What Sacrifice Do We Give

If you ask a thousand people you will get a varied response about what Christmas means.  Most of them will miss the most basic truth.  The life of Jesus Christ was about sacrifice.  Being born for the purpose of dying.  Not dying to get away, not to end pain, for other people who would lie, kill and steal in the name of that sacrifice.  A god became flesh to die for people who would spit on his image, place him in a jar of urine.  This is what he was born for.  And so I wonder if I ever have given anything to my fellow man.

In the non-biblical sense, I know others that have given of themselves.  My grandfather, a marine corp drill instructor, served in the late 1940's and ran cargo planes to Japan.  My brother's best friend joined the Corp and never left it.  My best friend joined the Navy and tracked the sounds made by waves slapping against the sides of abandoned rubber ducks.  (Sorry, Jones, I can't compliment you.)  My fiancee's mother met her husband in the Air Force working inside of mountains so that they could withstand nuclear blasts and the occasional Shwarzenegger film.  Jay Dudley lost his brother to the service.

I've never served.  When I was in high school I wanted to go to the Air Force Academy, but I was too lazy to try for a sponsorship.  I've had opportunities since then, and I've never jumped to do them.  I saw a poem lately about the Arlington cemetery and I was struck by the line:

"Sleep well my brothers, know the line has held"

Have I held the line?  No.  And I have not given myself to a cause.  Christopher Jones never stepped foot on a boat, and he faced death every time he went up in a plane.  Cecil Girard never had to fight in World War II but he knew any time he flew he could die and any man he trained would face the same fate.  Jean-Paul Courville has faced bullets and bombs.  Jay's brother died in service.  I face a pen and ink as my enemy.  I'm too old to give what they have.

At this time of year I try to remember how much those who serve have given us.  It's part of what God gave us.  A child who would die for our sins, give us the chance to be reborn.  A kid who died in a training accident.  A man who risked every day to be the best marine.  A tracker who hunted threats to our coasts. A father who raised a wonderful mother and trained men of honor.

If I believe in a thing, how can I be quiet when the only cost I face is words, not death?  I thank each man and woman for their service and even if they weren't thinking of the sacrifice, the essential fact that they made it.  I am humbled by them and hope that any part of my life or my actions might make them proud of what they have done.

Well, I Suppose I Could Try

I can't say I haven't been able to write since I last posted on this blog, because that's not entirely true.  When a person on a beach sees a 100 foot tsunami, they run.  Make it 1000 feet tall and many will just stare, not understanding how it is even possible.  That's how I have felt in the past months.  I had hoped for a conservative victory in the elections, despite the fact that even if the Republican candidate won, it wouldn't be a conservative.  The libertarian in me had pretty much given up hope the second Ron Paul essentially said Iran would play nice as long as we did.  But a wave of illogic swept across the voting populace in a manner I'm not sure I've ever seen before or even been aware of historically.  A society in which information is readily available, especially to the younger members, voted against information.  An ex-girlfriend of mine said, after the election, that she was proud to live in a country that considered women equal.  This woman had been convinced that somehow Mitt Romney was going to slap chains on chicks, which would have made for a hell of a bumper sticker.  What's the point of arguing if the reaction to 2+2=4 is you're a racist?  So I felt lost.  I knew Romney was going to lose months before the final bell tolled.  I'm not claiming prescience by any stretch, I just had a gut feeling, like that moment before the other car hits you.  And I couldn't stop it, so I stood on the shore, watching, dumbfounded, as the wave came in, towering over me while blotting out even sunlight.  The movie "Contagion" shows the breakdown of society.  They got it wrong, the people voted for looting.

But I found a little hope.  I looked back through some things, messages.  I found a message from a friend who mentioned that her husband had been talking about me with her.  How they thought it was great that I could make the argument and back it up.  I got a message from the only woman who could ever have a chance at tempting me away from my fiancee telling me I had no idea how amazing I am.  I remembered the fiancee who disagrees with me on everything political (but can hold a conversation requiring every sentence to include a pun based on a science fiction author's name) telling me that she loves me in part because I challenge her.  And I think that hope isn't dead yet.  Every tsunami washes back out to sea.

So, rather than giving up, I'm going to try to write more often.  I'm going to try and fight against the illogical push of the modern left in the only way I know how.  I may have a grand total of three consistent readers (which I may have lost during my layoff), but at least I'll be able to say I tried.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas to all.  May the sunshine of a new day bring the light of truth and information to the darkness of a democracy in decline.  And may I always be humble enough to know that I have room to learn. 

Say Anything

In the past month it has become apparent that many Democrats are willing to say anything to try and get President Barack Obama reelected, including comments that would border on being slander in most circumstances.

First, in a debunked effort to link Republican candidate Mitt Romney to investments in companies that outsourced some jobs, the Obama campaign's surrogates suggested that he may have committed a felony in signing some of the SEC filings for Bain Capital when he was running the Olympics.  The attack was revived by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D. FL) as head of the Democratic National Committee (she is also rumored to have won Best In Show as a poodle during the Westminster dog show in 1988).

After this baseless attack went nowhere, they returned to saying that Mr. Romney should release more than the two years of tax returns (though it didn't seem to bother them when Sen. John McCain (R. AZ) or John Kerry (D. MA) released that same amount).

Now, Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV), has come out saying an unnamed former official with Bain Capital tells him that Mr. Romney had not paid any taxes in a period of 10 years.  In doing so, Mr. Reid himself admits that he doesn't even known if the unnamed source's information is accurate.  Thank God the brave Mr. Reid is willing to put himself out there in support of such a well founded accusation.  Luckily it appears serious journalists (you know, people who don't work at the Huffington Post) have so far treated the allegation with the proper amount of derision.

But then, what do you expect from a campaign strategy that was summed up simply as "Kill Romney" by Ann Romney.

Projecting Leftists Reveal Own Racism

Leftists (i.e. Statists and Progressives) consistently engage in two types of open bigotry towards minorities. The first of these might be termed the soft bigotry of lessened expectations. An example of this might be Attorney General Eric Holder addressing the NAACP in Houston this week saying the voter identification laws are racist poll taxes because minorities have a harder time than whites in obtaining identification. This while the NAACP requires two forms of ID for people to see AG Holder speak. Apparently Mr. Holder has stumbled across the secret policy that all white folks have greater access to transportation as a birthright. The true racism is that leftists believe that minorities are incapable of achieving on their own and that they need their leftist elite protectors in the ruling class to ensure they can manage to even get by.

The second prevalent form of open bigotry is projection. In truth, it is probably a subset of the first, because it is this inherent soft bigotry that causes them to project. Projection is the phenomenon where a person projects his own faults upon another. Or as Ann Coulter often says, if you want to know what liberals are doing, look to what they are accusing conservatives of doing. A great example of this revolves around Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaking to that same NAACP crowd in Houston. Mr. Romney was roundly booed when he reiterated his position on repealing Obamacare. Leftists have taken this to be a subtle plan by Mr. Romney to win over racist conservatives. Yes, you read that correctly. MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell, an avowed socialist, put forth the idea that Mr. Romney (who was invited to speak at the convention by the NAACP) cleverly planned to be booed at the convention in order to attract white racists voters. One could simply dismiss Mr. O'Donnell and his band of merry morons as outliers and not representative of the Democrats. Of course, that doesn't explain House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) saying essentially the same thing. Now she didn't go as far as O'Dumbass did, but her implication was clear.

It is too difficult for leftists to believe that Mr. Romney actually stayed on message, spoke as if he were in front of any other crowd, and refused to pander to the NAACP crowd just to get their adoration. After all, they respect the NAACP. That's why people like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suddenly adopted a different accent in front of a black crowd.

Call me crazy, but I think it's more racist to think that a black person is somehow inherently less able to achieve than a white person, that one has to tailor a message specifically for each group, that groups matter more than individuals.

Just a Brief Discussion of the Economic Causes of Health Care Costs

The biggest generator of rising costs in health care is that, unlike other services, people do not pay for it directly, they use a third party that does not know the value of the service to the recipient or the provider, and must assume that all people are the same based on a some other criteria, the economic value to the payor of the service it did not receive nor did it request or experience delivery of. Thus the decision of price is made not based upon quality or the other myriad individual circumstances which might raise or lower the value of the services performed. Therefore, it is impossible for the market to properly set the price. The consumer is encouraged to over access the system do to hidden costs (a process known as moral hazard) and the provider is encouraged to do the most he can to justify the services rendered to ensure his costs are covered. This includes the costs of administrative staff who deal solely with the recovery of the cost of services from the third party payor, who pays others to determine what those services are worth, and to dispute the costs at times. The provider then has to wait several month to recoup his costs. All of these people have absolutely nothing to do with the delivery of health care, only with shifting money from one place to another. Like any bureaucracy, they siphon money from the system, removing it from the actual delivery of the service, driving up the price, despite not knowing the actual economic value.
And that, Constitutional arguments aside, emotional arguments disregarded as retarded (it was too tempting to rhyme that) is why centralized systems of health care drive up costs. The true solution is competition and realization that health insurance should be for emergencies, not oil changes.

A Few Additional Thoughts

Adding to my earlier blog post, which I'm certain you've all ready by now, there may be an interesting twist to the tax v. mandate decision in combination with the inability to force states to expand medicaid rolls. This would allow states to refuse compliance without penalty, cost shifting the additional millions onto the feds and making the plan unworkable unless the feds vote on a direct tax to cover the expenses they were passing on to the states. No one is going to intentionally bankrupt their state (minus California) on the program when they can cost shift to the feds without penalty. No fed is going to vote for the even more massive tax hike that would be needed to fund it. Roberts may have effectively gutted the funding for the program by holding the mandate as a tax.

Thoughts On Today's Supreme Court Action

Before the Minnesota Rates Case in 1913, it was questionable whether or not the Congress had the ability to grant rule making authority to an agency that operated under the Executive Branch. It was deemed in many respects as an abdication of law making authority to an branch of government that had no power to make laws. How far we've come. Today, the Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare has ensured that the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Department she presides over are the most powerful branch of the federal government. The rule making authority of that branch, as laid out under the Affordable Care Act (how anyone could name it that without laughing is beyond me. It should be written in crayon on the cover) and its thousands of pages is immense. The Act essentially cedes most of the health care choices to be made in this country to that agency in Washington, D.C. Congress' investment of rule making authority in executive agencies has enabled the government to become more and more bloated to its current level, and no party is free from blame.

The Supreme Court today also said the individual mandate was not constitutional as an exercise of the Commerce Clause. The Court reasoned that this power was not sufficient to allow government to force people to participate in commerce. However, they, at least at first glance, expanded the power to tax to include punishing people who do not participate in commerce. If this strikes you as logically inconsistent, it may be because you have more than one operating brain cell. I will note that this is a first impression and I have not had time to review the nearly 200 page decision. I'm not sure if this decision was made because the arguments did not address the taxation power, which if the case would leave open another avenue of appeal on that issue.

Another potential question is that if the mandate is, in fact, a tax, it may not have been passed pursuant to the Constitution as that provision did not originate in the House of Representatives. All revenue raising bills are to originate from the House. I'm not optimistic that this will end up being much of an issue.

Another of the reported rulings is that the federal government may not punish state governments for not complying with expanding Medicaid rolls. This has the potential to seriously undermine the part of the expansion of coverage. States are going to look hard at this position as they look to the effect on their own budgets. This could result in serious blow back against the law from the individual statehouses.

Was the Court wrong? Technically, no. As the last word on what is and is not an act complying with the Constitution of the United States of America, the Court cannot be wrong. From a personal perspective, I see a massive expansion of federal power into an area I highly doubt the Founding Fathers ever would have conceived. But, that has been happening for 100 years now and frankly, I think all of it has been well outside the scope of the Constitution.

The political fallout is a different matter entirely. If the House can successfully pass a bill to repeal the Act, they will force the Democratic Senate to make a stand in favor of what is now not a mandate, but potentially the largest tax increase in U.S. history. I don't know how that will play out, but keep in mind, the large gains in the House and minor gains in the Senate by Republicans in 2010 came largely as a result of the health care debate. People who didn't like the mandate aren't likely to be more favorable to the idea if it is characterized as a tax which does the same thing. This could energize the Republicans and independents who disliked the law and result in a win for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Romney's campaign reportedly raised $1 million in just three hours after the decision. On the other hand, liberals...excuse me...statists may see this as a vindication of President Obama's policy and re-energize those who have been, to date, somewhat on the sidelines. We will see quickly if his donations pick up in a similar manner.

As a practical matter, the Bush tax rates are due to expire at the end of the year already, and with this massive tax raise coming, the economy stands to be hit hard at a time where it is least able to absorb the blow. If something isn't done, and soon, I'm not optimistic about the direction the economy will take. If Mitt Romney prevails in November, he can stop this by issuing waivers to all 50 states to comply with the Act. This is also likely to further the trend of a "jobless recovery". Employers are faced with a non-wage increase in the cost of employment that will discourage them from hiring new employees.

It is too early to say what effects this will have long term. The good thing is a precedent has been set on the limitation of the Commerce Clause, but the taxing authority of the Congress becomes an open question which may need resolution.

This is a long decision and to try and sum up the impacts here in a few paragraphs is an exercise in futility. But then, at this point, dialing back big government and restoring the Constitution feels the same way right now. I'm not going to stop doing that either.

Rubio Running the Rubicon

Senator Marco Rubio who is a potential candidate for Vice President on the Republican ticket was on the Daily Show with John Stewart. Here is a link to Part 1 of the extended interview. Mr. Rubio was fantastic with the interview, and honestly, if he's not the VP pick, I think it's a mistake, and it has nothing to do with the hispanic vote, he is just a wonderful candidate. I would also point out that John Stewart attempts to deflect categorization as a pundit claiming he's just a comedian. While he made some funny comments, it's pretty clear he's trying to have a serious policy debate and defend a liberal position. Rubio hands him his ass in the process, with Stewart becoming visible uncomfortable, shifting his legs and seating position, an indication he feels exposed. It's a beautiful thing to see.

The Presidential Monarch

Under monarchies, the crown was the state. As such, they embodied the law and could technically do no wrong. They determined what the law was, and at a whim, what it wasn't. That is the nature of fiat rule. America is a nation of laws, not of men. This ideal was articulated by no less than the second president of the United States, John Adams. President Obama has consistently shown his belief that he is a monarch, not a president.

Recently, the President waived enforcement of immigration laws against a class of 800,000 illegal immigrants in the United States. The excuse for this is "prosecutorial discretion". Prosecutorial discretion is not meant to waive enforcement of laws against a class of people, rather it is meant to be used on a case by case basis to accommodate for extraordinary circumstances. So that excuse is utter nonsense. It is instructive, however, to note that President Obama claimed he had done so because it was the "right thing to do" (more on that in a moment). Left unsaid, is that it was the right thing for him to do to ensure the Latino vote and shore up swing states in his rapidly flagging campaign. It is a bit curious that he had consistently said he didn't have the power to do exactly what he did.

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the controversial Arizona immigration law. The most controversial tenet of the law was a provision that, if, during a lawful stop made for other reasons, an officer developed probable cause to believe that the person was not legally in the United States (i.e. no driver's license or insurance, doesn't speak English, has Mexican identification) was entitled to look into that persons immigration status and take appropriate action. While the Court struck down several provisions of the law, it unanimously upheld this provision. So, the Court unanimously said that police could investigate immigration status and report to federal immigration officials. However, President Obama instructed federal agencies to not cooperate with Arizona officials on immigration law. So the President, the man at the head of the branch responsible for enforcing the laws of the United States, has explicitly decided he will not do so on a law that has been expressly upheld by the United States Supreme Court. I cannot overstate the significance of this. Not since the FDR court packing scandal has a President shown such disrespect for the Supreme Court and the laws of the United States.

What effect does law have when the man meant to enforce the law believes he is above it? That he rules by fiat and whim? President Barack Obama is now the most dangerous threat to our Constitution which he swore to uphold. I warned about this man before he was President and those that listened, heard and understood. But my voice did not reach far, and it still doesn't. I can only hope someday it will.

And This Is How One Alienates One's Peers

Below is a copy of the email exchange I just had (omitting numerous kudos for the person I disagree with and attempted slapdowns of me) with the President of the national Worker's Insurance Litigation Group, of which I happen to be a member and practitioner. Next up, a copy of my application at McDonalds.

In response, I would suggest you look at the text of the email below. Nowhere is worker's compensation or any other similar issue mentioned. However, the author suggests that because the conservatives on the Court wrote the opinion they are "politicized and activist" and if I remember correctly, political opinion is supposed to be off the board here. Yes, insurance companies have moved to gut Louisiana's comp law, and thanks to some fine work by the LIWG, they headed off some of the more heinous provisions. I happen to believe that under a Constitutional analysis, the Supreme Court made the right decision in Citizens United. I believe it is absurd to think that corporations should be banned from having any say in how they are governed. I think there was something similar in the Boston Harbor a few hundred years ago with a similar theme. I believe markets benefits from an abundance of information, not from a restriction of it. I also seem to remember that the Texas comp system was gutted long before the Citizens United decision, as were others. I believe in the workers' compensation system as I believe the economic costs of doing business should be retained within the confines of the business and the consumer, not the society at large. Anyone with any knowledge of precedent could have seen the decision being handed down was going to happen under an analysis of the extension through the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the states. A state can only offer greater protections than those afforded, not less.

In all, this is the last I have to say on the subject and I will be leaving the group after 48 hours so that anyone who cares to may respond to me. But frankly, I'm sick of hearing political opinions here. If needs be, I will fight to retain and improve the workers compensation system on my own, because it is clear that this group does not reflect my values. And I'm damned happy Scott Walker won the recall.

Mark R. Ladd, Esq.
The Mark Ladd Law Firm, LLC
2511 St. Charles Ave., #501
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Tel : (504) 218-8348
Fax : (504) 324-0642

This e-mail, including attachments, is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me via return e-mail and permanently delete the original and destroy all copies.

---

From: J.R. Boyd
To: WILG Members' ListServe
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 9:45 AM
Subject: [wilg] Fwd: [matamembers] Citizens United not revisited

List: wilg Sent by: Boyd, J. R. Search

From our state TLA.....yet another reason to place no trust in the ability of our nation's highest court to remain neutral. If anything, they are more politicized and activist, than any other court in its history....

JR

The Supreme Court's decision today is a blow to limiting the powers of corporations. See the decision below (yes that is the whole decision):

PER CURIAM.
A Montana state law provides that a "corporation may not make . . . an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." Mont. Code Ann. §13--35--227(1) (2011). The Montana Supreme Court rejected petitioners' claim that this statute violates the First Amendment. 2011 MT 328, 363 Mont. 220, 271 P. 3d 1. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that "political speech does not lose First Amendment protectionsimply because its source is a corporation." 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 26) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Montana's arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.
The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment ofthe Supreme Court of Montana is reversed.
It is so ordered.

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG, JUS-TICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court concluded that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." 558 U. S. ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., at 42). I disagree with the Court's hold-ing for the reasons expressed in Justice Stevens' dissent in that case. As Justice Stevens explained, "technically independent expenditures can be corrupting in much thesame way as direct contributions." Id., at ___ (slip op., at67--68). Indeed, Justice Stevens recounted a "substantial body of evidence" suggesting that "[m]any corporate independent expenditures . . . had become essentially interchangeable with direct contributions in their capacity to generate quid pro quo arrangements." Id., at ___ (slip op.,at 64--65).
Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court's legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme Court's finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana.Given the history and political landscape in Montana, thatcourt concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations. 2011 MT 328, ¶¶ 36--37, 363 Mont. 220, 235--236, 271 P. 3d 1,
2
AMERICAN TRADITION PARTNERSHIP, INC. v. BULLOCK
BREYER, J., dissenting
36--37. Thus, Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.
Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant thepetition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court's per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration. Consequently, I vote instead to deny the petition.

J.R. Boyd
BOYD & KENTER, P.C.
1150 Grand Blvd.
Suite 700
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816) 471-4511 (p)
(816) 471-8450 (fax)

The Arab Spring Has Sprung Right Up Their Ass

Today the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohammed Morsi, has been declared the winner of the Egyptian presidential election.  This is the outcome of the "Arab Spring" which sought greater democracy in Egypt.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a group that believes in the implementation of Shria law, which is not exactly what all the young folks in Tahrir Square were looking for.  The problem is that Cairo is not Egypt, and Egypt is not Cairo.  The young, semi-secular, liberal people who represented the majority of the protesters were not the majority of the voters.  The voters are mostly oriented towards Islamic religious views.  The voters handed the Muslim Brotherhood the Egyptian parliament, which was a proposition so scary to the military that they dissolved the body.  Then they wrote a Constitution designed to restrict the power of the Presidency because they knew that Mr. Morsi was going to win.  Scariest of all, Mr. Morsi reportedly said that Jerusalem should be the capital of the new Muslim caliphate.  Time to brush up on the book of Revelations, I suppose.

All of this goes to show that revolutions of the left almost always result in the status quo ante.  The Russian revolt against the czars produced the murderous Soviet regime.  The French Revolution resulted in the Great Terror.  The election of Barack Obama has resulted in a president who believes he has unbounded power.  Now the Arab Spring is resulting in the election of a terrorist to the Presidency of Egypt.  And the scariest part, was there was no way it was going to work.  Mr. Morsi's only opponent to emerge was the Prime Minister under the old regime that had just been toppled.  Has anyone checked on Libya lately?  Pure democracy is mob rule, which is why the United States' founders created a Republic with a representative democracy.  I usually end these posts with a joke or sarcastic remark, but damned if I can find anything funny about what's going on in the Middle East right now.

You Ever Get That Feeling You Forgot To Do Something

Ok, so it has been since June 5 since I posted anything on this blog. Yes, I'm lazy when I don't get feedback, which means that I need all one of you that read this blog to step up and say something so I know you're reading. Approved and recommended comments to my often insightful and witty posts include such things as "WOW", "Are you a God", and "I have an annoying itch down there". Let me know your thoughts in the coming weeks as I promise to average one post a day for the time being in the hopes that this becomes more than a mildly entertaining circus. Up next, the Egyptian Presidency, the Arab Spring and why I'm not planning on vacationing in the Middle East this century.

Elections Have Consequences....Unless That Consequence is a Democrat Losing

After President Obama won the 2008 election and unpopular policies began being pushed back at by Republicans, Democrats were consistently taking to the air using the phrase "elections have consequences" in order to imply Republicans were obligated to step aside and let such things as Obamacare and the stimulus pass. They were right. In 2010, Republicans racked up historic gains in Congressional elections as a result of the unpopular policies.

Meanwhile, Democrats couldn't take there own advice as they also lost several state governerships, most notably, in Wisconsin where Republican Scott Walker and a Republican held legislature passed legislation restricting some collective bargaining rights of public employees. Reaction was swift as Democrats, mindful that elections have consequences, moved to recall Mr. Walker and several Republican legislators. Tonight, that recall election moves forward and Democrats are already showing indications they have no intention of abiding by the consequences of another loss.

Only four hours into the voting, Democrats began complaining of phone calls to constituents in which they were supposedly told that if they had signed the recall petition, they did not need to vote. 400 attorneys are already lined up by Democrats to institute a recount. The Eric Holder Justice Department announced they would be keeping an eye on the voting as well, ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act. No word on whether or not that includes any New Black Panthers with billy clubs at polling places. All this as Mr. Walker went in to election day with an apparent lead.

At this point, it appears Mr. Walker will hold his seat. Whether or not Democrats will abide by the result remains in doubt.

Paul Krugman Apparently Engaged in Crack Market Stimulus

New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winning economist (in much the same manner as President Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize winner (I think I just heard a drone)) Paul Krugman has apparently upped his recreational drug use. On ABC's "This Week" with George "Captain Collaboration" Stephanopoulos, Krugman had the nerve to call President Reagan the Keynsian (tax and spend) and President Obama the anti-Keynsian, and managed to do so with a straight face, which can only lead me to believe that the crack has finally killed what few brain cells he had before.

And Today's "Oh, Dear God" Moment

Politico dropped an unintentional bomb today covering the announcement that Mike Leavitt has been tapped by Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney to lead his transition team, should he win the election. Problem is, Mike Leavitt has been one of the few, and most vocal, Republicans to actively endorse the implementation of the Obamacare exchanges. This led RedState.com co-founder Ben Domenech to unleash on Twitter about Leavitt's record and vested self interest in the exchanges, along with an excellent blog post he wrote for Ricochet (highly recommend reading his post). The Twitter tsunami led to an official reaction from Mr. Romney's campaign saying that overturning Obamacare was the first priority, though they left out anything about the exchanges.

It's not as if Mr. Romney doesn't leave a bad enough taste in the mouths of fiscal conservatives and libertarians to begin with, picking this person opens him to the independent voter questioning if he's really any different from President Obama. Mr. Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts and the enactment of Romneycare in that state are already indications that his sentiments lean towards big government solutions over individual liberties. What happens when the man in charge of the transition team who has a financial stake in the establishment of the exchanges, which are dumps for government subsidies, has an influence, all assurances aside, on the policies which Mr. Romney would utilize to replace Obamacare? It is more important than ever that the Supreme Court strike down the Obamacare idiocy. If they don't, I hesitate to think what may lie on the horizon, regardless of who wins in November.

Food is a Hell of a Drug

Well, at least it is according to Alec Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin has come out in support of one of the most blatant nanny state advocates in New York mayor Michael Bloomberg (shock, he's a Democrat). Mr. Bloomberg, who has declared war on tobacco, salt, sugary drinks and trans fats, is seeking a ban on soft drinks over 16 ounces. In traditional hypocritical leftist fashion, Mr. Bloomberg did so at the same time as he supported an official "doughnut day".

Mr. Baldwin talks about how he recently dropped 30 pounds and was pre-diabetic. Yippee. He states the Mr. Bloomberg's intentions are good. Fantastic. Last I heard the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Benjamin Franklin once wrote "those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". What do those who would sacrifice liberty to obtain a government that tells them how to eat? No food? Imagine if a nation running a healthcare system got it in its head to control diet as a means to keep down healthcare costs. These are the people who believe they know what is best for you, after all, they're smarter than you.

Guess Who's Not Coming To Dinner

Democrats have run wild accusing voter identification laws of being focused on tamping down minority participation in the voting process this last year. Some, such as Representative Barbara Lee (D. Cal.) have even taken to the House floor to denounce voter ID laws as being racist. The Justice Department has demanded that the implementation of such laws be blocked in such places as Texas and South Carolina. Surely the militantly egalitarian left, enraged by the pure racism of these clearly biased laws which require the use of identification to prove you can vote (or aren't voting for the third or fourth time, or that you are who you say you are) would never resort to....nah.

So, in Massachusetts, Democrats have decided to require voters to produce identification in order to vote in the state Democratic convention. MY GOD, THOSE RACIST BASTARDS!!

Sheila Jackson Lee Once Again Shows Her Class and Intelligence

A proposed bill to ban sex-selection abortions and defund any organization that performs them was voted down in the House of Representatives by Democrats though under the rules it would have required a 2/3 vote.  Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D. TX) summed up the reasonable opposition to this horrible bill by saying it would result in women being dragged out into the streets by their hair.  This heroine of the women's health care movement was the same lady that ignored a female town hall participant explaining her struggles against cancer.  She further stated that this bill means the GOP wants women to go back to the days of coat hangers.  That this person continues to get reelected is a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes.

Stop Questioning My Lies!

Senator Scott Brown (R.? Mass.) (closest thing we'll get to a conservative out of that liberal state), made an offhand remark about candidate Elizabeth Warren (D. Cherokee Nation) claiming she based her assertions of native American heritage on comments from her parents by saying his parents told him lots of things that turned out to not be true (i.e., Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Keynsian economics).  Ms. Warren reacted as could be expected, lashing out at Mr. Brown for calling her parents liars.  Which, if her claims are legitimate, they were, or at least mistaken.

The gist of this is that the false claims of Elizabeth Warren, which she says are based on her parents (and Aunt Bea, who managed to shake free of Opie when he made Apollo 13) representations, can't be questioned, because her parents are off limits.  By the way, my dead great grandfather told me I was six three and physically fit.  You can't question that.

You May Be Right, But You May Be Wrong

This is my first Billy Joel reference, but hey, it's hard to work these things in.  The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional.  They were right.  But their reasoning was wrong.  DOMA is unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to be discussing marriage.  This is a matter that should be left to the states.  Republicans shouldn't be trying to define marriage any more than Democrats should.  Aren't there slightly more important issues the federal government should worry about.

Reminder : I Don't Pick These Ads

Today I noticed an ad on this blog for an anti-Scott Walker site.  I've noticed several pro-Obama ads as well.  I don't choose these ads.  I am hoping Scott Walker wins the recall election and Obama gets recalled in November.

From the Horse's Mouth

Former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis is leaving the Democratic party. A look at his official web site addressing his future prospects as a politician is revealing. Mr. Davis, who was an Obama campaign co-chair, accuses the Democratic party under President Obama of divisiveness, assaults on religious freedom, and poor economic policies. Mr. Davis sounds like he was a conservative all along, it just took a radical for him to know.

The Real War on Women

Disturbing video from LiveAction.org shows an employee of Planned Parenthood who notes that she's a parent who has had two abortions of her own, guiding a person through the steps of what she should do if she wants to abort her child because it is female.

Last I checked, no Republican accused of conducting a war on women has ever advocated killing one, much less told someone how to do it.

I Wasn't Aware the Ability to Lactate and Take an Exam at the Same Time Was a Qualification for the Job

Massachusetts Democratic Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren was the first 1/32 Cherokee by cheekbone to breastfeed from a papoose while scaling the Washington Monument to take the bar exam at the same time. OK, to be fair that's only partly a fair criticism (though it is more than 1/32 fair). As you're probably aware by now, Ms. Warren has been claiming to be part Cherokee for years because her Aunt Bea used to comment on her grandfather's high cheekbones. Now, video comes out where she's bragging that she was the first nursing mother to take the bar exam in the state of New Jersey. I could be wrong here, but I'm almost certain there was nothing I had to submit to the bar to clarify if I was lactating or not. I may have gotten the male application though.

Only in politics do idiots like this come to the fore. I'm almost rooting for her to win because I can't wait to see the next moronic moment this "academic" is going to have.

Captain Foreign Policy Does it Again

President Obama, supposedly the smartest man on the planet and someone who amazingly gets away with not being criticized often for his atrocious foreign policy missteps, has stuck his foot in it again. President Obama referred to those infamous World War II Polish death camps. You remember when the Poles invaded Germany and started killing all the Jews, right? Neither do I.

President Obama managed to make this comment while awarding the Medal of Freedom to a Polish resistance fighter. The Polish Foreign Minister called the comment a matter of "ignorance and incompetence". The matter was so offensive and egregious that the Minister suggested the White House should apologize and noted that the Polish Prime Minister would address the matter Wednesday.

Ignorance and incompetence. That would be a fitting motto to replace hope and change for the Obama campaign.

U.N. Ambassador to State of Idiocy Appointed

The United Nations, an organization so impotent even Viagra won't help, is also well known as the place where an insane dictator can get his rant on for a few hours, making its credibility somewhat suspect. Luckily, the UN has decided to embrace the image of incompetence, appointing Robert Mugabe as the ambassador for international tourism. The former dictator of Zimbabwe has been accused of ethnic cleansing (i.e. mass murder), rigging elections, repressing opposition media and bankrupting his countries economy. There's nothing quite as enticing in terms of a vacation as having an adventure. And what could be more adventurous than running for your life from a murderous dictator?

Well done, U.N. Next I assume you they will appoint Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the representative to the Jewish people.

I Had a Feeling This Was't Kosher

Former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner (D) resigned in disgrace after sending pictures of himself in flagrante delicto to female Twitter fans of his.  Despite having acknowledged his transgression and never blaming anyone else for his actions (apparently breaking from the Bill Clinton legacy), there are those who believe the whole thing was a right wing conspiracy brewed up by Andrew Breitbart.  Weinergate is the modern vast right wing conspiracy to a select few who feel that whatever lay beneath the underwear in his photos was not a Hebrew National.  Luckily, they are a select few and given the confluence of his actions, his name, and their idiocy, they make for a good joke.

The He Who Smelt it Dealt it of Political BS

White House spokesman Jay Carney has floated a new Obama campaign theme, President Barack Obama, fiscal conservative. I'll give you a few minutes to clean up whatever you just spit out after reading that. That's right, the Obama campaign is running with the blatant lie that President Obama has been fiscally responsible. Now, I'm not going to argue that prior Republican presidents have been fiscally conservative by any stretch. That's often hard to do when Democrats renig on their promises to make cuts in exchange for tax raises as they did with President Bush the elder and Ronald Reagan.

But Mr. Carney called it "BS" to listen to people who think President Obama has been spending irresponsibly. The President, ever one to assure that the truth is stringently adhered to, said he couldn't understand how Republicans have been "bamboozeling" people into believing they are the party of fiscal responsibility and the Democrats have to come in to clean up their mess. In fact, he further went on to note that since he became President, federal spending has risen at it's lowest rate in nearly 60 years. Amazingly, he got all of this out without his pants catching fire, being struck by lightning, his nose growing into a pole vault, or bursting into laughter.

Where, pray tell, did they get support for such an insane proposition? The Wall Street Journal's Market Watch contributor Rex Nutting. Perhaps he should consider knocking the last four letters off his name.

The problem with Mr. Nutting's figures? He places all 2009 spending on President Bush. This includes the stimulus (which we all remember President Bush passing, right?), the bailouts, the propping up of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, TARP, etc. Mr. Nutting ignores these one-time spending items and just calls them part of the last Bush budget. That way, the additional $1.45 trillion is considered the baseline for comparison of Mr. Obama's non-emergency spending budgets. This might explain how the "0.4% budget increase" Mr. Nutting finds somehow resulted in an additional $5 trillion in debt, more than President Bush racked up in eight years. Fact is, the budget has increased at a whopping average of 8% per year according to Charles Krauthammer.

But never mind all that, President Obama is a fiscal conservative, unicorns exist, puppies fart gold dust which is collected by the Fed to back up the dollar, I'm Shaquille O'Neal...well, you get the picture. I probably shouldn't be too upset about this. It's not like the President isn't lying most of the time.

Pulling the Blanket Out From Under Them

As I listen to President Obama give a speech regarding the race to exit Afghanistan, I note one thing. A person who lives in Afghanistan is not an afghan, Mr. President, they are Afghani. Please stop calling them blankets (though nifty blankets they would be). This is reminiscent of President Kennedy referring to himself as a doughnut when saying "Ich bin ein Berliner" rather than "Ich bin aus Berlin".

That Color Isn't Blue, It's Salty!

The best way to win an argument when you're wrong is to ensure that your opponent can't bring up the fact that you are wrong. Democrats have mastered this tactic. When news broke that Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a long time associate of President Obama, claimed that he was offered $150,000.00 by an associate of Mr. Obama to stop preaching until after the November 2008 election, the liberals engaged in their usual smokescreen, only in an even more disturbing manner than usual.

Democrats took to the airwaves claiming that any discussion of an attempt to bribe the Reverend was actually a discussion of President Obama's religious views. They immediately followed by saying that if religious views are on the table, then Mormonism is also up for discussion, and they were free to smear Mitt Romney with arguments regarding his religious beliefs. Never mind that his was all in reaction to a report that an ad might be run (that's two degrees removed from something actually happening).

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure no religion considers bribing a preacher to shut up because he's a racist, anti-semite and generally loathsome piece of crap and might cost you an election a central tenet of the faith. The point of the story is about the bribe, not President Obama's faith (which I believe is about as apparent as his academic record). But, as always, because a liberal cannot win an argument on the merit of the illogic they use to come to conclusions, they resort to changing the argument and threatening their opponents if they bring up the actual argument.

Today's Recommended Reading

John Stossel writes for Human Events on economic freedom and fairness.

An Ego that Transcends Time

President Obama is such a great President, that should you want to read up on the biographies of prior Presidents on whitehouse.gov, you'll still read about President Obama.  In fact, every U.S. President since Calvin Coolidge (excepting Gerald Ford) has had items added about President Obama in their biographies.  I guess it makes sense.  I often get the sense from him that he thinks he is the culmination of the last century of United States, if not world, history.  I don't know if I believe the rumor that he actually doesn't have ears, that's spare ego flowing out of his head that inflates them, but I'm willing to listen.

Today's Recommended Reading

Mark Steyn writing for the National Review brilliantly exposes the Islamic war on free speech and any of those critical of them in examining the case of Dutch politician Geert Wilders.  It is truly frightening to thin that the United Kingdom, once the bastion of free speech, denied Wilders entry into the country not because he posed a threat, but because Islam posed a threat to him.

A Tyrant's Tactics

If you have the unmitigated gall as a private citizen to donate to the Mitt Romney campaign, beware, the Obama campaign will attack you.  The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama campaign websites have accused Romney campaign donors of being "less than reputable" and specifically of accusing businessman Frank VanderSloot of being "litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement".  This is about as disturbing as a campaign tactic can be in a free society.  This is a tactic to suppress dissent, to quiet the opposition through fear.  Mr. VanderSloot has suffered a loss of business.  Private investigators are reportedly investigating his divorce.  At least Russian President Vladimir Putin has the courage to arrest and kill those who dissent against his reign.  The Obama campaign has an enemies list and will seek to discredit large donors who oppose President Obama's run for another term.

This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever heard of from a campaign.  The idea that private citizens who are not public figures should face contempt like this discouraging them from participating in the political process is the same as having the New Black Panther Party standing outside of a Philadelphia polling place with weapons threatening potential voters without reprisal.  Oh, wait.  There is a difference between a donor like Bill Maher, Karl Rove, or George Soros, who routinely inject themselves into the public forum and are fair game for criticism.  This is a man who did not seek attention.  All he did was give a donation.  It was a large one mind you, but what difference should that make?  If you send $45.00 to a political campaign, are you fair game?  Worse yet, we've all made mistakes in our lives and some of them are public record.  Would you think twice about donating to a political campaign if you knew someone might bring up your decades old DWI, an offhand remark you made on a paper when you were in high school, the allegations of an ex-girlfriend from years ago that is still bitter over how things ended?

The only purpose of this tact is to keep people from donating to those opposing President Obama through fear of being smeared.  That is about as disgusting an act as I've ever seen.  In truth, it's only a step short of rounding up the dissidents the way a dictator would.  This is not a tolerable act in a free society, and I encourage the reader to share this so that people know.  We should all be watching out for this kind of censorship, no matter the source.

Bravely Sitting on His Hands

As pundits, journalists, foreign officials and celebrities began to fall over themselves heaping praise on President Barack Obama's decision to come out in favor of gay marriage (and in the process bravely admitting to the American people that he has been lying to them about the issue for three years), they uniformly fail to note that he also said that states should be allowed to ban gay marriage, meaning he effectively made an announcement akin to endorsing strawberry ice cream (note how he said personal opinion, not policy).  Meanwhile, on a substantive issue that pretty much everyone can agree with (though I can't imagine it would have all that much true impact), the president continues to refuse to sign an executive order which would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identification.  But hey, he's heroic.  He'd pat himself on the back but his hands are firmly placed beneath him.

Look at the Shiny Keys! They Make Jingly Noises!

Democrats have launched a masterful strategy for the 2012 election season that Republicans are falling flat on their face over.  Every week there seems to be a new announcement from Democrats which starts a discussion about social issues.  And every time Republicans pounce on the issue and suddenly we have idiotic journalists asking questions at debates about contraception.  Meanwhile, the economy, which is the question we should be addressing, get shoved on the back burner.  Democrats paint Republicans as fascist religious nuts who want to yank the condom of your penis mid-coitus and hang gay people in the streets.  Democrats use the issues to frighten everyone because they can't run on their record or their actual ideas.

In truth, this is what Democrats have been doing for years and they do it well.  If you argue with them that a policy is bad they won't defend the policy, they will tell you a Republican did the same thing, as if two wrongs makes a right.  I'm surprised they haven't simply started bringing grenades to debates so that when someone challenges them they can just throw one in the crowd to distract the audience.  I'd probably do the same if my positions defied logic and reason.

Obama Endorses Multiple Spouse Marriages

As I noted in a previous post, today, President Obama stated that he is in favor of full marriage for gays while firmly stating that he plans on doing nothing about it as states routinely vote against extending marriage to same-sex couples.  As I state regularly, I am a conservative libertarian.  But I am against states legalizing gay marriage.  Let me explain the case against liberty.

President Obama explained that he is a strong supporter of GLBT rights (and who doesn't love a good GLBT, hold the mayo, slightly toasted, no crust, brown mustard, really brings out the Gouda). So what happens as the logical extension of marriage to same sex couples?  If we allow gay marriage, do we then have to allow bisexuals, whose defining quality as a group is an inability to decide who they want to screw (unless of course it's both simultaneously) to marry one of each gender?  How about polygamy, which in many societies was both a form of slavery of women and institutionalized incest and child abuse?

This is not a slippery slope argument.  This is the experience of countries that have had to deal with the arguments which stem from the state sponsored approval of gay marriage.  Canada has faced challenges on its ban on polygamy with arguments based on its approval of gay marriage.  If being married is a right, what happens when you can't force your pastor to marry you?  Can you sue him?  A biracial couple has already done so in Louisiana.  There are roughly 20 states that do not ban bestiality.  Some people claim their religion includes pairing up with animals as spouses.  Are they being discriminated against?

The easy answer for people is that we have to recognize gays' rights to marry.  The hard answer is that the truth is there is no right to marry.  The examples I've noted above may seem of the slippery slope genre, but how about something a little more grounded in normalcy.  In Louisiana you cannot marry your adopted child, ever.  Woody Allen anyone?  States disagree as to which degree of cousin a person can marry.  States regulate marriage, it is not a right and never has been.  The church can deny you be married under their sanction and force you to go to another church.  You cannot force a church to marry you.  The only right involved in marriage is the right to assembly.  You may freely cohabitate as you wish, but do not expect the state to place the color of authority on your union unless it chooses to do so (i.e. Texas recognizes common law marriage, Louisiana does not).  Marriage is a matter of public policy to be determined at the local level.  The Defense of Marriage Act was an ill conceived move by social conservatives and I believe it was unconstitutional.  Similarly, any federal legislation granting a right of marriage is inappropriate.  I'm not a big fan of the states stepping in on regulation of marriage, outside of some general safety concerns, and I think it should be a matter for the churches.  I also think that legislation shouldn't prevent gay couples from having access in hospitals or otherwise.  But there are consequences to all state actions, especially those that presume to create rights.

Rights are those things inherent within us, within our very being.  They do not require others to exercise and government doesn't need to pretend to create new ones (which are invariably rights to products), it needs to protect us from infringement upon those that exist.  Modern society cries to government for redress and "rights" that are thinly disguised privileges granted by government that take from one person and give to another.

Please address all complaints to the comments below.  I'm told that's hard to do.

He's So Vain, He Probably Thinks This Post is About Him

Today, video from an interview with President Barack Obama was released in which he personally endorsed gay marriage, while reserving that it should be up to the states to make any laws regarding marriage.  In other words, the President said nothing, though I will discuss the gay marriage issue and what I believe was indicated today in another post.  The only shocking thing about the announcement (other than his position sounds awful libertarian, which means it's not his actual position and I fully believe he thinks it is a civil right which the courts should protect under the Constitution) was how he referred to the gay troops "fighting on his behalf".  And here I thought they fought for the country.

Now at first blush, this might seem a bit overly critical or nitpicking.  However, viewed in President Obama's own historical context, it is just one more example of the massive ego carried by our President.  Let me first note that most politicians when speaking in the context of the military or law enforcement intentionally tries to avoid using "I" in lieu of giving credit to the guys on the ground.  Police, military and firefighters are incredibly sympathetic figures.  As such, any slight, perceived or otherwise, which tends to remove credit from them in favor of focusing the attention on the politician is typically seen by the public in a highly negative light.

President Obama routinely uses the first person singular when referring to military accomplishments.  In a recent ad released by the Obama campaign to attack Republican candidate Mitt Romney, none other than former President (and all around stand up serial rapist) Clinton remarks about how brave the decision to kill Osama Bin Laden was, noting specifically that if the Navy Seals had been captured or killed, the downside for President Obama "would have been horrible for him".  I kid you not.  Luckily capture and confinement by thuggish regimes usually works out well for our military.  Just ask John McCain.  Don't ask him to raise his arm above shoulder level when you do it, though.  What incredible hubris that a man is so self-obsessed (and the people around him so worshiping) that they don't notice this is the egomania of a tyrant-king.  And then the ad has the nerve to suggest that Mitt Romney would have somehow chosen differently.

But again, even this second slip is not an isolated incident.  In fact, his references to how he killed Bin Laden (must have been a hell of a shot all the way from the White House safe room) are so ubiquitous that Saturday Night Live had a skit about it that was dropped before the show went live this week.  This is not a show particularly noted for making fun of liberal presidents.

The President's tendency to take direct credit for the actions of others is a sign of his massive ego and sense of self-entitlement.  It's a personality trait I noted early on in his campaign for President and even at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  It's a result of what I believe to be a life directed by others towards the goal of being President one day.  It's how a mediocre student becomes the President of the Harvard Law Review.  How an unknown who lost his first run for the state legislature goes from a first term state legislature with a record of voting "present" to a United States Senator who spends his entire time in office campaigning for President to the surprise Democratic nominee to the first European socialist to hold the office.

Carly Simon, warm up those pipes, I've got a song in mind.

Julia is a Miserable Worthless Dependent Person Thanks to President Obama

Liberals no longer shy away from the description of a cradle to grave welfare state that takes charge of every aspect of a person's life, the Obama campaign is openly embracing the idea.  Enter the launch of "The Life of Julia", a campaign advertisement designed to show how Papa Obama's policies will impact every part of the fictional title character's life.

We first meet Julia at age 3 when the all-powerful and wise President Obama's Head Start program saves Julia from a life of mediocrity by preparing her to do exceptionally well at nap time.  Never mind that Department of Health and Human Services issued a report in 2010 on a multi-year study finding no statistically significant discernible effect by the program in it's ambitious goal of "preparing children to do better at school".  Considering studies going back to 1985 had found the same thing, it's not much of a surprise.  Meanwhile, that mean old Republican Mitt Romney and his cohort Paul Ryan want to take 20% away from the useless program.  So the moral of this first panel is that women should vote for President Obama for spending large amounts of money on a program that has no benefit to them.  Strong argument.

The next time we see Julia, she is 17.  Presumably, Julia has made it the last 14 years without getting knocked up by some random guy because the all seeing, all knowing President Obama made sure that every employer in America paid for contraception as part of the insurance program (which they dumped when they realized it was cheaper to pay the Obamacare fine than comply with the mandate) provided to her parents, which will cover her until she's old enough to get free hot flash medication as a result of menopause.  She's likely about to embark on her future education at a small liberal arts college where every professor is going to teach her the evils of capitalism due to President Obama's Race to the Top program.  The President's Race to the Top program is so perfect that the website The Huffington Post, which openly bemoans the lack of a communist presence in the United States government, posted this article.  Liberals hate the program because it is based on results rather than need.  It is tailored to teaching to standardized tests as a result.  Meanwhile, schools, afraid that their unionized teachers are so incompetent and incapable of firing, along with teachers afraid of school closings, have conspired to manipulate test results to ensure funding.  On the other side, the Great Satan Mitt Romney, is accused of a rather vague "would cut educational funding in exchange of tax cuts for millionaires (who our math-challenged President seems to think is anyone making over $250,000.00).

At 18 President Obama promises more goodies.  Up to a $10,000.00 (according to the site, Forbes puts it at $2,500.00 and awful confusing) tax credit for tuition paid by parents on behalf of their eligible college students.  Never mind that it is far more likely their kid is on financial aid because the tax credit and student loans are so available that everyone goes to college, pushing up the cost.  Then of course, there is the Pell Grants, which the evil Mitt Romney wants to steal from women so they have to stay home and cook, that horrible man.

Next, Julia is 22 and needs surgery.  President Obama has generously ensured that she will remain on her parents insurance up to the age of 26, as noted above, which they lost due to the Obamacare mandate, and it too expensive because the insurance company has to cover everything up to, and including, changing the air filter in you car.  No mention is made that she would have still been covered under the old rules.  Mitt Romney, who wants women to die early and quickly, would repeal Obamacare, causing all women to shrivel away and die, because they are incapable of taking care of themselves without the government.

At 23, President Obama has managed to dictate the rate at which her employer pays her, regardless of her actual skills through the Lily Ledbetter Alliteration Act.  This has made her nothing more than a potential lawsuit to the employer, who sees a person who has relied upon government her whole life for everything she's done and is incapable of accomplishing anything.  That bastard Mitt Romney hasn't said anything about the act President Obama signed.  That's some damning evidence right there.

At 25, the omnipotent President Obama has dictated the market rate for educational loans, making it easier for the government to eventually absorb the vast bulk of her student loan debt that she will never pay back, because she can't get a job as long as she has to make what the government says she has to, making her a lawsuit waiting to happen.

At 26, the benevolent President Obama has ensured that she won't see the direct cost of birth control (i.e. $400.00 or so a year), so she can feel free to screw every man she sees and make sure her employer is forced to cover the cost.  This is what President Obama thinks of as a health care decision because, as with most democrats, the most sacred sacrament is the holy rite (right?) of abortion and pregnancy is a disease men inflict on women.  Mitt Romney, who, as opposed to our constitutional scholar President, has actually read the Constitution, would defend the right of religious people to practice their beliefs rather than being forced to provide morally objectionable services and products.

At 31, Julia got pregnant, apparently having failed to make it to the store in time for the abortive Plan B pill her insurance was forced to cover.  Luckily, Obamacare is ready to start raising the child with her.  Mitt Romney wants to kill women's babies.

At 37, Julia's child is firmly entrenched in the government's programs to raise him with ineffective programs which waste taxpayer money.  Mitt Romney is putting sugar in the school bus's gas tank.  At 42, Julia, who never managed to set aside any money of her own, despite the government providing everything for her, wants to start her own business.  While she qualifies for an SBA loan, no one will give one to her because the Fed has left the interest rate at 0% in a decades long attempt to stave off the effects of government policy which effectively promote the idea that government spending is the only way to stimulate economic growth.  Because of this, the government is the only entity paying out at a decent percentage rate on loans, so the banks have all their money tied up in bonds.  Mitt Romney hates small business and, did we mention, is evil.

At 65, Julia would enroll in Medicare.  However, Medicare went broke went Julia was 4.  Luckily, President Obama successfully demonized attempts to reform Medicare by saying those plans would "change Medicare as we know it", i.e., make it solvent.  Luckily a bankrupt Medicare looks exactly like what Julia has known her whole life.

At 67, Julia retires.  As it was when she was 42, she never set any money aside because everything she has done in her entire life was subsidized by her lord and savior, President Obama.  Luckily, she is eligible for Social Security.  Unfortunately, that went bankrupt when she was 23.  Fortunately, President Obama managed to demonize the idea of means testing, reform, and the option of privatized accounts so that no one ever attempted to make sure the fund stayed solvent.  All this, despite state government employees who have been allowed to use private accounts consistently outperforming Social Security.  Mitt Romney hates old people and wishes they would die.

We have an advertisement by President Obama where he blatantly panders to the idea that his idea of government is to have a cradle to grave entitlement society.  It's disgusting, but it makes sense because the entitlement society keeps liberals in power for the rest of your life.

 

Occupy Paranoia

A representative of the Occupy movement, Harrison Schultz, who calls himself one of the organizers and was one of the people in New York's Zucotti Park is being interviewed by Sean Hannity this evening.  So far, he has accused the New York Police of having sent rapists, people who had sex in public, defecated in public, and used drugs in public to discredit the Occupy movement.  Anyone who takes these people seriously really needs to give up their right to vote.

I Couldn't Agree More Mrs. Obama

Mrs. Obama told a reporter her fantasy was to just walk out the front door of the White House and keep walking.  Assuming she's taking her husband with her on that trip, I couldn't have shared a greater fantasy with her.  Hopefully, in November the voters will make my fantasy come true.

Perpetual War

A video about the atrocities of Ugandan leader of the Lord's Resistance Army Joseph Kony went viral several months ago, bringing attention to what is rightfully recognized as horrific actions in the abduction of children for sex trafficking and to force them into being soldiers. Prior to the release of the viral video "Kony 2012", President Obama authorized placing United States troops in harm's way on the ground in Uganda to assist regional forces opposed to the LRA. That was October of 2011. As with much of what President Obama does, this is a war being conducted without Congressional authorization. Say what you will about Iraq and Afghanistan, at least President Bush went to Congress for authorization to act (with the approval of then Senator Hillary Clinton (D, Wherever the hell she lives). I'm betting you didn't know we were conducting a small war in Uganda.

I'm also betting you didn't know we are conducting one in Yemen, too. President Obama has authorized the use of drone strikes against targets even when the identity of the target is not known. President Obama's authority to conduct these strikes is also in question, not that he exactly acknowledges Congressional authority anyway. The question isn't whether or not Al Qaeda in Yemen is actively a threat to the United States. They clearly are. The question isn't whether or not the Yemeni government has an issue with the strikes, they don't. The issue is why are we going to war without declaring war or at least having Congressional authorization of the action to legitimize the actions? How are Uganda and Yemen different from the illegal operations in Laos during the Vietnam war? I wonder how the Nobel committee feels about that Peace Prize they gave President I'm Not George Bush Obama. Don't get me wrong, Republicans and Democrats alike have behaved in this manner. They were and are both wrong to do so.

Environmentalists Hate the Blacks!!!

As a counterpoint to Earth Day (which I presume is the day we celebrate our victory over Mars as relayed by Orson Welles) an organization named Free Market America released this video on YouTube which attacks the environmental backlash against hydrocarbon energies such as coal and oil as the strategy which the speaker says he would take if he wished to destroy America.  It has gotten quite a lot of attention.  I doubt they could have known that just a few days after the video's release, another video would surface proving the point.  Today, video surfaced of an EPA official saying that agency's philosophy is to crucify oil and gas companies to make examples of them.  Good to know it's not personal.
I propose the only rational response is to accuse the EPA of racism, as they seem to hate the darker colored fuels, such as coal and oil.  I think that makes as much sense as a government agency determined to demonize the use of an inanimate object as a fuel.

TARP Should Have Been Named CRAP

Many on both sides of the fence, conservative and liberal, hailed the TARP program, started under President George Bush as an absolute necessity and example of when government intervention was both appropriate and good policy.  Many cited how the program would not only pay itself off as the beneficiaries of the bailout would pay back the government loans with interest.  Those of us such as libertarian leaning Congressman Ron Paul (R. TX) who believe that government intervention in the economy is pretty much universally bad were opposed to the creation of the bailout program.  As is usual, it turns out, despite a short-lived General Motors ad campaign claiming it had repaid the funds, TARP is a bit of a turkey (which is a lovely country if you're not an Armenian in the early 20th century, but don't ask President Obama about that, he's kind of vague).  The Inspector General in charge of the TARP funds announced today that $119 billion remains outstanding in TARP funds and the government expects $60 billion will never be repaid.

And that GM loan?  GM remains one of the three worst examples of the program, with the government still heavily invested in equity shares.  Maybe they should stop running those asinine Chrysler commercials that say "Imported from Detroit" reminding us all that Detroit has turned into a third world foreign nation (in my opinion due to unions and Democratic politicians).  I have no idea if what they still owe includes the TARP funds they paid back using TARP funds.  Those GM record profits and claims that President Obama saved the auto industry have less basis in reality than the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.