Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Yet More Doublethink from Dear Leader

So the Messiah has spoken again, saying he has “no intention” of running GM. Of course he doesn’t. He just intends to fire their CEO, set caps on pay, and demand that they come up with a business plan which can be deemed “viable” by Obama and various other government officials, none of whom have a single day of experience in the auto industry. But he’s definitely not going to be running the company.


Anyone else remember the word “doublethink”?


So, here’s what our government has discovered the power to do in the last six months: cap executive compensation; tax executive bonuses at 90%; buy up to 80% shares in businesses; determine what constitutes a “viable” business plan for an industry they know nothing about; fire executives; put aside almost a trillion dollars as a “down payment” on universal health care before the American people even discuss paying for it; and they’re very close to inventing the power to seize ANY private business that they deem “too big to fail.” What happened to my country? This is not America anymore! This is what Mussolini did in the 20s!

Monday, March 30, 2009

For the Love of God

This psychopath in Colombia kept his daughter in a dungeon, raping her repeatedly. They have 11 children/grandchildren.

People like that should be put down like a mad dog. I'm not a rabid death-penalty advocate, but for someone like this--150 grains between the eyes.

Friday, March 27, 2009

No Double Standards

Massive floods are ravaging North Dakota, and because I don't like hypocrisy I'm going to apply international statesman Kanye West's logic in the Bush-Katrina fallout: Barack Obama does not care about white people.

That's all.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

"Get-Tough" Powers

So Tim Geithner, the most unqualified moron in government office since...well, since Obama himself...wants Congress to give him "get-tough" regulatory power so he can manage businesses that are Too Big To Fail.

For the sake of argument, I'll ignore the fact that Congress can't legally give him a power that they don't legally have themselves. Undoubtedly Congress will ignore that fact, too, so it's alright.

Isn't that what caused most of the crisis in the first place? It's hardly the failure of the free market when government orders banks to make between 35 and 56 percent of their loans to people who can't afford loans. This is EXACTLY what Ayn Rand was talking about: regulation can trip businesses, giving the government the excuse to say the free market has failed and take greater control.

What Are We Afraid Of?

There’s no more “war on terror.” That phrase is unacceptable now. The Pentagon has changed the name to “overseas contingency operation,” while the new DHS secretary refuses to say “terrorism,” preferring the phrase “man-caused disaster.”


What a load of crap.


Even “war on terror” is misleading. It’s a war on radical Islamic fascism. Terrorism is a tactic. You don’t fight a tactic, you fight an enemy; it wasn’t a “war on blitzkrieg,” it was a war on Nazi Germany. “Overseas contingency operation” is even less honest. Having a response team for, say, an earthquake in Turkey or something like that is an “overseas contingency.” And “man-caused disaster”? Some moron drops a cigarette and burns down 20,000 acres, that’s a man-caused disaster. That’s not the same as someone walking into a bus station, wearing a vest containing C4, nails, and rat poison, so they can murder as many children as possible. That’s not a “man-caused disaster,” that’s deliberate, cold-blooded mass murder. So how on earth are we supposed to combat that if we’re too afraid to call it what it is? Terrorism is acts of violence committed to make a political statement. It’s not a “man-caused disaster,” it’s the deliberate infliction of as much death and destruction as possible. And it’s not a “contingency plan,” it’s a war: not against “terror” but against radical Islamofascists who commit acts of terrorism. Don’t be afraid to say what you mean! Do you think by saying “contingency operation” you change the fact that bombs are going off? Do you stop anyone from dying by saying “contingency” instead of “war” or “man-caused disaster” instead of “terrorism”? So why would you do this Orwellian nonsense, coming up with “acceptable” phrases that don’t mean anything?

I Guess Everything's Fixed

Apparently every problem the country faces has been solved. How do I know this? Well, Senator Orrin Hatch is proposing legislation to change how the NCAA football championship is decided. Never mind that Congress has no authority to regulate a private sports association's championship practices, this makes it obvious that Congress must not have anything important left to do.

Look, Hatch: I understand your team got ripped off. Too bad. It's not your job, on my dollar, to make sure people are happy with college football.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Try and Make Me

So the Senate is kicking around a supplement to the incredibly stupid GIVE Act, called the SERVE Act.

(Sidebar: Can we stop making up cutesy acronyms, then finding a phrase that fits them? Like, say, USA PATRIOT, GIVE, SERVE, or TARP? Good God, is Gary Busey making up the names for legislation? Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, Sewage Held In Transit, Finally Understanding Nothing, Together Everyone Achieves More?)

Here's the problem: Obama has requested that the Senate see "whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."

See, I've got no problem volunteering. But I'll be damned if the federal government is going to force me to do the volunteer work they think I need to.

Remember the Thirteenth Amendment? About how "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" should exist in this country "except as punishment for a crime" that someone's been convicted of by due process? That includes "involuntary servitude" in pursuit of what I'm sure will be noble, public-minded projects (after all, there's no way Barack Obama is going to use this to provide footsoldiers for radical leftist organizations). "No involuntary servitude" means even if you think it's for the greater good. I volunteer for organizations that I feel deserve my time, in pursuit of goals I choose. You're going to try and force me to do the volunteer work that serves your interests? Good luck. I will not do charity work at gunpoint. Not for Obama, not for anyone. If anyone--and I don't give a flying crap what letter is next to their name--expects me to "volunteer" or go to jail...well, bring on the 4x8 cell. It's called "volunteering" because it's VOLUNTARY. You hold a gun to my head and it's not "volunteering" anymore.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Good God, It Never Ends

So the Obama administration is seeking a new set of powers (and does anyone doubt they'll get them?). Right now, the government has authority to sieze or buy banks, which is in itself dangerous and fascistic. Lord Barry wants authority to seize ANY firm or business whose failure would hurt "the broader economy."

God's sake, what's happening to my country?

First of all: they've been managed badly, but can't fail, so the GOVERNMENT gets to try to manage them? I suppose the point is to show us that you don't know what bad management is yet. Seriously, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Amtrak--all of them are colossal failures! Why would letting the government run other businesses be a path to success?

And why on earth is ANYONE okay with the idea of Geithner and Bernanke being able to take control of any business they want, as long as they can say "too big to fail." No, not "too big to fail." No one is too important to fail. And the government should NEVER, EVER take control of business. That's called fascism. I hated it when George Bush did it, I hate it when Obama does it. Stop nationalizing private businesses! This is AMERICA, dammit, where everyone's success or failure should be up to them, not the government and certainly not the unelected, unconstitutional Federal Reserve! How long are we going to let this go on? Our freedoms are being destroyed everyday, our children are being faced with a debt they'll never be able to get away from, and the president is laughing his freaking head off about the whole thing! What's it going to take to get people in the streets? You're angry about the death of liberty, let them know! Lean out your window and scream "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" Go to the tea parties. March in the streets. Until the whores in Washington realize how angry we really are--until we're no longer a silent majority--nothing will change.

Monday, March 23, 2009

THe Tyranny of Perpetual Debt

So there’s this little group called the Congressional Budget Office that’s a non-partisan, unbiased office dedicated to measuring the economic consequences of government proposals. And guess what they’ve figured out? The Obama budget will create a deficit of $1.8 TRILLION this year alone! That’s new debt this year over 4% of our GDP. By the end of the president’s first term, our debt—not including our unfunded Social Security obligations to the tune of $100T—will account for EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT of the value produced in the country. How on earth do you expect to survive with debt equal to almost nine-tenths of your income? It doesn’t make any sense!


And now we’re getting some of the money we’re spending by borrowing from ourselves. How does that make any sense? If a private citizen or business accounted that way, people would go to prison! Say there’s a company—like, say, Tyco—who spends money from one department to fund another department, then counts it as an asset. How’d that end up? Oh yeah, with the company going out of business and the executives spending life in prison. So remind me why it’s okay for the government to do it?


It’s a colossal house of cards. We’re paying off our debt by borrowing more money—from ourselves. It’s a circle so absurd it would be funny if it didn’t determine the future of our country—the Treasury borrows from the Fed to pay off its debt to the Fed, which uses the payment to buy debt from the Treasury. They’re juggling, hoping to keep this massive debt in the air so that we never have to do the painful thing, change our lifestyles and deal with it. But as they take on more and more debt, it’s going to be the same as a juggler taking more and more chainsaws or flaming torches—eventually there are going to be too many to keep up with, and then they all come crashing down. And what happens when a couple trillion chainsaws drop on the poor juggler?

Political Persecution...Again

I’m almost too angry about this to speak. This is the most outrageous thing I have ever heard, bar none.


A Missouri state trooper, concerned with what he was being told to do, just released details of a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. This organization helps formulate police policy by synthesizing information and making recommendations. The most recent MIAC report, though…


This report defines “militia-influenced terrorists.” Here are some of the signs of a violent militia-member:


“Most commonly associated with third-party political groups” and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr. Police are advised to look out for people sporting campaign materials—clothing, bumper stickers, signs, etc.—related to the Constitution or Libertarian parties or the Campaign for Liberty.


Promoting anti-government sentiment, including calling for the disbandment of the IRS.


Opposition to any of the following:

New World Order

United Nations

Gun control

The Federal Reserve

The income tax

The Ammunition Accountability Act, which places punitive taxes on ammunition and establishes a registry for everyone who buys it

A new Constitutional Convention to entirely replace the current Constitution

NAFTA or other forms of North American union

Abortion on demand

Illegal immigration


So you don’t think the entire world should have one government? You may be a terrorist. You don’t think law-abiding citizens should be stripped of any ability to defend themselves against gun-toting gangsters who respect gun-control laws no more than they respect every other law? Terrorist. You don’t want an unelected body, made up of executives from big investment banks, determining the state of the economy by printing money and setting interest rates? Terrorist. You don’t want the government to take a huge chunk of everything you earn? You’re a terrorist. You don’t think killing the unborn is a basic human right? You’re a terrorist. And you don’t want a way to keep drug smugglers, child rapists, and serial murderers out of this country? Terrorist.


And if you belong to one of two political parties singled out by the state government? You’re an evil terrorist.


Let’s see…I’m a Libertarian Party member, a Campaign for Liberty member, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and Bob Barr in the general election, I want the IRS gone, I oppose everything listed…Wow, I’m an extremely dangerous, violent person. Lock me up, I’m a terrorist. I always thought terrorism involved violent actions or the intent to commit them, not just belonging to a certain political party. Hey, the Nazi Party isn’t even listed as a militia-influenced group, but the Libertarian Party is. (For that matter, even though “third-party groups” are mentioned, only right-leaning groups—Campaign for Liberty, Libertarians, and Constitution Party—are named; the Green Party seems to be an acceptable third-party group.)


In all seriousness, I can’t even express the fury I feel about this. That ANY government in this country can single out a political party or candidate, and instruct the police to watch for their literature as a sign of a violent militia member, is so horrific that it truly defies belief. If a political candidate actively preaches acts of violence, I have no problem with the police investigating that candidate and those supporters who participated in or planned those acts. That’s not what’s happening here. These are mainstream political parties—the third and fourth largest in the country—whose doctrines specifically mention a prohibition on violent acts. If I find myself in Missouri, with my bumper stickers full of Ayn Rand references and LP logos, I don’t want to be pulled over just for those stickers. No one should be okay with that. You don’t have to be a member of any of those organizations, you don’t have to live in Missouri, you don’t even have to oppose the MIAC’s laundry list—this should make everyone angry.


This idea sounds kind of familiar. You know how in Cuba, North Korea, or China, if you’re a member of any religious organization or any political group not related to the Communist Party, you can be considered a criminal? Or in Nazi Germany, if you were a member of a Communist organization, you could be thrown in jail? Or in 1950s America, if you were suspected of being a Communist sympathizer, you could be called before Congress and fined (that one had a little more merit, since the Communist Party actively encouraged sabotage)?


So I'm going to try and organize an active protest on this one. I'm not going to sit back and take being called a "terrorist" just because of who I voted for in November. Details to follow on that.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

"Democratic Process Isn't Working"

James Hansen, NASA's leading global-warming Chicken Little, has said that "the democratic process doesn't seem to be working" on fulfilling his kinda-scientific vision (which is actually not--we have reliable data for the last 150 years, a time frame the planet hasn't even noticed; you can't measure "climate change" over 100 years when it moves in terms of millenia). So what's left? Dictatorial mandates? If the people aren't responding, if the people don't believe you, you're going to force us?

This Doesn't Even Seem Real Anymore

Look, I'm mad that AIG is taking bonuses from my money. I am. But not because they honored their contracts (although a contract that includes an unconditional bonus is unbelievably stupid). No, I'm mad at the congressional whores who gave them my money in the first place! If you didn't bail them out, they wouldn't be using tax money to fund their stupid decisions!

What I'm really furious about, though, is the Senate response. One senator told them to "resign or commit suicide." When told about death threats--some quite explicit, detailing how the executives' entire families would be strangled with piano wire--one senator said he was "not concerned. Everyone gets mail like this." Others have said that as long as the executives return the bonuses, their names will not be made public. What the hell is that? It's like something out of The Sopranos! "I know they say they'll kill your family with piano wire if they find out who you are. All you have to do is give us the money and we'll make sure they don't find out." For the love of God, that's not even a veiled threat, it's right in the freaking open! It's called extortion, sir. I don't want my government involved in open blackmail.

Then there's the way this stomps all over the Constitution. There's a clause in there about how the government cannot issue bills of attainder--singling out a person or group for punishment without trial. What do you think a resolution demanding specifically that AIG executives return their bonuses is, if not a bill of attainder? There's also a clause that says the government cannot interfere in a valid contract, and that, I think is the most important part of the Constitution. The contract is the only thing that holds our society together, the idea that someone must fulfill their obligations once the terms are set. It's the thing that assures we deal with each other fairly and respectfully. How will business be done if we can't be sure the other party will deliver? If I work for a guaranteed bonus, like the AIG execs, why should I work if Congress can cancel the contract and see that I don't get compensated? How could I, as a business owner, be sure my supplier will come through if Congress can overturn our shipping contract? How are we supposed to keep functioning when all of our binding agreements become null and void when the government says so?

Oh, a sidebar: does anyone think, if AIG does give the bonuses back, that the Congress will really return them to the taxpayers? Or will they spend that money on a pet project? Honestly, what do you believe?

The whole situation is seeming less real to me now. It seems like a dream or a movie when a sitting senator of the United States tells people to "resign or commit suicide" or "give us the money or we'll give out your name so all the people threatening your life can find you." What's happening to this country?

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Politicize the Census? No Way That'll Happen

Remember how those stupid paranoid Republicans were saying moving the census to the White House could lead to dangerous politicization? And how The Notorious B.H.O. said that was a ludicrous distraction?

Well, guess who's going to be responsible for recruiting a lot of census workers next year? ACORN. The "non-partisan" group who bribed homeless men with cigarettes to vote for Barack Obama 73 times, whose leader said "We as community organizers must elect the community organizer"? The group who's been connected to voter fraud for at least the last three or four elections? The group who BHO was the most prominent counsel for? No, there's nothing unseemly about that.

How Dare You Help People?

So this doctor came up with a great idea to reduce the cost of healthcare: $79 a month gets you unlimited visits, with bloodwork, sonogram, and X-rays included. He was willing to perform those procedures for that little. Then something happened: the government got involved. They said this made him "an insurance company" (for offering a flat rate for his own services) and said if he didn't stop he'd be shut down.


Let's Destroy Our Constitution...For Mexico's Sake!

Obamessiah's new attorney general has said he wants to bring back to life the horrible Clinton-era Assault Weapon Ban. He says it will "have a positive impact on Mexico, at least."

Even if true, I don't think our Constitution should be eroded to fix a problem Mexico created. Of course, that's a moot point because it's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Who's causing problems in Mexico? Ruthless drug traffickers who are responsible for, just last year, 6,200 murders, including dozens of decapitations. Do you suppose those people really care about gun laws?

Never mind that "assault weapons" is a ludicrous term with no real meaning. It does NOT describe automatic military weapons. It describes semiautomatic weapons loosely modeled on military weapons, which look kind of the same but operate completely differently. A semiautomatic AR-15 copy works EXACTLY the same, firing the exact same ammunition with the exact same force, as a Mini-14. The difference is that the AR has a pistol grip, which does absolutely nothing to enhance killing ability. So why on earth does the Assault Weapons Ban apply to only one of these essentially identical weapons? It makes no sense at all. Gun-control morons make some absolutely ridiculous claims: take the evil pistol grip. They say it's designed for military weapons, to make firing from the hip easier. Anyone who's had any contact with the military whatsoever knows that one of the first things the military teaches recruits about shooting is NEVER fire from the hip. The pistol grip is designed to make extended carry and quick aiming less stressful on the body by allowing the soldier (or hunter, or anyone for that matter) to keep their wrist straight, rather than bent at a 45-degree angle. The Brady Campaign also says the pistol grip allows you to shoot a high-powered rifle or shotgun with one hand. Only if you're in a Chuck Norris movie from 1985. (Leave aside the fact that "high-powered assault weapons" tend to be chambered for 7.62x39 or .223--both of which are less than a third as powerful as the most common hunting cartridges.) Anyone who thinks it's possible to fire a shotgun one-handed has obviously never even held one in their life. Even properly braced, with the whole body absorbing the recoil, a shotgun has a mean bite. All that force transfered to one wrist and arm? Let alone the difficulty of holding even a legal-minimum-size shotgun--about 2 1/2 feet long and almost eight pounds unloaded--steady in one hand. Or collapsible stocks, another favorite demon of the Brady idiots. They say these "sacrifice accuracy to enhance speed" and facilitate concealment. Well, no. A telescoping stock just allows you to adjust for your own arm length. It has nothing to do with accuracy or rate of fire, although admittedly a fully collapsed stock is "faster" in the sense that it's easier to maneuver in small spaces. And since 1934 the minimum length, with stock full collapsed, of a rifle or shotgun is 26 inches. Good luck concealing that.

This is getting dangerous. We have an attorney general who thinks that people who don't respect the laws against murder and heroin trafficking will respect laws against certain arbitrarily defined guns. It's not going to make people safe; quite the opposite, since gun control disarms only those who respect the law, leaving us defenseless against criminals who don't obey the law and government agents which are above it.

Is This a Waste?

A new ballpark estimate for the cost of universal (crappy) health care is over $1.5 trillion. Obama Claus refuses to discuss this, since it "depends on details to be worked out by Congress" (well, could you give us a guess, maybe within a couple hundred million at least?). 

but it's not enough to pay for health care. They have to come up with new rules for health care. Quoth Sen. Judd Gregg: "We shouldn't just be throwing more money on top of the current system, because the current system is so wasteful." This is in reference to the fact that a third of all health care costs go to testing and procedures, rather than prevention and treatment.

Hang on: aren't tests and procedures what doctors use to figure out what kind of prevention and treatment to use? Aren't tests a form of prevention? Or is everyone who gets a cancer screen just being "wasteful"? Dr. House may be able to diagnose based on hunches, and it makes for an awesome TV drama to keep saying, "Start treatment. If I'm right, he gets better. If I'm wrong, he dies." But I don't want real doctors doing that. I like my tests and procedures before they start shoving drugs in my body (or cutting out pieces of it). That's not "wasteful," Senator Gregg.

No More Politics As Usual...Right?

Remember how Obamessiah promised to "stop partisan bickering" and "end politics as usual"? Then a funny thing happened after Dick Cheney spoke about the economy: Obamouthpiece Gibbs said that, since Limbaugh was busy, we had to hear from "the second most popular member of the Republican cabal."

I'm glad you're reaching across the aisle and ending bitter partisan rhetoric. Or, you know, not. But it's okay, because that evil "Republican cabal" is the biggest threat to our nation since Hitler (and that's basically all Dick Cheney is, anyway).

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

"Just Say No" Approach

So the Messiah claims that his opponents are simply offering a "just say no" approach to his economic proposals, without coming up with ideas of their own. He says that if someone objects to specific policies or items in his stimulus plans, they should propose a conservative alternative, instead of just saying "don't do it."

Well, Mr. President: that IS the conservative alternative. Don't do it. Don't spend that much money, don't rob three generations to create a few thousand temp jobs, don't increase the power of government, don't let Washington control the economy. Let the market work, let the people make their economic decisions, don't make them for us. THAT'S the conservative answer, THAT'S the alternative: Don't take control, direct or indirect, of the market, and don't make decisions that may or may not work, but either way mean that the taxman will get to rape the next three generations.

What Did You Say Again?

"But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."

That's what Iowa Senator Charles Grassley said of the AIG executives.

Might I suggest the same standard apply to the congressmen whose subprime lending schemes and bailout nonsense are sending the economy to hell?

*Sigh* The Race Warriors Are At It Again

So the lovely people of the NAACP are making even bigger asses of themselves. They’re suing Wells Fargo for making “predatory” subprime loans to black people. This is, of course, racism.


Wait, what?


Here’s a quick review of how subprime lending came to be: It started with Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, which Clinton heavily reinforced. It used unconstitutional semi-government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to force banks to comply with a liberal vision of what lending should be. See, Carter and Clinton thought it completely unfair, and probably racist, that relatively few minorities were homeowners. The real reason for that, of course, is that poor people, who can’t afford to own a home, are disproportionately black. Banks didn’t make loans to poor people was not because a lot of them are black but because THEY CAN’T PAY BACK THE LOAN. The whole point of loans is that people can afford to pay them back; if you can’t, too bad, you don’t get the loan. I make $7.00 an hour working about 15 hours a week during school, 35 or so over Christmas and summer breaks. That’s not a lot. I wouldn’t expect a bank to give me a $50,000 loan to get a new Mercedes, because there is absolutely no way I could possibly pay it back.


You see the problem here? When the banks didn’t make loans to people who can’t afford them, it’s because they’re racists who want to deny every black person the right to own a home. When they do make the loans, it’s because they’re racists who want to trap black people, take everything they own, and leave them to starve in the streets. If you don’t give people something they haven’t earned and can’t afford, and some of those people happen to be black—well, that’s racism. If you do, and then the whole unsustainable system collapses—well, that must be a vast racist conspiracy too.

I’ve said it before, but I can’t say it enough: victimhood advocates, like the NAACP, NOW, GLAAD, RAINBOW/PUSH, and any other of the Truth to Power alphabet soup, are desperate to keep themselves relevant. They have power as long as they can pretend their favorite brand of discrimination is still alive, when in reality most of us have moved on. I don’t give a flying crap what race, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation someone is, or what handicap they have. I don’t want anyone, regardless of their hyphen, to take on debt they have no hope of repaying, to get a job they aren’t qualified for and can’t perform, to earn a living by looting other peoples’ earnings, or to violate anyone’s rights to life, liberty, or property. And if you do start violating those basic rights, I don’t care who you are, you need to face some consequences. I think most people feel like that, or at least close to it.

Monday, March 16, 2009

This is What Orwell Meant by Doublethink

I absolutely cannot  believe the stones on Barack Obama. Seriously. He’s either delusional, openly lying, or just stupid.


First of all, he claims that the “American Reinvestment and Restructuring Act” contained not a single item of pork. That’s the most brazen political lie since “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” The bill was nothing but pork! Almost $5 billion for a power plant in King O’Pork Robert Byrd’s district. $80 million for an icebreaker. $250 million for furniture in the new Homeland Security building, in addition to $500 million to build that structure. Almost a billion to get energy efficiency in government buildings. No, no earmarks there.


Then he claimed that he’s taking the necessary steps to get a tight budget. How? By proposing the biggest budget ever? How does almost doubling the size of the budget help tighten the budget? That doesn’t even make sense! No rational person would believe that! What a load of crap. It’s mathematically impossible, and so obviously ludicrous that it’s barely worth explaining, to cut the budget by spending more.


The president also promised to cut the deficit in half. Not sure how he’s going to do that, since in the last month and a half he’s spent $800 billion on the generational-theft “stimulus bill,” $410 billion on the omnibus pork package, $275 billion on Making Home Affordable (to People Who Couldn’t Afford it in the First Place), is close to another $22 billion for the miserable failures in Detroit, is talking about Stimulus 2 which will cost even more, and Tax Fraud Timmy is talking about a second bank bailout, this one to the tune of $1.5 trillion. So, we’re looking at, just in emergency spending outside the normal range of government functions, almost $1.5 trillion, with another almost $3 trillion on the way. How exactly will you cut the deficit by spending almost as much as your normal budget—itself bigger than any ever proposed—in emergency spending in the space of a few months? That doesn’t make any sense.

WTF Connecticut

So a bill has been proposed in the Connecticut state legislature that would completely destroy the First Amendment protections of the Catholic Church. For starters, the first line of the bill starts “In regards to the Roman Catholic Church…” Right away, that tells you this is going to shred freedom of religion, by naming a specific church. It goes on to give the state legislature complete control of the Church’s finances. See, rather than allow the bishops and priests to make Church financial decisions, it comes up with a government panel that manages the collection and use of Church funds.


This is unbelievable. Un-freaking-believable.


This is what the “separation of church and state” is about. The church is not run by the government, the government is not run by the church. (Note that this does not mean religious people can’t be elected to office or can’t express their views once elected; that George Bush prayed every morning did not make his administration a brutal theocracy.) And you should be furious about this. You don’t have to be Catholic, Christian, or religious at all to have a deep objection to the idea of the government controlling the operations of a religious organization. Because once the government has the power to do that, they have the power to either establish a state Church or shut down the Church altogether. Neither of those two is a good thing—and both are, of course, flagrant First Amendment violations.


In response to massive backlash, the Connecticut lawmakers have shelved the proposal—for now. Does anyone think that it won’t come back once some of the outrage dies down?

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Another Dictatorial Move in the Name of "Public Health"

The Virginia governor just passed a law banning smoking in all restaurants and bars, unless the smokers are sequestered in their own room with their own ventilation system (an expense most restaurant owners won't be willing to make).

Why? Restaurants and bars are not public property. The only people who go in them are those who choose to do so. If they want a non-smoking restaurant, find one whose owner, by his own free choice, makes it so. If you want to smoke in a bar, and can find one whose owner, by his own free choice, allows it, go ahead. The government is not our parent; we can choose to go to a smoking or non-smoking restaurant or bar, according to our preferences. And I don't want the government telling business owners that an activity, which is legal in other places, can't be allowed on their private property. I mean, obviously business owners don't have a choice as to whether or not to allow murder on their property, but smoking on private property is legal--well, apparently not anymore, but...

I'm Glad George Bush is Gone, No More Stupid Diplomatic Mistakes...Right?

So it's traditional for the new president and the British prime minister to exchange gifts, commemorating our countries' intertwined histories. This year, Gordon Brown brought Barack Obama a pen-holder carved from the hull of the Resolute, an anti-slaver ship, and a first-edition 7-volume Winston Churchill biography--both priceless. What does our illustrious President Messiah give back? A box containing 25 classic DVDs--selections such as Raging Bull, Casablanca, Psycho, and ET, classics all but hardly priceless. To compound this error, the DVDs are not of the type printed in Britain--not only are they crappy Walmart gifts, but they're crappy Walmart gifts that the British can't even use.

Then he gave the British another gift, this one actually priceless--and even less appropriate. After 9/11, they gave us a bust of Winston Churchill to show we would stand side-by-side. Obama gave it back. Mr. Brown insisted that he wanted the bust to remain in the White House, but Obama persisted until the prime minister took it.

He also denied Mr. Brown a state dinner and cancelled a joint press conference.

Needless to say, the British are not too happy about this. They feel insulted, as they should.

A State Department official (who is unnamed in the British reports) took this from bad to worse by saying that the president wanted to send a message that the British are no more special than any of the other 160 countries we deal with.

I thought, now that George Bush was gone and Sarah Palin isn't anywhere near the White House, we wouldn't have any embarassing mistakes like this?

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Doctors Don't Have Rights, Stupid

So Barack Obama is pushing to overturn several long-standing laws designed to protect doctors. See, there was a law that prevented hospitals from firing doctors who refused to perform or refer for abortions based on personal convictions. And George Bush added a law strengthening that by denying federal funds to hospitals which ignored the earlier anti-discrimination law.

Not anymore. George Bush is gone and we're going to put science back in its proper place.

Once Obama repeals these laws, any doctor who refuses to perform an abortion once asked to can be fired. Interesting: the president seems to think that a "right to choose" applies only to someone's right to choose to kill their child, not a doctor's right to choose whether to do it or not. Doctors don't have rights, that's a ridiculous, outdated concept!

An administration official says that the laws interfere with "the administration's goal of reducing abortions and unwanted pregnancies." Well, I'll give him half of that: it certainly "reduces unwanted pregnancies" to murder all the unwanted children. But I'm not really sure how you can claim to reduce the number of abortions by ordering all doctors, regardless of beliefs, to perform them whenever asked.

I don't understand this at all. A doctor has a right to refuse any non-emergency procedure: you can't demand a doctor be fired because he wouldn't inject collagen into your lips or because he refused to perform a high-risk surgery that you could live without. So why should doctors be fired for refusing to perform abortions? (The answer, of course, is that the hard left sees abortion as almost a holy event.)

And expect the erosion of doctor's rights to accelerate rapidly as we get universal health care. See, right now, if you want a doctor to give you a valuable service, you have to give them something of value. That's such a ridiculous idea! You should be able to get something of value simply by screaming that you need it. Why should doctors have a right to choose how they conduct their lives, when other people need them?


Tim Geithner has announced that he is going to crack down on those who exploit the system and don't pay taxes.

Remember that, until a month ago, he had failed to pay $30,000 in taxes--a common theme with Obama nominees, because that makes four of them who have failed to pay taxes.