About Me

Name: BrianR
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

The House Passed "Healthcare".... So What?

 
It's no surprise. But it's also NOT the victory Pelosi's painting it to be. Here's why.
 
First of all, it was a close vote... and it shouldn't have been with such solid control of the House by the Dems. They had to pare back abortion funding, a big issue for libs.
 
Second, it still contains the "mandate" to buy insurance. That's problematic for them, because it guarantees a court challenge should it even become law.
 
Third, the Senate has always been where the bigger problem lies, though the libs keep trying to spin that away. Without Snowe and Lieberman, Reid can't stop a filibuster, and neither will vote for cloture if it contains the "public option", which Reid's version does. So, he doesn't have the 60 votes he needs.
 
The Dems are trying to spin this in order to gin up a perception of momentum and inevitability, but no one's buying it (other than the MSM, of course). Reid's ALREADY said he's looking at the end of this year, or maybe January, for the Senate to pass a version... and this was a bill that originally was soooooo crucial it had to pass in AUGUST! Remember that?
 
THEN the two versions have to be reconciled. Well, if the House version has the "public option" and the Senate version doesn't, they've got ANOTHER huge problem on their hands. Plus, if this goes beyond the Christmas break they'll have lost all momentum... as well as having to face angry constituents again, AND it'll then be into an election year. Which is clearly what they wanted to avoid by rushing it through in the first place.

Frankly, I'm MUCH more interested in the legal challenge looming on any "mandated" participation.

That's huge. It's been completely underplayed until very recently, and frankly has the potential to undo this whole thing.

Any "mandate" is completely unconstitutional. The federal government doesn't have the power nor authority to "mandate" that anybody buy anything.

Any such mandate would be enforced by the imposition of a "tax penalty", which is a de facto civil/criminal fine for failing to act in a government-approved fashion. This raises several other issues.

Enforcement would require people to report personal medical information on their tax returns. This is a violation of medical confidentiality, as well as infringing the Fifth Amendment ban on self-incrimination. It also raises Fourth Amendment concerns.

The fine would be imposed without "due process", banned under the Fifth Amendment.

Further, this law would be, by definition, a Bill of Attainder, banned under Art. 1, Sect. 8 of the Constitution itself.

Those who try to say it's the same thing as state requirements for auto insurance are also way off base. First of all, states have a lot of powers the feds don't. Further, there's NO requirement that everyone buy insurance in order to drive. There's only a requirement that cars driven on public roads be insured, and only for damage to the property of others. If you own a car that's never driven on public roads, it never has to be insured. If as a licensed driver you only drive other people's cars, you never have to buy insurance. Further... you're NEVER required by law to insure your car against damage to ITSELF. If you never drive at all, you never have to get insurance. If you can prove "financial responsibility" or post a bond, you don't have to have insurance. State car insurance laws are completely irrelevant to the discussion. 

The fat lady hasn't sung yet. Stay tuned.
 
 
UPDATE, 9 NOVEMBER:
 
An AP analysis in today's news confirms my assessment of the situation, it seems:
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (245) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservatism: The Next Generation

 
Much delayed, here are a few pics of the happy day, 2 Oct 2009. Baby Brianna was born to Nikki and Donnie at Northridge Hospital at 5:01 PM... all 8 pounds 12 ounces of her.
 
Soon-to-be Parents
The soon-to-be parents arriving.
 
 
 
Baby Brianna
Baby Bri doing what babies do best.
 
Simply amazing. I'm almost speechless... which as everyone knows, is an extreme rarity for me.
 
Thanks to all for the kind words and wishes.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (304) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Welcome to the Conspiracy!

 
It’s ba-a-a-a-a-a-ack!
 
Yes, according to Bill Clinton, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is back, alive and well, and thwarting stalwart liberals on every front.
 
You can read the story here or here.
 
When Hillary Clinton originally coined the idea, it was scoffed at even by many members of her own party. But never let it be said that liberals don’t know a good conspiracy theory when they hear one.
 
Even if they have to make it up.
 
Evidently it’s incomprehensible to them that the electorate may just not be buying their snake oil. That their ideas, philosophy, and ideology just don’t sit well with people who have a more traditional idea of what American values are all about. It MUST be the work of some e-e-e-e-e-e-evil cabal! SOMEONE must be out there stirring all those people up, because the natives are restless!
 
There are drums along the Mohawk! Tom-toms in the jungle!
 
And boy! Those conspirators must be good! Because not only do the liberals control most of the press and broadcast media, but they also pretty much control academia and Hollyweird, too. But even in spite of that… the conspiracy is thriving!
 
Not only thriving, but so darned good at “conspiring” that not even aaaaaaall those press and media types can root them out and identify them!
 
Phew!
 
I know I’ve been pretty busy, what with conspiring with all the other conspirators to sneakily undermine all the Good Works planned for this country by the noble Leftis… um, fascis…. I mean sociali… er, those guys…..
 
Skulking around in the dead of night, leaving secret signals like a flower in the lower left corner of my front right window… y’know, sneaky conspiratorial stuff like that.
 
Then having to conspire to hide what I really think from being in my blog. You think I’m really a conservative? You think I really believe what I write here?
 
Ha! Gotcha! Because I’m reeeaaally conspiring to hide all that and advance my REAL and HIDDEN agenda! Don’t ask what it is. That’s for me to know and you to find out!
 
But just know that it’s conspiratorially aimed against the liberals, and especially the Clintons, and ESPECIALLY Obambi.
 
There! See? That was a hint. I didn’t write “Obama”… I wrote “Obambi”! There’s a hidden meaning in that… IF you can figure it out. But if you don’t have the password and the secret decoder ring, fuggeddabouddit!
 
(For further information, go to imaparanoidwack.com or call 1-800-NUT-JOBS)
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (227) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Federal Reserve and You

   

STOP!

Yeah, yeah… I know. You saw the title, your eyes glazed over, and you immediately started to click over to another site, something like “Rodney Dangerfield’s Fan Page” maybe, or “Tips on Garage Shelving”.
 
I promise you, this will be short and sweet. And I’m not posting the links to those sites.
 
The Constitution grants to Congress the authority to issue money, a power that has now in many ways devolved to the Federal Reserve (Fed), an "autonomous" entity that's virtually unaccountable to anyone, as it's "non-partisan".
 
This raises several problems. When the Fed adjusts interest rates and takes other actions to increase or decrease the flow of money into the economy – essentially turning the government printing presses on or off – there's no practical political accountability for doing so. Though this gives Congresscritters and the President political shelter from the consequences of such actions, it's ruinous to the fiscal structure of the country, REGARDLESS of who's in the majority.
 
Thus we have the politicians creating some programs that spend "theoretical" dollars – “minority” lending programs, for example – and leaving it to the Fed to "create" the real money to fund those programs. The politicians can adjust rates of taxation, but the current "bailouts" are great examples of why this system doesn't work. The Fed has essentially been "printing" tomorrow's money today, which is what deficit spending really boils down to.
 
When the Fed does this, it's very much like getting a cash advance on your credit card. At some point, the money has to be paid back with interest, or you're heading to bankruptcy court – or in the case of the government, either fiscal collapse and runaway inflation, or a Draconian increase in the rates of taxation, as we've seen here in California.
 
To regain fiscal sanity, we have to return any and all authority for the issuance of money directly to Congress and have a "pay as you go" process.
 
Each year, as any and all programs are authorized, funding would also have to be directly controlled and authorized by Congress, with commensurate taxation to provide the funds.
 
This would instill direct political consequences for any program the government tries to initiate, and recapture the appropriate political dialogue, since those taxes would be imposed DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY on the electorate.
 
No more would we see social programs or wars – for example – moving forward without a political dialogue with the people about whether or not they're willing to part with their hard-earned dollars to support such programs.
 
See? That wasn’t so bad, was it?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (179) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama’s Healthcare Speech: Life Support or Last Rites?

Last Wednesday night, Obama gave his much-anticipated and ballyhooed healthcare speech to a joint session of Congress in an effort to resuscitate the program to which he’s hitched his political star. Like just about everyone else under the sun, I do have a few thoughts on the matter.
It’s impossible to discuss the speech without first acknowledging Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst of “You lie!” when he heard Obama’s assertion that there’d be no healthcare provided to illegal aliens. Naturally, the Democrats reacted in high dudgeon, taking great umbrage, exhibiting self-righteous sanctimony, total outrage, and much wailing, tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth. They managed to forget their own history of booing George Bush during his speeches to Congress as well as the way Bush was treated at Obama’s inauguration. Their manufactured outrage would probably be more impressive if they weren’t such boorish dolts themselves.
 
Further, contrary to what’s often said by those professing a desire to “recapture” and “return” to some historic era of “decorum” in politics, there’s a long and honored history of rancorous behavior that is the real history of this country. Alexander Hamilton didn’t die of old age; Aaron Burr shot him in his prime in a duel over political differences. Senators and congressmen would have physical fights on the respective floors of each house, sometimes clubbing each other with their canes. When Davy Crockett gave his last speech in the House, he told his fellow Representatives, “You all can go to hell! I’m going to Texas!” Which is what he did, fighting and dying at the Alamo.
 
Of course the biggest problem for the liberals is this: Wilson was right! It was a lie!
 
When the Republicans on the various committees tried to insert provisions for eligibility verification and enforcement, they were shut down flat. Now, and only because of Wilson’s outburst and after a whole lot of “Er, uh… well, we’ll look into that…” the Democrat committee heads all of a sudden are backed into a corner, and are suddenly amenable to including some mechanism to actually insure that illegals won’t get any benefits. Of course, the problem for them and Obama is that the inclusion of such provisions is going to really tick off the illegal alien lobby that thought it was going to be sneaking this one by everybody.
 
Poor Obama; damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I guess it really boils down to whom you want damning you, poor fella.
 
Supposedly, there’s enough “waste, fraud, and mismanagement” to fund a “public option” if that ends up included in a bill, “public option” meaning “paid for with taxpayer dollars”. So, the question occurs to me: if there’s that much wastage – and we’re talking trillions of dollars – then why is he waiting to clean that up? Isn’t that his fiduciary responsibility as President? He has to wait for a new bill to arrive before he does his job?
 
Of course, Obama’s claim is just pure BS. It’s yet another lie; more fairy tales he’s using to try to “sell” this garbage to the American public. Further, as I’ve written before, there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution – that silly old document – that grants to the federal government the power or authority to use taxpayer dollars to “provide” health insurance to anyone. To use one of my favorite quotes, this one from “Father of the Constitution” James Madison: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
 
Obama supports a “mandated” participation in health insurance by everybody, and tried to draw an analogy with the requirement that people must have insurance in order to drive. Unfortunately for the poor guy, he’s all wet yet again.
 
First of all, under the Constitutional principle of federalism, the states have a lot of powers to do things the Federal Government is not allowed to do. That’s the whole principle behind “states’ rights”. Further, even then it doesn’t work the way Obama tried to portray it.

Let's use my state of California as an example. Contrary to what's usually stated, there's no requirement that a driver be insured in order to drive a car. All that's required is having a valid driver's license. Period.

In order to operate a vehicle on public roads, that vehicle must be insured, but only for damage caused to other people, not to itself. If you never operate your vehicle on public roads, you don't have to insure it. Further, even THAT requirement is waived if you can prove financial responsibility or post a bond.

So, the attempted analogy is entirely false. But wait! There's more!

Any "mandate" for insurance participation will be enforced through the mechanism of a "tax surcharge" of up to $3800 under current proposals. That, too, is unconstitutional, as it amounts to a "penalty" based on behavior. The tax code is clearly NOT to be used to impose social engineering. Further, the imposition of such a "penalty" is a de facto criminal penalty/civil fine without Due Process as defined and banned under the Fifth Amendment. After all, it's a de facto fine for failing to behave in a government-approved fashion – by buying health insurance – which under this bill becomes essentially a crime or civil violation.
 
Should a bill with any such “mandate” become law, I can virtually guarantee a court challenge on that basis alone.
 
Throughout much of his speech he demonized “profit”, betraying his socialist/fascist philosophy in Hi-Def. The healthcare industry has an average profit margin of 3.3%, and ranks at #86 on the profitability list. If it becomes any less profitable, we’re going to have a real crisis on our hands as doctors trade in their medical practices for plumbing licenses.
 
On a scale of 1 to 5, I rate this speech a 1 for substance; only a 2 for style because Obama’s become more overexposed on TV than the Sham-Wow guy and has become boring and repetitious; a 2 for effectiveness; and a 5 to Joe Wilson for Political Theater.
 
I think our poor, beleaguered Prez and his liberal cronies are going to be very disappointed, because I don’t think it changed one thing on the political landscape. This program’s in deep doo-doo.
 

Addendum on 14 Sep
 
The Dems have used a manufactured "right to healthcare" to rationalize a "mandate" that people buy health insurance. Are they also planning on "mandating" that everybody buy a gun? After all, that's actually a real "right".

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (80) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Commiefornia Constitutional Convention?

 
There’s been a lot of talk recently, particularly in light of the recent budget debacle, of holding a constitutional convention here on the Left Coast to try to “fix” our broken system.
 
Though I agree that our current state government is pretty much a picture-perfect example of dysfunctional chaos, I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that anything that would emerge after a constitutional convention would be any better; and in all probability would be even worse by orders of magnitude.
 
Why? The answer is very clear to me. Because of who would inevitably be the delegates to such a convention: the same professional political hacks who have managed to drive the bus of this state over a cliff.
 
Once such a convention took place, by its very definition EVERYTHING would be on the table. The very few safeguards we currently have – such as the Prop 13 safeguard against excess real estate property taxation and the 2/3 requirement for imposition of tax increases – would be at high risk.
 
There's already a very good historical example: the original constitutional convention that resulted in our current Federal Constitution was convened to address and amend shortcomings in the Articles of Confederation. Once in session, the first order of business was to broaden the scope of their goals, with the end result being a completely new charter for the country that had almost no relationship whatsoever to the original charter they were supposed to amend.
 
In that example, the outcome was a good one (though that document is pretty much ignored nowadays in formulating public policy), but our political classes here in California are in NO WAY of the caliber of the Founding Fathers.
 
We'd have a better chance of getting a good result if the names of the delegates were chosen at random out of the phone book.
 
As a matter of fact, I think that's the only way I'd support this idea.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (247) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The False Issue of “Partisanship”


There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the “partisan” nature of political debate in this country, especially as Obama’s healthcare initiative has heated up. As congresscritters have been holding “townhall” meetings in their districts during the recess, they’ve been confronted by citizens outraged by the proposed government takeover of the nation’s medical industry, and lately some of the factions supporting this policy – such as the unions and Obama’s “community organizer” groups – have finally managed to organize themselves enough to show up and try to counter the complaints voiced by the policy’s opponents.
 
Since Obama’s assumed office, his supporters – such as Pelosi, Reid, Garofalo and others – have tried to dismiss and belittle his opponents as simply unthinking tools of talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, and the GOP, a tack that started with the Tea Parties in the spring and has intensified as this healthcare debate has heated up. They constantly accuse opponents of being “partisan”.
 
Putting aside for the moment the incredible hypocrisy and chutzpah of such an accusation coming from the side of the political aisle that’s been wallowing in these same tactics for decades, let’s examine what that really means.
 
The reality is that any person who has an opinion on a preferred outcome on ANY issue is “partisan” on that issue, by the very definition of the word. It has nothing to do with being affiliated with any political “party”. If you support a particular outcome, you’re a “partisan”. It doesn’t matter if you try to make your point quietly and reasonably, or shout it from the rooftops.
 
There’s a further implication that “partisanship” is loud, strident, unreasoned, irrational, and undesirable. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’d posit the exact opposite: that a quiet, complacent, unquestioning, and compliant population is a population of victims waiting to be led meekly to the chopping block by the political classes. Which is exactly why it’s the politicians themselves who are the most upset and threatened by it.
 
This country’s ethic is firmly rooted in a loud, raucous, and boisterous political arena. We were founded through violent armed revolution. Our Founders themselves were sometimes mean, nasty, and vicious. Alexander Hamilton didn’t die of the flu. He was shot by Aaron Burr in a duel over political differences. Davy Crockett told his fellow congressmen to “go to hell” before leaving Washington and heading to Texas to fight at the Alamo. John Adams was a world-class political schemer and a man of monumental ego who didn’t think twice about backstabbing his opponents. Andrew Jackson completely ignored a ruling by the Supreme Court, saying: “Justice Marshall has his ruling. Now let him enforce it”.
 
The whole idea behind this country is that competing ideas should be argued vociferously in the public arena, with the hope that the best of those ideas would get the most support and thus become public policy. The idea that we’re all supposed to act like little children sitting in a classroom is, frankly, absurd.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (140) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

“Healthcare Reform”, Part 2… “Co-Ops”?


When we talk about “healthcare reform”, we have to define exactly what we mean by using the term. If by “reform” we mean removing government-imposed obstacles in order to allow a more competitive free-market private-sector environment, well… then I’m all for it.
 
For example, allowing insurance companies to compete in all markets nationwide, without heed to state borders, strikes me as a good thing. Removing barriers to increased free-market competition is Basic Econ 101.
 
In today’s news (here) it seems Obama has finally realized that his plan to turn our entire health insurance industry into a government-run adjunct to Medicare and the VA system – the “single-payer” system – is falling into ruins at his feet. He’s “open” to the alternative of “co-ops” that are independently operated, purportedly abandoning his dedication to the “single-payer” approach.
 
If by “co-ops” we’re talking about the insurance industry equivalent of what credit unions are to the banking industry, I have no problem with this idea. As a matter of fact, this plan already exists. For example, Sears doesn’t use outside vendors to provide health insurance to its employees. It self-insures, which is essentially a co-op operated for the benefit of Sears employees. Many large companies do exactly this.
 
On the other hand, if we’re talking about “co-ops” wherein the government would still step in and use taxpayer dollars to pay the premiums of “poor people”, especially if participation is mandated, then this is simply the “single-payer” program in stealth mode.
 
There are three repugnant aspects of the “single-payer” plan: government funding; loss of the individual’s autonomy on issues of his own health care; and any “mandate” that people participate at all if they choose to not do so. ANY program that moves forward must avoid all of these aspects.
 
If the current national debate moves from “single-payer” and “public option” – meaning “supplied by the government at taxpayer expense” – to “co-op”, it’s going to become extremely important to keep a very wary eye on just exactly what that means. If “co-ops” are nothing more than government-operated and –funded programs, then this is nothing more than another cynical manipulation of language, just as “taxes” have become “fees” and “contributions”.
 
Some important facts to be aware of: according to the most recent Gallup poll on the topic, in November of 2007 (here), 83% of Americans rate the healthcare they receive as “excellent” or “good”, and 70% rate their healthcare coverage (insurance) as “excellent” or “good”. This is reinforced by other polls (here), which also reveal another very fascinating bit of information: only 8.4 million of the “uninsured” are dissatisfied with their healthcare in any way.
 
Wait a sec! I thought there were 40 million or so people who were being left out in the cold. What happened?
 
I guess our system is already set up to take care of the uninsured, through emergency rooms, charitable organizations, and other existing options.
 
There is no “crisis”. This whole issue has been manufactured out of thin air by nanny-staters to impose ever more control over everybody by Big Government.
 
 

UPDATE, 18 AUGUST

It looks like it’s a good thing I posted this essay when I did, because it’s already obsolete. Today, Obama flip-flopped on the idea of “co-ops”, reaffirming his support of the “single-payer” system. No surprise there; he was drawing too much heat from his own base.

Interestingly enough, the Democrat sponsors of this legislation in the Senate are saying that the “public option” has no chance of passing in that house.

What, oh what, is a boy supposed to do?
 

UPDATE, 25 AUGUST

Reported in this month's VFW Magazine, which I received yesterday:
"VA's backlog of claims and appeals was more than 905,000 as of July 18, according to VA statistics. That represents an increase of some 15% from last year.
 
"VA's baclog includes over 732,000 unprocessed claims -- of which about 20% had been pending beyond 180 days -- and approximately 173,000 appeals awaiting decisions."
 
VFW Magazine, Sep 2009, page 10.
 
I can hardly wait for the government to take over the REST of the healthcare system.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (160) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Big Three

 
In my last essay we examined the religion of “climate change”. Now let’s take a look at those two other totems of liberalism – “healthcare” and amnesty – and how those three policies in and of themselves have the potential of completely destroying – utterly and forever – the very essence of what makes this country what it is.

“Healthcare”

Many people are talking about “healthcare”, and how “the government” has some responsibility to step forward and make sure they have some form of “affordable” insurance. Under what constitutional theory do they make that assertion?

What part of the Constitution authorizes the government to provide one with health insurance? If you can't afford health insurance, why is that any problem of mine as a taxpayer?

Here's James Madison -- the "Father of the Constitution" -- on the subject: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents".

The Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity, not of outcome. Everyone has the same opportunity to buy the best insurance they can afford, and I’m sure that no matter what happens, Bill Gates is always going to be able to afford better health care than you or I can.

Let’s look at this another way: I have a right to own a Porsche. I can't afford a Porsche. How do I get the government to buy a Porsche for me?

But there’s an even greater danger that attaches, and it’s typified by the anti-smoking fascism that’s arisen in this country. I don’t use the word “fascism” lightly. Here’s the Webster’s Dictionary definition of the term: “1. A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a central autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. 2. A tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.”

That’s exactly what we’ve seen in the attack on smoking. Science has been subverted from the objective search for facts to the advancement of a predetermined political outcome as typified by the false and now debunked issue of “secondhand smoke”. Private property rights have been completely trampled; for example, if a bar owner wants to smoke a cigarette in his own bar, he has to leave his own premises to do so, let alone be any longer able to make the determination for himself of whether or not he wants to allow smoking in his own establishment.

All of this was justified as being for “the greater good of society”, a clear example of the rights of the individual being sacrificed on the altar of collectivism. On seeing the success of this jihad, years ago I forecast – including right here on this blog – that we’d see the same strategy employed against other “disapproved” behaviors, and that prediction has come to pass. The wars against “trans fats” and fast foods (and in fact just about anything that tastes good); the helmet and seatbelt laws; the early moves to address “obesity”… all as forecast.

Now consider the power the government can wield once it controls “health insurance”, and can justify laws concerning behavior control on the basis of actual governmental dollar expenditures through the actuarial cost of those behaviors to public “health insurance”. Nothing will be safe anymore. Do you enjoy skydiving or flying your own plane? Motorcycles? Surfing? Mountain climbing? Are you a few pounds over the “government-approved” weight for your height? Does your supermarket sell non-approved seasonings, “fats”, or sweeteners?

Anything and everything can be regulated, controlled, or banned based on the rationale of an actual dollar cost to “the public”. This opens the door to absolute and complete control by the government of any individual human activity, virtually without exception.

The Macro and the Micro

There are two comparative states of existence: the macro, having to do with the aggregate or overall body being considered; and the micro, having to do with the smaller components that comprise the macro. In a sociological context, the macro would be the society as a whole, and the micro would be the individuals that make up that society.

“Climate change” legislation empowers the government to control the macro aspects of our society through imposition of energy and emission regulations, cap-and-trade taxation, CAFE mandates, land and property usage restrictions, and a host of other broad and sweeping powers justified under the aegis of protecting society from its own collective activities. That’s complete control of the macro, i.e. society in general.

“Healthcare” legislation gives the government the ultimate power to approve any individual person’s activity based on the “costs” to healthcare of that activity. That’s complete control of the micro, i.e. the individual’s right to self-determination.

The macro and the micro, under direct government management and approval. In other words, everything. Individual liberty would no longer exist as anything more than an arcane idea and a chimera, a catchphrase used solely for political purposes and sloganeering. The actual right to make our own decisions for ourselves as to lifestyle and activities would be completely usurped by the government.

Now add amnesty

 
It is estimated that there are between 12 million and 30 million illegal aliens in this country, most under-educated and unskilled. If these people are given amnesty and a “path to citizenship”, the net effect will be to add that number of people – as well as those they can then sponsor into the country – to the rolls of people who are net consumers of government services and subsidies.
 
Once having attained citizenship, these people also become voters. Is this a demographic that’s likely to vote to reduce government programs on which they depend for their income and support? Of course not.
 
At that point, the game is finally over for this country… forever. Those who believe in traditional conservatism will be completely outnumbered at the polls… permanently. The liberals – primarily Democrats – will continue their massive government giveaways, essentially buying votes (an activity that if done by an individual is actually illegal) with government money. If they hope to win any elections at all, Republicans will be forced to accelerate their capitulation on core values and run even harder to the Left. There won’t be anyone left to promote basic American values anymore.
 
The cycle of destruction will be complete. The United States will continue to exist as a place on the map, just as Rome still exists, but the essence of this country – its traditional values and liberties – will be gone for good.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (202) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

On "Climate Change"


In debating the issue of “climate change” with the supporters of government legislation, I always point out that in spite of their claims that humans are the driving causative force in causing any such change – such claims inevitably including driving SUVs, coal- or petroleum-based power generation, etc. – climate change is actually caused by much larger factors far beyond human control or influence.
 
For example:
 
The ice caps on Mars are shrinking. Too many SUVs?
 
The eruption of ONE volcano – Mount Saint Helens – spewed more pollutants into the atmosphere than mankind has done in his entire existence. The eruption of Krakatoa in the 19th Century was orders of magnitude greater than Mt. St. Helens. There are quite a few volcanoes in existence right now that could go at any time.
 
The phenomena that cause planetary climate changes are of such immense magnitude -- be they orbital variations, solar emission variations, terrestrial geologic events such as tectonic plate movements or massive volcanic eruptions, among many others including natural climactic “cycling” -- that anything we puny humans can do is simply meaningless by comparison. It's like trying to change the ocean levels by peeing in the surf.
 
Almost thirty-two thousand scientists who specialize in the fields directly relating to climatology have signed a petition debunking the pseudo-science at the root of this proposed policy (here).
 
Does that mean that our activities are transparent? Of course not. Everything that happens has SOME effect, no matter how small. The humidity levels in the San Fernando Valley here in LA County have risen over the last 40 years because of all the swimming pools that have been built, for example.
 
But we also have to accept that there ARE some costs that are assumed in order to enjoy the benefits of living in this modern era -- or in ANY era, for that matter. The Indians who originally occupied the Los Angeles basin when the Spaniards dropped by had created quite a "smog" (as we currently know it) in the area with the fires they used for heat and cooking in their villages. That was hundreds of years ago. We actually have a cleaner environment NOW than they did THEN.
 
Further, as technology advances we get evermore "eco-friendly" developments that are naturally incorporated into our products and lifestyle. But the key word is "naturally", not unrealistically imposed by Draconian government fiat. That's one of the reasons China and the developing world simply blew off Obama's "climate change" proposals last week. They'd rather keep developing and enjoying the fruits of the modern world than remain as Third World beggars, and I don't blame them. This kind of regulatory proposal is a luxury that can only occur in a nation that already enjoys so many benefits that it has a class that suffers from some weird guilt trip that motivates them to look to extraneous causes to champion as they take our benefits for granted. That's exactly the kind of thinking that has ultimately led to the downfall of the great nations in history.
 
There are costs to everything in life, and anyone who thinks we can somehow magically change our dependance on oil or coal or artificially impose a limit on pollution when the technology doesn't currently exist to do so; and make that happen without imposing very significant costs on society through artificial curtailment of activity or the types of products available, leading to a regression in production and/or lifestyle... well, that's worse than unrealistic. It’s naïve and ignorant to the lessons of human history.
 
The last and greatest problem with their thesis is that climate change is inherently and inevitably a bad thing. Why would they assume that?
 
All of Los Angeles County was buried under about a mile of ice a mere 10,000 years ago, and woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed cats were part of the local fauna. That's obviously no longer true, and that’s a GOOD thing.
 
I can live in the Santa Clarita Valley today because of the artificial environment we've created. Back in the mid 1970s, when I lived on the Westside of LA city, I used to drive out here to shoot my guns. There was basically nothing here except for a few small neighborhoods on what’s now the south side of town. This was nothing but one dry and hot desert landscape, dotted with a few onion fields and orange groves.
 
But now we’ve created a completely different landscape, built an infrastructure, imported water, built a mall, theaters, amenities, residential neighborhoods… an entire community capable of self-support in what was formerly a hostile landscape.
 
I have no doubt we’ve had an impact on the local mini-climate and ecology. Is that a bad thing? What’s the greater good? A thriving and productive community sensitive to local issues, that strives to protect its own resources while maximizing their benefit? Or a barren wasteland home to some lizards and coyotes and a few weeds?
 
As to the macro-ecology, there are extinctions all the time, and have been throughout history. As a matter of fact, paleontologists will tell you that our current era is one of the most stable and benign in the entire history of the planet. Unusually so, and it’s long overdue to change. Significantly.
 
The very idea that we puny humans are the determinant factor to the climatological future of the planet is not only unrealistic, but arrogant to the point of hubris.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (128) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Well! … It’s About Damned Time!

 
Out here in Commiefornia, our universally loathed Governator Ah-nuld Kennedy-Schwarzenegger has finally decided to live up to his campaign promises after almost six years in office!
 
You can read the entire article here, but here’s the most important sentence in the entire article: “In addition to cuts, Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers also want reforms to welfare, pension, health care and in-home supportive service programs.”
 
Schwarzenegger and Republican lawmakers”. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen that phrase in years, if ever. For his entire administration, the idiot Governator’s done nothing but side with the liberal Democrats controlling Sacramento in criticizing and chastising the state’s Republicans – as lame as they are – as obstructionist to making policy. This is the same Governator, by the way, who originally campaigned – as a Republican – on his promise to lower taxes and “blow up the boxes”.
 
Now, after six years in office spent trying to control “climate change” – and after signing into law in February the single largest tax increase in the country’s history – it seems this cretin has finally found religion.
 
If he’d taken this kind of stance at the start of his administration, and vowed to veto any budgets that included tax or spending increases, this state wouldn’t be in the fiscal morass it finds itself, with no money to pay the bills even after the massive tax increase, forced to issue IOUs to pay those bills, and with an additional post-tax-increase shortfall of over $20 billion.
 
In other words, if he’d spent his time actually doing the job the people had elected him to do, instead of trying to save the planet.
 
The really laughable aspect of this guy is that he truly believes the country’s Constitution should be amended so he can be elected President. I’m serious!
 
Now… will he have the cojones to actually stick by his guns? Only time will tell, but his history as Governator is that of Girly-Boy, not Terminator.
 
No wonder his approval ratings are as low as those of the guy he replaced in a recall election.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (111) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sotomayor, Liberal Thought, and Judicial Activism


Much has been written about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, but there are a couple of issues I find persuasive enough to convince me she’s not qualified to be confirmed to the position.

If you read this
article you’ll find the following:
 
Republicans had complained that Sotomayor initially omitted from the records she sent the Senate Judiciary Committee a report she signed urging the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund to oppose reinstitution of the death penalty in New York in the early 1980s.

“The report, which has since been provided, said, ‘Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society.’ It noted that African-Americans at the time made up 47 percent of death row inmates, but only 11 percent of the U.S. population.”

Using that same “logic”, we can make the following argument: males comprise a little less than 50 percent of American society, but almost 100 percent of inmates convicted of rape. Therefore, American society is clearly sexist in favor of females. Obviously, an absurd proposition, because the fact is that males commit virtually 100% of the rapes in this country.

The reality is that Blacks commit 52% of the homicides in this country according to the US Department of Justice (DOJ report) and thus are actually statistically UNDER-REPRESENTED in the death row population.

Sotomayor’s “reasoning” in the referenced report clearly ignores simple facts and logic, instead relying on emotional rhetoric to find support for the liberal canard of institutionalized racism, in an effort to advance a major plank of the liberal agenda. Why would one think she wouldn’t continue to do the same while serving on the bench? She managed to find “racism” where none exists, just as Roe v. Wade managed to find a constitutional “right to privacy” that exists nowhere in the actual Constitution.

This bias in favor of the liberal agenda over proper judicial action is also clearly illustrated in her opinion in the case Maloney v. Cuomo. This case was decided several months after the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had issued its finding in the case DC v. Heller. In his opinion for the majority (the operative and definitive aspect) Scalia clearly and specifically wrote that the precedent of Presser v. Illinois didn’t apply to the individual right to own handguns (at issue in the Maloney case):

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation."

Scalia continues: "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

Sotomayor, however (and in complete defiance of Heller), wrote: “And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”

In other words, Sotomayor is telling SCOTUS and Scalia that she’s refusing to follow the direction clearly set by the Heller case. This is judicial arrogance and activism of the highest and worst order.

The two issues I’ve raised in this essay, in and of themselves, are enough to convince me she’s not qualified to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Frankly, I think they disqualify her from the bench at any level. I don’t have any idea why this hasn’t been raised as an objection to her appointment, but it hasn’t.

I would urge all my readers to contact their Senators, and make these points. And feel free to copy and paste this essay should you wish to do so.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (210) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More GOP Inanity/Insanity


Here's another great example of how the GOP is a party completely bereft of ideas.
 
"Op-Ed Contributor: Health reform possible without growing government" By Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
 
"To be effective, health care reform must include insurance coverage for everyone, encourage prevention measures, and reform the inefficiencies in our system to ensure the future strength of our economy. CPR—Coverage, Prevention, Reform—is a plan I have proposed that sets up a system where every American will be required to purchase meaningful health insurance to ensure each family will be protected against bankruptcy if a family member becomes seriously ill or injured." 
 
WTF?
 
Under what authority does the government FORCE people to buy insurance?
 
I've heard the argument made that people are forced to buy car insurance by law. Not so! That's only required if you're going to operate your car on public roads, and only to cover damage you may cause OTHER people, and on top of that if you can show financial responsibility and post a bond you don't even have to do that! And there's NEVER any legal requirement that you have insurance to cover the damage to your own car.
 
Here's another thing I never hear mentioned under this "mandatory" insurance idiocy: How do they plan to get the ILLEGAL ALIENS to "contribute"? What about the homeless, the "poor", the insane, the unemployed?
 
Those people are already a huge percentage of the cost problem. How's THAT addressed?
 
This is exactly why the GOP is a party that's not worth one lick of support. Yet another example of their limp-wristed approach to politics: yield the agenda to liberals, then offer a slightly less odious alternative. What a bunch of complete wienies.
 
I am SOOOOOOO glad I quit that pathetic excuse for a party and re-registered as an Independent.

12 June Update:
 
Yeah, here we go. The REAL truth comes out, and it's scary.
 
"HHS' Sebelius touts Obama health insurance plan"
 
"Sebelius told Nebraskans she met with that the health reform plan needs to be much broader than just addressing the problems with health insurance because the current system doesn't do a good job of preventing disease and managing Americans' health and wellness."
 
I don't know about y'all, but I do NOT want the government "managing" my "health and wellness", telling me what I have to do because I may not be living up to some damned government-set standard of behavior.
 
Hell, that's one of the reasons I never considered a career in the Army. WAAAAAY too much "supervision", not NEARLY enough autonomy.
 
"Autonomy".... another word for "FREEDOM"!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (117) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Too Big To Fail?

 
Pan American Airline

Trans World Airline (TWA)

Pacific Southwest Airline (PSA)

Aloha Airline

American Motors Corporation (AMC)

Packard Motors

Nash Motors

Kaiser Motors

Studebaker

Hudson Motors

De Soto (autos)

Edsel

Geo (autos)

International Harvester

REO

Stutz

Willys Motors

Montgomery Ward

Security Pacific Bank

Kaiser Steel

I suspect many readers are too young to even remember some of those names, but we’re talking about some big hitters: national flag-carrier airlines; auto manufacturers; a national retailer with both stores and mail-order catalogues (what we did in pre-internet days!); a steel manufacturer. That list could be a lot longer, too, with shipping lines, railroads, and others.

What do they all have in common? They’re all defunct. Bankrupt. Out of business.

In many cases, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. How will the industry survive? The world is coming to an end! This was particularly true when the major airlines – Pan Am and TWA – tanked.

Does anyone even remember those companies anymore, let alone miss them? When was the last time Pan Am crossed your mind – if ever? Are you sorry you can’t order from Monkey Ward anymore? Do you even care?

The reality is that since the Industrial Revolution companies have come and gone with great regularity, victims of mismanagement, financial insufficiencies, changing technology (bought any buggy whips lately?), skilled competition, general market forces… many and diverse reasons. And whenever one of the Big Ones goes, there’s a lot of ink given to possible consequences – generally portrayed as being “terrible” – and in a little while the world adjusts and we move on.

It’s a lot like dropping a rock into a still pond. There’s a splash and some ripples, but in a few moments the water stills, and life goes on.

This changed when Lee Iacocca conned the Feds into bailing Chrysler out of bankruptcy a few decades ago, and we’re now seeing the upshot: general panic and the government taking over private industry, the first significant steps down the road of fascism. Instead of the rock dropping into a pond, this time someone stuck in the business end of an outboard boat motor and turned that sucker on. The waters aren’t at all close to stilling.

In a healthy economy and free society, there’s no company “too big to fail”, because if there’s a NEED for that company’s product or services, some OTHER company will step in to take up the slack and fill the vacuum created by that company’s failure. If that failing company is in such bad shape that it can’t bail itself out, even with the assistance of bankruptcy court, it should be allowed to disappear.

Isn’t that the Darwinian process of “natural selection” that liberals all claim to believe in so much?
 
 
ADDENDUM ON 7 JUNE:
 
 
The rest of the world, especially those countries that have already been experimenting with socialism, are all turning to the Right and voting more conservative, while WE are rushing headlong over the cliff on our Left.
 
What delicious irony.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (102) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dispelling Second Amendment Fears

 
An Examination of Where We Currently Stand On Gun Rights
 
 
Since Obama’s election, fears of Draconian infringements of gun rights have run rampant, up to and including hysteria about massive confiscation efforts. Prices of ammunition have soared as availability has plummeted, an inversely proportional relationship; people are stockpiling as military requirements have also increased, further shortening supply.
This hysteria has been fanned by hyperbolic pronouncements by the NRA as it exploits the current political climate to expand its membership rolls. I’ve heard everything from Obama somehow banning and confiscating guns, to UN treaties that will void the Second Amendment, to ammo rationing, to exorbitant taxes that will make the purchase of guns and ammo impossible, to legal requirements for incorporation of technology into finished products that will make them impossible to manufacture.
 
In my opinion these fears are ungrounded, and I’d like to address a couple of issues to explain why.
 
The first thing we have to look to is the recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in the Heller case. In his opinion for the majority – which is the operative and ruling aspect of the decision – Justice Antonin Scalia goes to great lengths to dissect every word of the Second Amendment and couch it in historical context, then applies that context and meaning to our modern world. Though the ruling itself is in response to a District of Columbia case, he also generalizes the ruling, stating many times that the issues involved and being resolved apply to ALL lesser jurisdictions and states. In other words, he incorporates the decision to the states. Heller is a very strong pro-gun ruling, confirming that gun ownership is, indeed, an individual – not collective – right, and that right is only subject to some moderate regulation.
 
The key element in this is that Heller incorporates the Second Amendment to the states. One of the scare-mongering approaches I’ve seen is that the ruling in Heller only applies to the District, and therefore the individual states can still be as rabidly anti-gun as they wish. Not so. As a matter of fact, in the recent decision in the Nordyke case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – the most liberal Circuit in the country – explicitly stated its acknowledgement that Heller incorporates its ruling to the states. Therefore, the strictures and guidelines in Heller do in fact apply to each individual state and lesser jurisdiction (cities, counties, etc.), and as the Heller ruling is advanced through further litigation efforts at those levels – already in progress – I predict we’ll actually see the situation for private gun ownership improve, in some cases dramatically.
 
Let’s take a quick look at efforts in the United Nations (UN) to promote treaties that would, in effect, ban private gun ownership on an international level to include this country. It’s absolutely true that there have been several efforts in the UN to get such a treaty passed – the latest effort being the “The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”, one such “right” being that the child shall grow up in a “gun-free” home – but the United States has refused to endorse or even try to ratify such treaties.

Further, though it’s true that under our Constitution treaties have the same authority as the Constitution as being the "supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI),
the Constitution ALSO makes all treaties subject to judicial review by SCOTUS (Article III, Section 2): “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;… and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Such a treaty, on first examination, seems to set up an instant conflict between two laws of equal stature as being “supreme”: the UN treaty and the part of the Constitution itself that is the Second Amendment, which would still be in force because an amendment can only be repealed by a further constitutional amendment. But a treaty doesn’t meet this standard, as the process involved in entering into a treaty does not meet the qualifications as a constitutional amendment as defined in the Constitution itself. This conflict would easily be resolved by SCOTUS under its delineated powers, and the resolution would be clear, even if you don’t factor Heller into the equation: the law that has precedence by reason of originality and seniority would prevail. That would be the Second Amendment itself. The treaty would be void and moot as long as the Second Amendment isn’t repealed first.
 
Now let’s turn our attention to political pragmatism. Neither the Congressional Democrats – other than a few zealous anti-gunners – nor Obama are at all eager to stir up the hornet’s nest of gun control. Frankly, I’m of the opinion they wish the whole issue would just evaporate. Every time they do kick that hive, they suffer dramatic losses at the ballot box, and they know it. Gore and Kerry lost presidential bids due to the gun debate more than any other single issue; even Bill Clinton acknowledged that. Remember the staged pictures of them in brand new cammies holding borrowed shotguns, grinning goofily into the camera?
 
Further, Blue Dog southern Democrats ran on their support for the Second Amendment, crippling House Democrat leadership in trying to get enough votes to pass such legislation. Add to the calculus the fact that neither Pelosi nor any other House Democrat leader wants their party to again have the “anti-gun” stigma attached, the only way they’d try to get anti-gun legislation passed is if they could do it as a bipartisan effort, dragging the GOP into the mess with them. For all its recent failings, credit the GOP with refusing to go along with that one.
 
Bottom line: I don’t see any concerted effort at gun legislation looming on the DC horizon in the foreseeable future.
 
A quick word about the NRA. They’re very exploitative, playing the panic game to try to pump up their membership numbers and dues income. There’s nothing I’ve written here that would be news to them, I’d have to assume. Granted, they occasionally use their power as a lobby to achieve some good.
 
But they ALSO tried to talk the Heller team out of taking the case to SCOTUS, claiming it “wasn’t the right case” for the issue, when in fact it was as close to being perfect as a case could get. This has been the constant modus operandi of the NRA; refusing to back legal efforts to bring Second Amendment cases to SCOTUS, which tactic failed in the Heller case because those Plaintiffs didn’t need NRA’s financial backing. Why would they do that? Because the constant assault on gun rights afforded them the opportunity to use the fear factor to pump up their membership numbers. If gun rights aren’t in jeopardy… who needs the NRA?
 
And all the constant crying of “wolf!” seriously undermines their credibility.
 
That, then, is my assessment of the current state of affairs regarding our Second Amendment right to private gun ownership. At least for now, there’s no reason for fear.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (139) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456789Next »