner-city children to the failure and violence of the Milwaukee Public Schools and the cycle of poverty it inflicts upon them. Shame on these thugs, shame on the union protestors, shame on the Milwaukee media for covering this up and last, but certainly not least, SHAME on any teacher who fails to condemn or worse, participates in this 
kind of thuggery.


Update:  Now the Urinal has something, but it really doesn't convey what happened like the video does.

Begala on Perry and "The Field"

Paul Begala would run a hit piece on GOP presidential contenders?  Really?  Shocking.

Felonious Munk (Not "Family Friendly")

I suspect we don't agree on a bunch of stuff, but here the dude is spot-on.

More Differences Between Conservatives and Progs

Daniel Judt in The Nation starts off well with the idea of Rethinking Politics in the Classroom, but the title is as good as it gets.


“We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them.”    —Tony Judt 


We need not ask any of these questions.  We should only ask the law is in accordance with The Constitution.  If it is, it meets  the criteria of being "good", "fair", "just" and "right".  There is no need to look elsewhere.  Those four items are defined by the Bill of Rights.  If a law is good, it protects the Natural Rights of people.  If it is fair, it treats all equally.  If just, it adhere's to the principle that people are secure in their property.  If it is right, there is no question.


Liberty is now commonly defined—especially in the United States—as the right to be free of restriction from a repressive state. If that state makes you act in a certain way, makes you spend your money in a certain way, makes you subscribe to a certain program—even if it benefits you and your community—your liberty is being infringed upon.  As Dworkin put it, “With today’s popular definition of liberty…you get the song of the Tea Party. This is nonsense.” Government is designed to provide safety, security and prosperity to citizens; it needs to ask things of us in return. As my dad put it inIll Fares the Land, “Government can play an enhanced role in our lives without threatening our liberties.” This is nothing new. Citizenship entails both rights and obligations, and those obligations to the state do not infringe upon our liberty—in fact, they help ensure it.


This is not "today's popular definition of liberty".  It is the definition provided us by the founders and the Constitution.  Money earned is "property".  It is our Natural Right to be secure in our property, to have say in how our money is taxed and used.  Contrary to Dworkin, it does not matter if I benefit nor does it matter if my community benefits.   What is required is my permission.  Indeed there are Rights and Obligations, but if those obligations infringe upon our God-give liberties, they are no longer "obligations".  What is argued here is that there is no limit to what government can do if it benefits the community.  That is patently false.  In the words of the Leftists from 40 years ago, "who decides"?  The government has decided it is beneficial to the community to require everyone to purchase healthcare insurance.  Again, patently false.  It is in the best interest of my community to have everyone pay for their own healthcare.


I am 16, the age at which Dworkin proposed the course be aimed. At Dalton (my school), political debate is one-sided (everyone claims to be a Democrat) and no one brings up or contests the “bad ideas” because, as Dad said, “We are intuitively familiar with issues of injustice, unfairness, inequality and immorality—we have just forgotten how to talk about them.” Furthermore, most intelligent kids have trained themselves to focus solely—sometimes excessively—on schoolwork. This is what they are told will lead to good grades, a good college and more opportunities to succeed, make money and “be happy.” They do not look carefully at political issues because, cynically put, they do not see that they have anything to gain from it.


The author doesn't believe we should look at political issues from the standpoint of “Will this provide us with more wealth and money-making opportunities?” or “Is this a smart political move?” or “Is this stance cost-effective?,” but rather from the standpoint of social justice and someones idea of "fairness".  He seems to believe if it is put that way to students, they would "see" the absolute truth of the policies of social democrats.


He is making the argument for politics in the classroom?


The author is the son of Tony Judt, quoted at the outset of the article and this post.  Judt died of ALS (Lou Gehrig's) in 2010.  That said, I suspect the author's belief that money doesn't make one happy exists because he has plenty.  Attending a $36,000 per year high school apparently makes one an expert on "money isn't everything".

Don't Mess With a Fraud Investigator

Interesting little tidbit if you are a small businessperson.

Much more at the link.

Somewhere along the line, Marcus Evans (according to the blogpost) seems to think if you don't go along with them, they have a right to make your life a living hell, they can send threatening letters and can otherwise generally harass.

In the words of my Southern Brethren, "That dog don't hunt".

Why Adler is Wrong

Ben Adler in The Nation says it's all the fault of the Republicans.

No, dude..Really....he said that.

Let's see here...for 70-plus years we've had Progressives on both sides of the aisle spending like it was someone else's money (oh, it was, wasn't it).  In the last 2-1/2years, we've added, what...a couple trillion to the debt by bailing out failed business models and paying off political cronies (business as usual).

Now, some adults (TEA Party Republicans) have come in and tried to put a stop to the madness.  They have offered up plans and budgets to help rein all this in because the Democrats have been unable to bring a budget to the floor for over 800 days.  Leadership from the White House?  "Present!"  Blaming the TEA Party Republicans is like blaming your parents for the not letting you use the car Friday night because you didn't do your homework.

There's plenty of blame to go around here, but it's not the TEA Party Republicans.

"'Compromise' is always in the direction of more spending, bigger government and greater debt."

TEA party Downgrade?

Yes, of course.  It was the TEA Party folks.  It had nothing to do with the spending that has gone on unabated for 70+ years.  No, that couldn't be it.

The TEA party activists are the only adults in the room.  The only ones who seem to care whether or not we mortgage the lives of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

But that's how it goes.  No good deed goes unpunished.

Not Really Cut?

Duh.


Someone actually thought there was a cut?  "Compromise" is always in the direction of bigger government, more spending and greater debt.


Always.