There is no free in liberty.


Monday, January 31, 2011

Megyn Kelly Reads Hot News...


First, my favorite quote from Judge Vinson's opinion:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate givingthe East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

Judge Vinson rules
because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void.

Well, she is hot.


Reports From the Smile File...


Wal-Mart terrorists:


Out-sized Voices on the World Stage....


From The Economist...

H/T House of Eratosthenes


Rulings of the Obvious...


Laws are strengthened during formation as they are passed back and fourth between The House and Senate. ObamaCare was not subjected to this process due to improbable election of Scott Brown. Scott Brown's election stymied further tweaking, but rather than listen to the electorate the house accepted the Senate' s crap Health Care bill which Obama signed.

This Crap law is the result of a majority's tin ear to the people.


A second federal judge ruled on Monday that it was unconstitutional for Congress to enact a health care law that requires Americans to obtain commercial insurance, evening the score at two-to-two in the lower courts as conflicting opinions begin their path to the Supreme Court.


... unlike his Virginia counterpart, Judge Vinson ruled that the entire health care act should fall if the appellate courts join him in invalidating the insurance requirement.

“The act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker,” Judge Vinson wrote.


In a 78-page opinion, Judge Vinson held that the insurance requirement exceeds the regulatory powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.


Keynesians Hobbled by Blindness...


At the heart of every Keynesian is the desire for real-time control over the markets. This requires projecting forward real-time data. Unfortunately real-time data has no trend from which to project a future. The result is an incessant bickering over the meaning of the numbers or as Keynesianists call it, "elevating the debate". It also means our economists are blindly driving our fragile economy. Not only can they not see the future, but they blind themselves to the long term damage being done to our nation with Keynes.


Sunday, January 30, 2011

Rep. Brad Miller -- Wants Jobs Now, Not Once They're Earned...


Vibrant, healthy economies create jobs. An earlier non Keynesian America accepted this reality. But today our non reality based betters buy jobs with debt at the expense of national economic health. Buy jobs first with debt with the expectation that economic growth will soon follow...

Unfortunately North Carolina is the home of one of these Keynesian members of the surreal.

Listen to Brad Miller claim if we build it they will come:

North Carolina 13th District Rep. Brad Miller said the federal deficit is not the nation's biggest problem. He said growing jobs should be the top priority.

"The most pressing thing is getting American back to work. Bringing the unemployment rate down. That will probably take care of half of the deficit," said Miller. "American's don't pay income taxes if have no income."

Our economy ain't a surreal movie Brad Miller.


Restless Egypt ...


--About that break ... it may be somewhat porous.--

My initial impulse was to take Egyptian turmoil as a populist and possibly democratic uprising. I'm not so sure.

Fabius Maximus
offers thorough background...

Summary: The events in Egypt are complex; accurate forecasting is not possible. We can look through the fog generated by the news media to see some simple and important facts, and make some likely guesses.


  1. Background of the riots
  2. Yes, the ‘Islamist Menace’ is overblown. And no, it is not.
  3. Oil prices have spiked, probably with little reason
  4. It’s not about us
  5. What do the people of Egypt think?
  6. Addendum: what should we do?

Ari David by way of GatewayPundit:

Just like Carter, Obama got us to this point by undermining our only ally in the area, Israel, and empowering all of her regional enemies for the first two years of his presidency. That undermining has led us directly to these out of control events.

John Bolton by way of FOX:

I think the question is whether and to what extent the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Islamists have infiltrated the leadership. If the military holds firm it's entirely possible, although bloody, that the government can hold onto power. That doesn't necessarily mean Mubarak will be in power, but the military will be, and I think that is why this contrast makes it so important for people to understand, this is not a choice between the Mubarak government on one hand, and sweetness and light, Jeffersonian democracy on the other.

I don't think we have evidence yet that these demonstrations are necessarily about democracy. You know the old saying, "one person, one vote, one time." The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't care about democracy, if they get into power you're not going to have free and fair elections either

These events seem to have caught most of guard, but The NYT makes it clear -- It's not Obama's Fault:

The chaos unfolding in Egypt is laying bare a stark fact, Middle East experts say: In the Arab world, American words may not matter, because American deeds, whatever the words, have been pretty consistent.


Friday, January 28, 2011

Work is knocking...


Taking a break,

questioning my memory.....


Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Almost a Dozen States Consider Nullifying ObamaCare...


27 states are suing over ObamaCare's requirement that individuals buy insurance.

And nearly a dozen are considering nullification...

Republican lawmakers in nearly a dozen states are reaching into the dusty annals of American history to fight President Obama's health care overhaul.

They are introducing measures that hinge on "nullification," Thomas Jefferson's late 18th-century doctrine that purported to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters.

GOP lawmakers introduced such a measure Wednesday in the Idaho House, and Alabama, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming are also talking about the idea.

Nullification, if found valid, could put a brake on the expansion of our federal government. It would be nice if we could find strength there, but when not even the Tenth Amendment can be recognize and those who have the temerity to point to it are demeaned as "tenthers".....


Rep. Bert Jones of Rockingham Co. NC Interview...


The last time I saw Bert Jones was at the Golden Corral in Reidsville. He shared a breakfast with the Conservative Party of Rockingham Co. Bert Jones is unaffiliated after leaving the Conservative Party. According to the News-Record:

Jones said he left the Republican Party because the national party has become more interested in party control than its core values such as limiting government and spending.

“The country and the issues were more important to me than a party,” Jones wrote in an e-mail interview.
Both understandable and appropriate.
He is a good man.

The interview:

Video via Joe Guarino, produced by the Civitas Institute:


Finding the State of the Union in Michele Marie Bachmann...


Not to up stage Paul Ryan or anything....

Passionate answers for looming issues.


So, Do You Know the State of the Union??


ABC: spin...

According to the poll, which was conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the president's address, 91 percent of those who watched the speech approved of the proposals Mr. Obama put forth during his remarks, while only nine percent disapproved.

Frank Luntz...


Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Obama Attempts to Outflank Conservatives on Fiscal Sanity...Updated...Updated 2...


Update 2:

The State of the Union just concluded.
I sense a fumble. It remains to be seen if the media can pick up the ball for him...


Tonight in the Sate of the Union address Obama will attempt to lay claim to fiscal rationality. ABC:

Pursuing a path of deficit reduction and government reform, President Obama will tonight in his State of the Union address call for a ban on earmarks and he will propose a five year budget freeze on non-security related discretionary spending, ABC News has learned.

These are all ideas that could have been brought up during the last congress under the president's party. They were not.

Neither have these ideas been brought to the floor under the current conservative house despite having been campaigned on. Instead, like Obama, John Boehner has given priority to ObamaCare over fiscal sanity. In doing so he may have ceded the issues of both a ban on earmarks and the idea of a budget freeze to the democrats if Obama can claim them.

It will be interesting to see if Obama will be able to recast himself as fiscally sane after two years of fiscal incontinence.

Expect a ticker-tape parade from the press confirming this most recent Obama.



Congressional Republicans on Tuesday sought to put President Barack Obama on the defensive ahead of his State of the Union speech as they pressed their plans to slash domestic spending.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved a symbolic measure that touts their intention to slash domestic spending by at least 18 percent in the coming weeks.

The actual vote to cut spending will come during the same week that Obama is expected to unveil his budget proposal for the coming year, House Republican leader Eric Cantor said.


The nonbinding resolution, which passed the House by a vote of 256 to 165, would allow Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan to cap domestic spending at 2008 levels, a first step in the process of cutting current government funding.

Too little, too late.


Sunday, January 23, 2011

Graphing Keyensian Born Atrophy...


This graph via the Atlantic illustrates the success our nation has had in combating the gyrations of our market . I question, though, whether this Keynesian "win" is a net positive for our nation in that the painful removal of fat, inefficiency, poor regulation, and poor governance are less likely to be forced from the system during unrealized market downturns.


We have used Keynesianism to curb swings in the market. The result has been market stability and a commensurate lowering in the cost of gov. debt. This has the overt appearance of a positive, but has allowed for the accumulation of inefficiency.

This quest for stability has produced not only an economy that suffers from the accumulated gluttony of shallow downturns, but also governance that relies on the resultant cheap debt to avoid the hard choices of reconciling the fiscal incoherence of a citizenry desiring both increased gov. services and lower taxes.

This Keynesian born plaque thickens the ether through which our economy operates weakening corporations and increasing gov. debt until it becomes unsustainable.

Our current downturn in which we are bailing out banks and other weak corporations while straining our nation's ability to borrow, has revealed just how close to unsustainable our 70 year experiment in "gov. debting" away economic downturns has become.

Where once America produced trim and lean corporations that could lead globally, America now produces morbidly obese corporations addicted to government's Keynesian protection from market downturns. American Corporations have, in general, become weak and uncompetitive. Witness the bailed out as the most obvious.

Economies must be allowed to correct.

Do we truly expect jobs from this non competitive Keynesian fat burger?

H/T EdCone
end of rant

Friday, January 21, 2011

The Taming of the Shrill....


Although I personally avoid the disconcerting shrillness of some, Don Surber's sentiments are mine.

For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. After voting to support the war to get by the 2002 election, many Democrats quickly soured on the war. The profane protests were cheered by liberals who misattributed “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” to Thomas Jefferson; the words belong to the late historian Howard Zinn.

Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

The left wants to play games of semantics.

Bite me.

The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.

Bite me,


There will be no taming, the shrill will remain, and that is as it should be.


Thursday, January 20, 2011

Gary Pearce Falls Prey to a Journalist-Censor's Catch-22...


Gary Pearce, over at Talking About Politics, references Tom Fetzer's use of the phrase "idiot bloggers" and his own experience in censoring commentary...

I’m sure Tom Fetzer wasn’t talking about Carter and me last weekend when he urged North Carolina Republicans to ignore “idiot bloggers".

But I’m sure he was talking about the idiots who virtually hijacked our blog last year with attacks on Fetzer and other candidates for GOP party chair.

It got so bad Carter called me one day and asked if I minded him censoring the most libelous and mean-spirited stuff. No problem, I said. I love when Republicans fight, but I was embarrassed by it.

I was curious about what Fetzer could have done to be the victim of "libelous and mean-spirited a stuff" from within his own party. But, sure enough, when I searched Talking About Politics for "Tom Fetzer", the search only returned three links and nothing of the attacks on Fetzer referenced by Gary.

I am left wondering how Gary Pearce finds the journalistic authority to pin the descriptions "libelous and mean spirited" on "idiots" when he can point to no proof of such libel or even of the events described.

It appears that Pearce has fallen prey to a journalist-censor's catch-22.

I don't question Gary Pearce and Carter Wrenn's right to to censor comments on their own blog, but It seems to me that if one chooses to censor comments on their blog one should be held to the repercussions of that censoring. In this case, not being able to reference the comments or events censored.

It can be difficult to play both censor and journalist simultaneously.

On the other hand, the events could quickly be uncensored thus returning the supporting material.


Monday, January 17, 2011

Staggeringly Overdue Fiscal Coherence Amid Fiscal Incontinence Via Pawlenty...


A few weeks ago Tim Geithner had this to say concerning the coming debate over raising the debt limit. MSNBC:

"Never in our history has Congress failed to increase the debt limit when necessary," Geithner said in his letter.


"Even a very short-term or limited default would have catastrophic economic consequences that would last for decades," Geithner said. "For these reasons, I am requesting that Congress act to increase the limit early this year, well before the threat of default becomes imminent."

Like a rube, I had previously assumed that we were taking on new debt to cover new spending rather than to service existing debt. Apparently not. Rather than search for some mysterious arcane gov. machination as an explanation for what could just as easily be congressional shiftlessness, I chose to let time solve the question.

Enter Tim Pawlenty two weeks later...

You can sense the stunned silence that that 15 seconds has produced in the media as they realize that this nation's cash strapped citizenry will identify with this simple approach... one we all live with day to day.

Of the congressional duties assigned to members of congress is that of forging a solution from the divergence between federal want and federal receipts. Unfortunately Congress has been derelict in this respect for decades. After all, solving national fiscal incoherence can be difficult while suffering the strains of growing a social state.

A solution had to be found.

The first solution was the liberal use debt outside of war time. Another solution was to only consider servicing that debt until after new spending had been taken on.

One must respect the congressional penchant for self delusion, this crafting of a mechanism by which the national budget appears much larger, meaning congress gets more of its wants, by answering the question of paying creditors only after satiating wants.

Sadly, today this approach makes possible Geithner's fear mongering prediction of a calamity of confidence in the United States if the debt limit is not raised.

Pawlenty's argument, though, shorts Geithner's fiscal incontinence.

Pawlenty's approach, paying debt first and only then considering new spending, has the strength of our familiarity with personal budgeting as well as being under girded by common sense fiscal discipline.


Sunday, January 16, 2011

A Cornucopia of Hate...


A week ago I wrote...

...Despite repeatedly being proven wrong, inaccurate stereotypes of hate are powerful things that increasingly seem to be based on projection for most liberals.

A sad day.
[emphasis added]

...in respect to this cornucopia of progressive/liberal hate.


Saturday, January 15, 2011

From the Smile File...



A More Rigid Society...


There was a time in American history when a person could make the poor decisions that plague the youth, pay the price if caught, then move to a new town, state or country to start a new life. In that early America of small fledgling towns finding anonymity or loosing one's self in seas of faceless individuals was not an option. Starting over required moving. Through moving one could get beyond the preconceptions of others and break free of their past.

What is the equivalent today?

Aside from creating a false identity there is none. This is a loss. If a person is found guilty of a single crime in their 20's, that crime will follow them throughout their lives irregardless of whether further crimes are committed. There is a social cost in permanently tying an individual to a single mistake especially when that mistake is used by others to keep that individual in their place, or more frequently the case, for personal gain.

It seems to me such records should be scrubbed from existence after 10 to 15 years. Repeat offenders need not apply.

In other polifrogblog news, Jeffey Sykes' Set The Controls has been added to the polifrogblog blog list.


Friday, January 14, 2011

Are Broke Democracies an Eventual Given?


I don't often post links in back to back posts, but there are exceptions to self imposed rules on laziness. Gonzalo Lira forces one of those exceptions today.

Within the comments section he calls his Why Democracies Will Always Go Bankrupt post his most important. I agree.

In his post he offers a proof that explains the genesis of a current conundrum facing the US today. The conundrum? Why do Americans say they want lower taxes while simultaneously wanting more services? He then extends this contradiction to our current debt situation in which politicians, rather than reconciling this difficulty, solve "fiscal incoherence" with debt.

This is entirely readable piece by anyone, as Gonzalo Lira does not seem enamored with the loose-your-audience self flattery normally associated with those overly proud of their educations.

Of course, I have issues with some minor points but they are just quibbles with pinning the start of this in 1975 rather than the 1930's and other tax issues.

A pull:

A democratic regime has to resolve its fiscal incoherence every time it happens—that is, every year a new budget is proposed. If it doesn’t, it will not be able to operate the following year, as it will not have the money to do so. (This of course is assuming an independent Central Bank that will not money-print away the dilemma.)

If the democracy’s government can only spend such revenue as it actually receives (and there is no Central Bank funkiness), then the electorate will be forced to come to grips with the incoherence of its decisions in the chambers of its parliament or congress: The democratic representatives of the electorate, be they MP’s or Congressmesn, will slug it out—proponents of cutting taxes fighting proponents of more government services—until eventually, a service is cut or a tax is raised, so that the budget is fully covered: This way, the democratic fiscal incoherence is solved, year after year.

The only way a democratic regime can avoid having to resolve its fiscal incoherence is by issuing debt.


An Unresponsive Government Yields ...A Responsive Populace...


A Responsive Populace:
...the political class has failed, and abrupt tidal changes of office-holders — 1992, 1994, 2002, 2008, and probably 2010 – aren’t improving standards of public service. If the system isn’t working changing the rhetoric won’t help, any more than dismissing Krugman as a Times columnist would. The rate of violent crime is generally declining. Deranged people need treatment, and the whole country needs better government. It’s conceptually quite simple.


Thursday, January 13, 2011

A Presidential Obama...


(As commented at The Spag Report. This is better than my first attempt last night. Ferment?)

I did not watch the memorial or Obama's speech due to the inherently tedious nature of such events. I did, however, read Obama's speech as it was the linchpin of the memorial. It is unfortunate that those who truly mattered were upstaged, but that was a necessary cost for what was needed. I had feared based on history that Obama speech would not be worth that cost. That fear was not met.

Like others here, I believe Obama was presidential. I would add, though, that this is perhaps his first foray into such territory.

It appears that Obama recognized that the self inflicted damage being done by some Democrats had to be stopped for the benefit of his party, and although I doubt he understands the resultant outrage from the right at being falsely accused of murder, it was an aspect to the bargain he had to accept in an effort to protect his own party.

It also seems that he may have accepted the fact that he no longer has a tyranny of the majority within governance from which to govern, and must now govern from that new reality. Shades of Clinton three?

What ever the calculus, where he could have been partisan he was not. In that, this speech stands in stark contrast to those delivered over the past few years.

Lastly, this was not governance in a pen to paper, law making, bill signing way, but rather, governance through theater and, although Obama struck the appropriate chords last night he is anathema to American success.

[Edited "As posted at The Spag Report" to "As commented at The Spag Report"

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Obama Leads Where Rep. Brad Miller Could Not...


To my surprise I find myself congratulating President Obama tonight as he has been a leader where Brad Miller has not. This does not fit the natural rhythms I have grown accustomed to over the past 2 to 3 years, but there it is.

President Obama:
Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.


...what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame...


And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their deaths help usher in more civility in our public discourse, let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy [-- it did not --] but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation, in a way that would make them proud.

[altered excerpts from hot air]

And that is leadership, the sort that is needed to arrest the democrat party's current penchant for self inflicted wounds and help move the nation beyond its anger at fellow Americans for having blamed innocents for horror.

Our President has been presidential and has potentially struck the final pleasant notes of a sad and damaging political fail.

I may not have been entirely true to that tune in this post,but again, there it is.


Rep. Brad Miller -- Accusing the Blameless for the Deaths in Arizona...


How much hate must a person be consumed with to find it acceptable to blame the innocent, on the backs of the dead and injured, of the actions of the insane?

How little is a person required to think of individual responsibility before they embrace the socialization of that responsibility for political gain?

How little must a person respect the victims of the Arizona Tragedy to use their deaths in an effort to silence their opposition?

Brad Miller knows; he is currently lost in the morass of those depths.

Via NewsObserver:
Miller, a Raleigh Democrat, had sharp words for recent political rhetoric that he said has contributed to a toxic environment, saying the right especially has been more virulent in recent times.

He blamed the media for not bringing more attention to issues such as political rally signs comparing Obama to Hitler, and showing dead bodies stacked like cordwood, comparing health reform to concentration camps in the Holocaust.

Had Brad Miller included just one example of the left plying similar waters (the numerous BusHiltler signs perhaps?), I could believe his concern over political discourse, but he did not which makes his statement the epitome of a blood lust (thanks Sarah) political attack.

Brad Miller can now be included with the likes of Paul Krugman, Ed Cone, as well as many other liberal commentators, who have made it clear that they believe that responsibility for Saturday's attacks in Arizona resides not just with the insane delusions of the shooter, but with groups beyond the conscience decision to perform such a terrible act.

Should a man willing to lay blame on the innocent be a law maker?

[Edit] The original final line - "Brad Miller -- A political animal without conscience" was a step too far and has been replaced by the current final line.


Blood Libel and Stupid Moves....


Various definitions and various uses of a term or group of terms is the stuff of poetry.

Case in point - Chimpy McBush

Alternatively, if liberals choose the line of attack that Palin did not know the meaning of the term in question and is stupidly (they are prone to labeling Palin stupid) combining the term blood in reference to Saturday's tragedy with libel, the malicious defaming a living person (Palin), then they are admitting libelous actions occurred over the past weekend.

A stupid move.

a blood libel definition via New World Encyclopedia-

Blood libels are false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of the victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism.


American Approval of Congress Up by More Than 50%...


Of course, that represents an approval rating increase from just 13% to just 20%.

More revealing, though, is the graphical representation of 2 years of a governing tyranny of the majority with a tin ear to the citizenry.



Palin On the Immoral Socializing of Individual Responsibility...


Sarah Palin via Politico:
Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.


within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.


we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

And Polifrog?

Ed Cone, along with many other liberal commentators, has made it clear he believes that responsibility for yesterday's tragedy lies not just with the shooter, but with groups that lie beyond the conscience decision to perform such a terrible act.

This socializing of responsibility is a grotesque form of hate in that it accuses the innocent of a tragedy on the backs of the dead and injured.

Agreement is nice thing to confront.


Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Perhaps We Should All (Conervatives) Simply Turn The Cheek...


In my previous post I referenced eloquence greater than mine, but in the interest of balance I now reference eloquence less than my own.

Mark Halperin suggests conservatives should simply accept the smears of the left and "turn the cheek".


A Reliance on Bill Whittle


I am currently distracted with upgrading polifrog.com, so I am forced to rely on the greater eloquence of others.

Bill Whittle on failure:


Sunday, January 9, 2011

Socializing Individual Responsibility -- Liberals Echoing the Arizona Tragedy....


On the Arizona shooting that we are all familiar with at this point...

Although I can accept that there is some degree of violent rhetoric in politics, I refuse to accept any degree of social responsibility for the actions of an individual.

I am not sure why this is so easy for liberals to do, but I am convinced that it is the source of much of the disagreement between the right and left over yesterday's tragedy.

Ed Cone, along with many other liberal commentators, has made it clear he believes that responsibility for yesterday's tragedy lies not just with the shooter, but with groups that lie beyond the conscience decision to perform such a terrible act.

This socializing of responsibility is a grotesque form of hate in that it accuses the innocent of a tragedy on the backs of the dead and injured.

These are not the appropriate actions of an American.

Is it no wonder that the unjustly accused howl in protest?


Saturday, January 8, 2011

A Sad Day in Arizona...


A very sad day via another Left wing nut...

Considering the Blue Dog leanings of
Gabrielle Giffords this incident is vaguely reminiscent of the nut who killed John Lennon for not being true to his beliefs by a "truer" believer.

And as commented on Edcone...

Rattled or not, like the discovery channel shooter, this nut appears to be yet another hate filled arrogant liberal assured in the propriety of his actions by the sharia like correctness of liberal dogma.


Edited due to the forgotten Edcone link.

Sen. Richard Burr - A RINO? Bleeding His Base....


A month ago I questioned Renee Ellmers' misguided equivocation in the matter of earmarks. But being new to her seat she has yet to cast a single vote. Also, being unfamiliar with her new position she could have easily miscalculated the weight of her words. Lastly, I tend to critique politician in power by their vote rather than their words.

Ricard Burr, by contrast has been in power and has a voting record on which he can be judged. Although I was aware of his recent votes on DADT, his penchant for earmarks ($105,803,000 in fiscal year 2010 ranking 61st out of 100 senators) and the Food Safety Modernization Act, I was unaware of the ire he has drawn from his constituents due to the latter of these two votes.

This morning I attended a local conservative meeting and met Bert Jones who represents Rockingham Co. NC. in the NC General assembly as well as a couple of county commissioners. Amid the back and fourth of conversation Ricard Burr's name was brought up. The disappointment among the group in his record was thick and quickly coalesced in words. Three, perhaps four individuals, Burr's base, vowed not to support him with their vote again. High on their list of complaints was his support for the Food Safety Moderization Act. No mention was made of a press favorite; Burr's DADT vote. Ricard Burr defended his vote on the Food Safety Modernization Act on his site:

“Our nation’s food safety system was designed over a century ago and was appropriate for a world in which most of our food was grown and processed domestically. I voted in support of S. 510 today because I believe it is important that we modernize and update our approach to food safety to address issues that stem from our increasingly global food supply. After months of discussion and debate, I am confident the final version will work for North Carolina and will protect small processors and farms.” – U.S. Senator Richard Burr

This sounds too similar to the arguments put forth by statists when encumbered by our Constitution's government limiting framework. The Constitution is old, they say, and we should accept the fact that only a "living and breathing" Constitution can appropriately reflect our nation's modern needs.

To support the Food Safety Modernization Act one must accept the arguments of the statists to find constitutional muster in this bill where none exists.

Richard Burr did just that with his support for the Food Safety Modernization Act. He grew the federal government at the loss of NC state power and individual liberty.

Richard Burr -- RINO.


Friday, January 7, 2011

Paul Krugman -- Liberal Arrogance Yeilds Liberal Poverty...


From richard40 in the comments:

Its obvious he was trying to make a case that TX was broke, because lefties are getting sick of conservatives contrasting conservative TX good finances, with leftie CA and Il disastrous ones. I'm glad he failed.

There is a good lesson there. In the 60's, CA was a repub/libertarian leaning state, and was one of the most prosperous and innovative states in the country, while TX was governed by dems, and was much poorer. In the 90's CA shifted to being governed by leftist dems, and is now completely broke, while TX shifted to being governed by repubs, and is now prosperous. Not a very good testimonial for the benefit of governance by dems.


Thursday, January 6, 2011

Reading the Constitution on the Floor of the House...


Today the Constitution is being read on the floor of the house. I had been content to ignore this as little more than a stunt, but the uproar among Democrats has raised this stunt to something more akin to a gotcha.

Democrats have a serious problem with the Constitution...


The embedded vid above appears to be broken, but who knows, someone may come along and rethread the reels. Until then in lieu of the the vid I give two quotes below:


I thought it was a good idea for the Constitution to be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives as that body kicked off its new session. The reading reminded those present of the contents of our fundamental law and symbolized a commitment to adhere to that law.

But what seemed like a good idea turned out to be a great one. For instead of good naturedly going along with the exercise, or suffering in silence, a number of leftists publicly displayed their lack of comfort with, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Thus, the public received its clearest indication to date that the left regards the words of the Constitution as an impediment to its agenda.

And a Washington Times Editorial:

The Constitution was read at the opening of the new session of the House of Representatives yesterday. What was most remarkable about this was the almost hysterical opposition from congressional Democrats and left-wing commentators. In what should have been a united celebration of the nation's foundation document in a period of partisan rancor, liberals instead reinforced the view that they are profoundly uncomfortable with the essential truths underlying American freedom.

Some leftists smugly observed that the literal reading of the document does not convey its full meaning, which has been defined, redefined and sometimes misdefined by successive generations of courts. This argument fit neatly into liberal talking points about the new congressional majority being composed of naive bumpkins who know little of the sophisticated workings of government. Yet Washington's corrupting climate is the very basis of the conservative critique.

The country has strayed far from the artful simplicity of our original founding document. Congress, the executive and the courts all assume powers they never were intended to have. The most recent Congress interpreted the Commerce Clause - which simply was supposed to prevent states from throwing up internal tariff barriers - to give government the right to compel Americans to spend private monies on health insurance. If this power stands, there truly are no limits to the power of the bureaucratic leviathan.

Obama reacted predictably...


Rep. Heath Shuler and Rep. Larry Kissell Supporting the Fruit of a Tyrannical Majority -- ObamaCare...


Conservatives in the house have put repeal of ObamaCare front and center. The vote is scheduled for Jan 12 and the 2 page bill can be found here.

To date there are two NC democrats ( Heath Shuler and Larry Kissell) who voted against ObamaCare's implementation but now refuse to vote for ObamaCare's repeal.

Rep. Larry Kissell offered this gibberish up as an excuse for his about face via The Hill:
"I am not going to vote to repeal it," Kissell told The Hill, adding that despite his opposition to the measure, Democrats "put a lot of energy into this bill."

Rep. Heath Shuler, though, gave a more honest excuse, also via The Hill:

Rep. Heath Shuler (N.C.), another Democrat who voted "no" last year, told The Hill that the GOP's plan to repeal the full healthcare bill is "immoral."

“There are some very good things in this bill that have already become law: Parents can keep their kids on their insurance till they’re 26, it’s helping to close the donut hole for seniors, and children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied access to coverage. I think it is not just wrong, but immoral to take those things away," Shuler said in a statement.

So, on the one hand we have Kissell who likely retained his seat this past Nov. as a result of his rejection of ObamaCare, but who now rejects ObamaCare's repeal due to all the Democratic energy that would be wasted. Gibberish.

While on the other hand we have Rep. Heath Shuler who in a single statement traces the two year arc of the greatest dance with immoral governance our nation has known.

Those "good" things Shuler mentioned in his statement were not good enough for his yes vote in the implementation of ObamaCare, but those same "good" things are now important enough to not support ObamaCare's repeal.

What changed? ObamaCare's passage.

Shuler's statement lays bare the gamble the Democrat Party took in foisting ObamaCare on America. They gambled that ignoring the will of the people and forcing this unwanted and difficult to remove law on the citizenry would give them the long term political return that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade gave them at the small short term cost of the house and possibly the Senate.

They were willing to forsake representing the citizens of this nation and, instead, rule as a tyrannical body (a true tyranny of the majority) to force upon our nation law that empowers themselves at the cost of individual liberty.

And that is the change that has forced both Rep. Shuler and Rep. Kissell to not support the repeal of ObamaCare. It is also the Democrat gamble. ObamaCare is now law and the removal of that law will become politically unpalatable over time due what Shuler describes as "good things" within the law. It is a law that will weave its way into our society just as Social Security has and as it does it will create bureaucracies upon bureaucracies filled with government employees loyal to the Democrat Party, loyal to the very party that originally ignored the will of the people for that vote. Not only will democrat voters be created, but the tools to influence the citizenry toward the "greatest good" as defined by unaccountable bureaucrats will be in the hands of the party of social engineering.

Again, all this power and influence would go to a party willing to govern against the will of the people to gain that power.

Shuler, Kissell and all the others who voted against ObamaCare and then vote against its repeal are supporting the fruit of that tyrannical majority and are themselves practicing immoral governance.


Sunday, January 2, 2011

Net Neutrality: "There is no market failure here. This is a pure power grab."


Earlier last year I argued against Net Neutrality:

...Gov. is not the source of vibrancy. The current vibrancy of the internet is directly related to the lack of government regulation.

Secondly, complaints of disparities in net service seem to be sourced on nothing. Who is complaining outside of those who want to regulate? I have no problems accessing the internet. Do you? If it is financially difficult for an individual to gain access, libraries across the country offer it for free.

We do not need to regulate problems that exist only in the minds of those who wish to regulate.

But where congress failed Rep. Brad Miller and the lovers of government brokered power through regulation the FCC did not. The FCC has staked out its claim over internet regulation by classifying it a public utility, despite court cases siding against such authority.

WSJ.com sums things up nicely: