Republican Wacko Should Resign Now

This is going to be a nasty article and some of you won’t like it. I don’t care. I’m finding myself really pissed off at the retard who will be representing our side in the Missouri Senate Primary. His name is Todd Akin and he seemed pretty decent until his dogma shut down his brain. He needs to resign.

Akin was asked this weekend during a television interview about his view on whether or not abortion should be allowed in the case of rape. His answer was this:

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

By which he meant that victims rarely get pregnant from “legitimate rapes.” He then stated that he thinks abortion should be banned in the case of rape.

Uh... f*ck you.

First of all, what is a legitimate rape? And what kind of piece of sh*t would believe that rape comes in degrees of legitimacy? I hate the word “insensitive,” but I can’t imagine a better use for it than the way Akin just smeared rape victims. This is so reminiscent of Texas gubernatorial candidate Clayton Williams, who obnoxiously said about the rain: “It’s a lot like rape. As long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.”

That a human being would utter either of these statements is frankly incomprehensible to me. How f*cked up do you need to be to believe that only certain rapes matter or that rape is something women should enjoy? Where does the Republican Party keep finding these sex-obsessed troglodytes?

Secondly, what is this crap that somehow the female body “has ways to shut the whole thing down”? Where does this medical quackery come from? If a doctor said this, they would lose their medical license for incompetence. If a teenager said this, we would laugh at them for being stupid. Yet here a grown “man” says this? This is dogma, this is not science. This is a man who believes in witchcraft, who sees women as unclean deceivers, and who fears the atheists under his bed. This is not a man whose judgment can be trusted. This is the kind of crap which gives Christians a bad name.

Akin, of course, apologized for this obscenity, but this is one of those moments where you can’t un-ring a bell. We now know what he believes, and this is not a man I would want near any female I knew and I sure as heck don’t want him in a position to represent my side of the aisle on women’s issues. He is unfit and needs to resign.

And let me say, this is exactly why young professional women will never vote Republican, but that’s not even what bothers me here. What bothers me is that a man with a Fourteenth Century understanding of sexual relations could be chosen to serve in the United States Senate. He needs to resign. If he doesn’t, I will support McCaskill.

Conservatives need to rid themselves of these people.

And while I’m at it, let me say that if you believe women should be forced to carry children to term when they’ve been raped, then you are wrong. There is no legal or moral justification for your position. You are suggesting sexual slavery. You are suggesting that you have the right to victimize these women every single day until they give birth because you think your religion tells you to use the force of law to control others. You are wrong.

UPDATED: It is now being reported that Akin will resign. Good. But there's one more bit to add to the story. The mouth-breathers at the Family Research Council have been giving strong support to Akin throughout the day. Their president Tony Perkins claims this is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the record of that unclean woman Claire McCaskill and Satan’s workshop at Planned Parenthood. Pathetic. Seriously, if you don't see the problem with this, then there is something wrong with you.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It's Like Likability And Like Stuff

Whoops. For months now, the left has consoled itself with the idea that because Obama rates more likable in polls than Romney, voters will choose him in November even though their answers to every other poll question show a pro-Romney blowout in the works. A new poll by The Hill casts serious doubt on that. Let’s talk about the Senate too.

● I Like You, But I’m Not “In Like” With You. Polls have consistently shown Obama doing much better than Romney in the likability category. This seems a strange contradiction given that every other indicator goes against Obama. So what is going on? Looking at the way people make decisions, it strikes me that this high likeability really indicates that the voters have already made up their minds. In other words, since they’ve already decided, there have no reason to generate dislike for him to aid their decision. This fits with his amazingly steady low approval rating.

And now we have more reason to question the likability number. Indeed, according to a new poll by The Hill, 93% of likely voters said that competence and policies matter more than likability. That’s horrible news for Obama. Once you get away from likability, Obama’s in deep trouble. Even the The Hill, whose polls do lean left, found that 47% of voters share Romney’s values compared to 44% for Obama, 48% view Romney as the stronger leader compared to 44% for Obama, and 46%-44% view Romney as more trustworthy.

Interestingly, The Hill uses these numbers to conclude that Obama’s attacks on Romney “as a heartless corporate raider responsible for layoffs, outsourcing and tax secrecy” have “largely failed to change the narrative in the race.” Yep. So it sounds like all those conservative blogs that were pounding the table that Romney wasn’t responding correctly have been proven wrong. Imagine that.

● Senate Math. With 98 days to go until we can upgrade from the Moron to the Mormon, there is another aspect of the election we should consider: the Senate. The Republicans need to win the Senate to get their policies in place. Romney can make some changes through agency rules and the such, but any sort of significant policy changes just won’t be possible. So what are the odds the Republicans will win the Senate? Not as high as you would think.

The Republicans need to gain four seats to control the Senate, three if Romney wins. There are 33 Senate seats up for reelection this time. The Democrats are defending 22 of those. And of the eight seats considered most endangered, the Democrats hold six of those. Should be simple, right?

Well, not quite. Right now, it looks like the Republicans will pick up North Dakota, Nebraska and Missouri for sure. However, they may lose Maine and Massachusetts. In the key swing states of Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio, the Republicans have compelling candidates, but they still trail. Everything I know about Virginia tells me the Republicans will win that, but the polls don’t reflect that yet either. So based on this, we would be looking at anywhere from -2 to +7 seats, with a more likely result between +1 to +5.

That said, in the last several elections, the undecided seats have tended to sweep to one party, and that’s the party with the momentum. That would be the Republicans. Moreover, Obama’s lack of coattails and excitement will hurt the Democrats in each of these states except maybe Ohio, where blacks are likely to turn out in huge numbers. I personally think the Republicans will gain five seats, but we won’t know until we get a lot closer. This will be much closer than it should have been.

● Here Come The Excuses. Finally, the Democrats are starting to build up excuses for the loss they are expecting. The most used excuse is likely to be Voter ID laws. These laws were passed in six swing states, including Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as several other less competitive states, and the left is claiming that these laws are aimed at blacks and the young, who apparently are incapable of getting state identification cards for some reason. They have even attached a number to this issue to make it sound scientific: 5,000,000!! Said Politico:

At least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.

Yeah, ok. It’s no coincidence that the enthusiasm of both of these groups is down right now, probably in about the exact amount the left claims will be affected by these Voter ID laws. Not to mention that if these groups wanted to foil us in our dastardly plan, they could actually go get a valid license and register to vote. Imagine that. But that wouldn’t give the Democrats an excuse, would it?

No doubt, more excuses will be forthcoming soon. Want to help them with some suggestions?

P.S. Don't forget, it WAS Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Killing ObamaCare From the Inside

Sometimes, evil can’t be killed. It can just be buried somewhere until the next generation of teenagers stumbles across it. Some suggest that’s the case with ObamaCare. Frankly, I see no reason why it can’t be killed with reconciliation, but let’s assume arguendo that the Republicans somehow don’t capture the Senate or can’t get it through reconciliation. Is there another way to drive a stake through this unearthly terror? Actually, yes.

There are four or five ideas being battered around right now on how to kill ObamaCare without a full repeal. I think a couple of these are excellent temporary measures, but a couple others would be disastrous. Here are my thoughts.

● Method One: Starve It. Most federal laws require funding to function. Without funding, they cannot hand out cash, award contracts or even assign government workers to perform tasks. In some instances, this won’t matter because the law is enforced by private individuals who can bring suit to make it happen or, in the case of criminal law, it can be used by DOJ without specific funding. But ObamacCare isn’t that kind of law.

ObamaCare requires the creation of federal exchanges, requires enforcement officials, workers to process paperwork, inspectors, etc. It requires the payment of money to insurance companies and states, funding for the creation of demonstration projects, etc. It even requires money for IRS agents to be able to pursue the penalties. Without money, none of that can happen.

Usually, when laws like ObamaCare get passed, the Congress appropriates (assigns) money in advance to make the law happen. Those appropriations then become line items in the federal budget and take on a life of their own because they become part of each subsequent budget unless they are specifically voted down.

But in this case, the Democrats got careless (or more accurately tried to hide the price) and didn’t appropriate any money. To make up for this, Obama has been funding the law from an HHS slush fund meant to pay for the Federal government’s general health care expenses. Romney can stop this on day one and effectively kill the implementation of the bill. And unless the Congress decides to force funding on Romney, the bill will be dead until Romney is out of the White House.

This could kill about 90% of the bill for up to 8 years.

● Method Two: Ignore It. An offshoot of the first method would be that Romney could simply tell his agencies not to enforce the law. Thus, the IRS would not collect the tax, HHS and Medicare would do nothing to implement the law, etc. Obama has done this with laws he doesn’t like, like many related to immigration.

The problem with this approach is that once money is obligated by Congress for a specific purpose, the President must do that. Until Nixon, Presidents often impounded such money rather than spend it, but a weakened Nixon administration gave up this power. So while Romney could ignore the law for a little, the courts would eventually force him to act. Although, that could take a couple years.

This could kill about 90% of the bill for up to two/three years.

● Method Three: A World Without Rules. To implement a law, the Executive Branch issues rules which tell everyone how the government will enforce the laws. In most cases, these rules are written by the agencies on behalf of the White House -- though a few are handled independently. A new President has the power to re-write any regulations which prior Presidents have issued. Thus, in theory, Romney can wipe out or re-write all the rules related to ObamaCare to neuter it.

But there’s a catch with this method: wiping out rules isn’t as easy as it sounds. For one thing, once rules are promulgated, the agency must go through the whole rulemaking process to change them. That means the rules must be issued in proposed form, the public must be allowed to comment, the rules must be issued in final form, and then dozens of lawsuits will be filed before the rules go into effect. Until that point, Obama’s rules would still apply. This wouldn’t apply to any rules Obama hasn’t finalized yet, but it would apply to all the rules he has finalized. Thus, most of his rules could stay in effect for two to three years.

The other problem is the legal review. As unbelievable as it sounds after Obama’s term, the Executive is required to enforce the laws as reasonably written. So it would be nearly impossible for Romney to just change the rule to “just kidding.” He could cleverly sabotage much of it, but not all of it. Also, the next administration could simply redo his rules.

This could eventually wipe out most of the law, but it would take time and it would only last until the next administration changed the rules.

● Method Four: Misimplementation. Because the law was written with the idea that Democratic administrations would handle all the dirty details away from the sight of the voters, the law gives HHS a lot of discretion in terms of how to implement the law. Romney could exploit this by certifying that people, businesses and states are in compliance when they aren’t really. This could defang the law.

Personally, however, I don’t like this option at all. This wouldn’t wipe out any of the law and it runs the risk of turning into cronyism. It also wouldn’t stop liberal states from taking advantage of the law to demand massive federal subsidies.

That leads me to another method of misimplementation. When the Democrats drafted ObamaCare, they made an interesting mistake. The way the law is written, it doesn’t allow the Federal government to give subsidies for buying insurance except through state insurance exchanges. Thus, if states refuse to set those up, the federal government can set up alternate exchanges but it can’t provide subsidies.

Some conservatives are saying this would be a good move. I completely disagree. This does nothing to kill the bill. It also allows the establishment of federal control, which can become rather oppressive, especially if the Democrats manage to sneak funding into a bill somehow. In effect, this would be like letting a robber hold a gun to your head just because you think it’s not currently loaded. Moreover, this would allow liberal states to implement the law and get subsidies from taxpayers all across the country, while people living in conservative states would not get the subsidies. In effect, conservatives states would be subsidizing big rich liberal states, and the bill would appear much cheaper. This is a bad solution.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Sunday Go To Meeting Post

This is the day which the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice, and be glad in it. Be thankful today that at least one Congressman is not afraid to say that our public education system is a failure, that almost all American kids are left behind, and that the best way to revivify the schools is to model them after religious schools.


The Congressman is not bothered by the constant drumbeat of separation of church and state. He just wants kids to get a disciplined, intelligent education.

You probably haven't read about this in the mainstream press, and your first thought is likely to be that the anti-Christian, anti-Jewish forces of militant secularism are at it again. Well, not quite. The reason you probably haven't heard about it is that the religious schooling that the Congressman is talking about is Islam, and the model schools are madrassas. Rep. Andre Carson (D-Indiana) said in a recent speech: “America will never tap into educational innovation and ingenuity without looking at the model that we have in our madrassas, in our schools, where innovation is encouraged and where the foundation is the Koran.”

In order to criticize the Congressman for his desire to mix mosque and state, the mainstream media would have to quote him and identify the specific religion he is espousing. That won't do. Islam (the “religion of peace”) is the only religion whose real tenets are off-limits to the mainstream. This, by the way, is the same Congressman who said that the Tea Party would love “to see black Americans hanging on a tree.”

II Timothy 2:15 says “study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (citation corrected, thanks to tryanmax)” But poor old Tim was a Christian, so we can't use him or the thousands of Catholic and other parochial schools as the examples. The Bible must be kept out of the schools, but maybe the Koran is all right. After all, according to Carson, Islamic madrassas use all the modern teaching techniques encouraged by the Koran. “We need an educational model that is current, that meets the need of our students. America must understand that she needs Muslims.”

Would that be the madrassas that don't allow females in at all, or just the ones that segregate them and teach them how to be obedient wives as young as possible? Is that the Koran which is utterly meaningless without the hadiths which explain what the garbled words actually mean? Would that be the innovative educational practices which still cling to Ptolemaic astronomical theory (the universe revolves around the earth)? Or perhaps it's the cutting-edge science that says that substances are formed by the will of Allah, not by Jewish chemical principles.

Still, you must admit that the madrassas are heavy on moral principle. You could search all day to find a Catholic or other church school teaching that heaven awaits with sexual and earth-like rewards if only you have the fortitude and education to strap on explosives and blow yourself up in a crowd of other (preferably non-Islamic) people.

For once, I have to agree with the Congressman that religious schools are better-organized and better-staffed than our current public schools. But then, a gathering of prairie dogs is more coherent and educational than most of our present public schools. I simply don't agree with him that we should jump out of the frying pan and into the fire by replacing non-educational public schools with non-educational Islamic schools. There are plenty of solid non-Islamic religious schools to draw inspiration from, and the teaching methods work with or without the religious instruction.

With Islamic chemistry, Islamic physics and Islamic math, there is no division between the religious and the empirical. Islam the political/social/educational cannot be separated from Islam the religious. Secular indoctrination in the public schools and religious indoctrination in the madrassas are just two sides of the same coin.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Double-Header in D.C.

My original intention for today was to write an exciting post about the use of dactylic hexameter in Homer's Iliad. But as hot as that topic is, I'm afraid I'm going to have to bend to the popular will on today's twofer. First, we have the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. Second, the Holder contempt vote in the House. Note: 12:47 Eastern Time--One down, one to go. I'm currently hiding under my bed.

By the time this posts, we should have the results of both the Obamacare case and the Holder contempt vote, though there is the possibility of a further delay in the Holder matter if there is a last-minute agreement (unlikely).

Consider this a combination comment, rant, scream of triumph, open thread to discuss the two events. It is likely many of you will already have commented on the morning post, but feel free to repeat, expand, or revise. The results of these two conflagrations will have no simple, single outcome. Now that the excitement of the morning has passed, I'd like to hear everybody's views on what the decisions mean, where we go from here, and how the politicians, particularly the Republican candidates, will or should react.

Regardless of how either of the two watershed matters comes out, there will be repercussions and a lot of finger-pointing in D.C. Let's hear your predictions (and I promise I'll put my two cents in as well). It will be fun to keep track of the comments to see how they actually play out in the political arena in November.

Enjoy!
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Same Crap. Different Package.

You will be seeing two important government figures swearing by all that's holy that they will provide all the documents and reveal all the information required "very soon." Both have been asked to explain why they have been secretly performing nefarious acts while denying them publicly despite all the apparent evidence.

The headline picture is US Attorney General Eric Holder. The picture accompanying this paragraph is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both Holder and Ahmadinejad have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and both have responded with denials, lies, obfuscation, and convenient compliance. But their most useful tool is delay. The script goes as follows: Look wounded when confronted with your failure to do what you were asked, and promise to do better next time.

Ahmadinejad has been lying about Iran's nuclear weapons development program for years. He has claimed that all Iranian nuclear development is strictly for peaceful purposes of producing energy. Though the country sits on an ocean of easily-extracted oil, good ol' Mahmoud says Iran needs nuclear energy so their people can have light and HBO (and a few missile silos). Occasionally, the timid international authorities produce evidence that disproves what he is saying. Then, Ahmadinejad quickly appears, makes a statement about how wrong those authorities are, and promises to produce documentation to prove it. This "cooperation" always occurs about the time authorities threaten to tighten the noose around his neck.

Attorney General Holder has exhibited the same behavior pattern. His indignation when accused of selective prosecution is a performance worthy of Sir Laurence Olivier. He denies racism in his dismissal of voter intimidation cases against the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia. He denies political cronyism when discussing the details of the Solyndra failure. He looks terribly wounded when someone accuses him of fake civil rights activity when denying states their right to purge their voter rolls and require photo ID for voting.

But he does come up with sufficient documentation and phony excuses to keep moving the questioning and investigation down the road. Now, the noose has been tightened in Congress in regard to Holder's knowledge of and participation in the organization of Operation Fast and Furious. This is especially noticeable in the hearings being conducted by Republican Darrell Issa of California in the House.

Holder has been adamant that he has provided all the information requested of his department by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He has also been absolutely stalwart in his contention that he has told the truth from the beginning. He claims he knew nothing about Mexican criminal cartel gunwalking until Congress discovered the deaths resulting from the disastrous operation, including the ambush murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by cartel members using guns purchased during the operation.

Frustrated by the minuscule information provided to his committee by Holder's office and angered by Holder's denial of clear facts produced right in front of him, Issa finally told Holder last week that he would produce the documentation and testify truthfully by this coming Wednesday or face a contempt of Congress citation. This is the first time contempt has been specifically threatened, though it has been bandied about for months.

Like Ahmadinejad, Holder steadfastly denies his involvement in the nefarious activities. In fact, he continues to deny that his department was involved in any significant Fast and Furious activity whatsoever. At least that was what he did at the conclusion of the hearing. Then, like Ahmadinejad he snuck back to his office, and fired off a memo to Rep. Issa. He promised to produce more records and information regarding the operation, claiming that his epiphany came only after the Committee stated categorically that requested information would exclude sensitive law enforcement information.

Rather than admit the noose was tightening and that his political position was in some immediate danger, Holder requested a Monday meeting with Rep. Issa while calling his offer "an extraordinary accommodation of the committee's interest." To trash a song from The Music Man, "Cheat a little, talk a little, cheat a little, talk a little, cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat a lot, cheat a little more." The stall is on, once again. First Holder presents himself as the wounded victim just trying to help, then promises to produce some more useless and irrelevant (and frequently 90% redacted) documentation, then humbly requests a meeting between gentlemen to avoid any further unnecessary acrimony.

It's hard not to think that Holder believes he can stall any further damaging revelations until after the November elections. But now that the corresponding Senate committee is making some of the same sounds, and some Democrats are just now beginning to express doubt about Holder's veracity publicly, the tactic may not work much longer. Rep. Issa doesn't seem the least bit fooled by Holder's snake-charmer eyes, and has already announced that promises will no longer be sufficient. It's a true showdown, with Issa playing the lonely sheriff and Holder the proficient gunslinger.

This coming Wednesday could be the big gunfight, unless something truly significant emerges from Holder's secret vaults. But on Saturday, Rep. Issa said he will consider postponing the contempt hearing if the information provided by Holder is truthful and truly responsive. Holder wins the round, but he hasn't yet won the fight. What's your guess as to how this is going to be resolved?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Broke? But I Still Have Checks!

When you break into your piggy bank and find it empty, perhaps you should consider that you need a budget. But last week, White House mouthpiece Jay Carney was asked about whether the Senate should pass a budget for the President’s approval or veto. Interestingly enough, Carney’s reply was that the White House has no opinion on the matter.

For a White House that has opinions on what you should eat, where you should shop, and what kind of natural resources you should be using, it seems odd it has no opinion on how your tax money should be spent.

Carney was merely repeating what he had already heard from the Senate itself. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) had earlier said that the Senate had no need to bring a budget to the Senate floor this year. After all, we’ve already gone over a thousand days without one. What’s the big deal about waiting a few months or years longer?

Lurking beneath what Carney and Reid are saying is the simple fact that Democrats don’t understand debt, deficits and economics. It also points out their reliance on quick fixes and government tinkering. Said Carney: “What the president believes is important is that the Budget Control Act that was signed into law by him last year provides the top line spending caps for the coming budget, and he will obviously meet those in the budget proposal he puts forward.”

My first question for Mr. Carney is “exactly when is the president going to put forward those proposals?” Trotting out a list of “vitally important governmental actions” (like Solyndra?) is not a budget proposal. It’s more like a setup for busting those budget caps that Carney just said he will “obviously” not bust. The second question is self-evident: “How can you have budget controls without a budget?”

At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, another issue that is dear to the hearts of conservatives and business investors was raised. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke how harmful the lack of a budget is to economic growth. Bernanke talked about something that his employer never mentions—stability and predictability. Said Bernanke: “Uncertainty about the future of the tax code and government programs has a negative effect on growth. I think it is, because firms like to have certainty—you know like to be able to plan. And again I would take on the same responsibility as the regulator, that we need to make regulations as clear and effective as possible.”

He didn’t exactly say “pass a goddam budget,” but he alluded to it. When asked about Bernanke’s testimony, Carney gave a snarky answer: “The White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do its business.” The White House seems to have no opinion on how anybody ought to do business unless it benefits their pals or gets in the way of the administration’s social engineering. In those cases, it has opinions galore. But it still doesn’t have the opinion that if you spend more than you take in, you’re broke.

Since the White House has no opinion on Bernanke’s assessment, or on what Congress is doing for that matter, let’s go straight to the horses’ uh, mouths. Sen. Reid says “we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done, we don’t need to do any more.” Over in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) says: “The fact is, you do have a budget. We can adopt appropriations bills [and you can bet they will]. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.”

See? If you just make it up as you go along, you don’t need a budget. If you spend trillions more than you take in, well, oops. To the question “who’s in charge here?” the answer is “nobody.”

Since this article was written, the President has proposed a budget. It contains lots of spending, lots of new and improved taxes, and lots of increased deficits. Like the White House earlier, I have no opinion on how Congress, business, and the Fed should react to the proposals.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Three Great Lies

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.” “The check is in the mail.” “The President really looks forward to working with Congress.” The third of the three great lies was mouthed by Jay Carney, President Obama’s press secretary and full-time sockpuppet. It's hard to see how The One plans to work with Congress since his executive/bureaucratic administration has largely ignored Congress (or at least about half of Congress).

Carney spoke the words at the weekly press conference, the day after Obama made four highly-questionable recess appointments—three to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the newly-created Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Board. Those appointments may or may not be valid, but they are clearly an exercise in derogation of Congressional privilege.

After saying “the fact is, the President firmly believes he has the constitutional authority to do so,” Carney offered a diametrically opposite theory of why the President proceeded with the appointments. “It’s not about whether Congress is in session. What it’s really about is the absolute urgency to install Richard Cordray as our consumer watchdog so that he can get to work today protecting the middle class.” This isn’t only about Republicans. The Senate that soundly rejected Cordray (and one of the three NLRB appointees) is still controlled by Democrats.

Well, in this instance, it is all about whether the Senate is in session. The President “firmly believes” a lot of things which are completely wrong—historically, constitutionally, legally, economically, factually, and politically. But in this case, Carney should have stuck to defense number one. There are respected authorities who argue that Congress is not in session, and the appointments are valid. I’m not one of them, but the problem here is that Carney has announced the President’s desire “to work with Congress” while at the same time challenging Congress on its own rules. That doesn’t sound like cooperation to me. Forget the anger and acrimony over the appointments for a moment, and consider how much Obama has any intention of cooperating.

For Obama, “working with” is a synonym for “taking potshots at.” As of this writing, only one Democratic Senator has formally announced that he believes the appointments are valid and that the Senate is in recess. All other Democrats who talked about the issue at all merely praised the appointments and scrupulously avoided discussing the issue of the Senate being in pro forma session. Senate Republicans had sent a formal letter to the President in December, signed by forty-seven of the Senators, requesting that the appointments not be made during a recess. Obama ignored them, and as a result the Senate did not consent to a recess, and the House went on vacation without the required consent of the Senate (Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution).

But to make sure, the Senate avoided the three-day (or five-day) recess rule (depending on which expert you listen to) by staying in pro forma session. In his last exhibition of cooperation prior to his announcement of further cooperation (yeah, I know), the President spat in the face of the Senate. Right or wrong, the majority or near-majority of Senators believed that the pro forma session was sufficient to fend off recess appointments. Even if the President was right, which may have to be determined by the Supreme Court, the appointment of four highly-partisan and generally unpopular bureaucrats is anything but a demonstration of cooperation with Congress.

All tyrants and wannabe tyrants are in a hurry because they believe that they alone know what’s best for their nations, and waiting for any other branch of government to act is simply not acceptable. Some, like Hitler, simply declared the basic law null and void and ruled by fiat. Others, like Middle East potentates and clerics either write the basic law to suit themselves, or exercise a stranglehold on the legislatures which are charged with writing the nation’s laws. Obama hasn’t reached that point, but he’s on the path.

This President has chosen a course that is questionably constitutional, bootstrapping on the incremental power-grabs known as executive orders and recess appointments. He is not the first, but an alarming number of his executive orders seem to be aimed directly at seizing power from Congress. If Obama succeeds with these four appointments, he will have added a new chapter to executive power by establishing that Congress is not the branch which exercises power over its own rules and procedures.

Previous Presidents have acted by executive order, as well as weakening Congressional legislation with “signing statements.” Previous Presidents have made recess appointments. Then-Senator Obama somehow has changed his views on the subject since becoming President because he had opposed George W. Bush’s recess appointment of John Bolton as UN ambassador on the ground that presidents shouldn’t recess-appoint “unpopular” people whom the Senate had already rejected.

So back to the original theme. Big battles inside and between the various branches of government are not unusual and can be annoying or uplifting, depending on the subject matter of the quarrel. Even power-grabs can be politically-expedient if the president chooses to defy Congress by ignoring its own self-imposed rules. But don’t call it cooperation. Man up. Tell the truth. Don’t hide behind your questionable interpretation of the Constitution. If Obama truly “looks forward to working with Congress, these odd recess appointments are a strange way of showing it.

"Congress should do this, right away" is quickly becoming "Congress will do this right away, or else."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Discussion: Regulations and Rules for Unruly Representatives

Congress has once again proved that they just cannot be trusted. It seems that our esteemed elected officials have been making a killing in the stock market! At the same time many members of Congress have been railing against the Evil Wall Street Robber Barons and "Banksters", they have used pending legislation and lobbyist insider information to make a killing on Wall Street. If only they used pending legislation to balance the budget or help create a healthy climate for job growth. It is getting tiresome to know that what would land private citizens hefty fines and jail time, leads only to rebukes and hand slaps for our elected officials by our elected officials.

When did our government officials stop living by the same laws, regulations, and rules that they foist on us? Probably since the beginning of time, but now is the time to stop. We, the People of Commentarama need a manifesto of regulations and rules for our unruly representatives that we must insist that they follow like the rest of us. So put your thinking caps on.

Discussion: What laws, regulation, and/or rules do our Government officials egregiously flout at the same time they insist that We The People must follow or face the full force of the law? [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Government Reform. . . The Fantasy Version

Let’s do a bit of fantasy government reform. These are reforms I’d like to see, even if there’s no chance they will happen. The problem as I see it, is that the Founding Fathers were very good at establishing a government that uses checks and balances to control the misbehavior of the branches, but they couldn't stop individual misbehavior. Here is what 200 years of experience tells me we need to do:

1. The Fiscal Discipline Incentive: Right now, Congress can bribe voters with no real consequence. Hence our budget problems. Let’s re-align that incentive with something Warren Buffet apparently suggested: any time there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress and the Senate are ineligible for re-election.

This one would require a Constitutional Amendment to be implemented, but the effect would be dramatic as the things that Congress does now to buy votes would actually cost them their jobs. What’s more it gives Congress a powerful incentive to make the economy grow.

2. Banning Influence Peddling: Coincidentally, to keep them from profiting when they get tossed out, we need a lifetime ban from lobbying for any Congressman who serves more than two terms and any Senator who serves more than one full term. And Congressional pensions can’t begin until 15 years of service.

3. Pro-Growth Balanced Budget: We need a balanced budget amendment with spending capped at 15% of the prior year’s GNP. This would keep the government in check at an historically average size and would give Congress an incentive to put in place a pro-growth agenda. Using last year’s GNP prevents cheating.

4. Tax Discouragement: Raising taxes should require a 60% vote in both the House and Senate.

5. No Tax-Free Lunch: All lobbying gifts are now income to the Congress members/Senators and are personally taxable. . . every lunch, free flight or box of chocolates.

6. Separating The Fourth Estate: No Congress member or Senator may be married to any member of the media or any employee of any media company.

7. No Direct Self-Interest: Government employees may not vote in federal elections.

8. Tim Pawlenty’s Google Test: The government must privatize all services that are available in the private sector, i.e. can be found being offered to the public on Google. The government should be reformed so that only two types of people work for the government: (1) those administering private contracts and (2) government inspectors/law enforcement. Also, government pay should be set at the Dept. of Labor average for that job category in the region plus 10%.

9. Primary Improvement Act: Our primary system is skewed by the early primaries. We need to replace it with a rotating regional primary system, breaking the country into five or six regions and rotating the voting order each election. This will eliminate the overweight importance of early states while still making candidates address regional and state concerns.

10. The You First Act: Every law Congress passes must apply to Congress and all staffers.

Thoughts? What would you add?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

With Friends Like This . . . .

That's jolly old Hugo Chavez addressing the United Nations concerning the world's greatest enemy--the United States. He was merely one in a long string of dictators and America-haters who have addressed the organization that takes up space on American soil and sucks up American dollars like a giant Hoover vacuum.

Now, a Republican has proposed an amendment to an appropriations bill that would cut off funding to UN members who oppose America. Even though I am not Catholic, I will be praying to St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes, that something like this could actually happen. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-South Carolina) inserted an amendment into the House Foreign Affairs Committee markup session which would prohibit any foreign assistance to UN members who oppose the United States position more than fifty percent of the time.

The fact that the amendment is highly unlikely to pass, and that it would be difficult to implement does not deter me from thinking it would be one helluva great idea. To start with, a requirement to track how the member nations vote is already an official State Department function. The tracking includes how each nation votes in the General Assembly and the Security Council. The amendment would require that foreign assistance be cut off from nations voting against the United States position more than fifty percent of the time as determined by the State Department reports, with a waiver available if the President makes a formal determination that invoking the waiver is "important to the national interests of the United States." OK, I know that's a serious flaw, but Obama won't be President forever.

The amendment was passed on a straight party-line vote of the Republican-controlled subcommittee 22 to 18, and by the full committee by a 23 to 20 vote. It has an excellent chance of passage in the full House. But we can all make a pretty intelligent guess as to what will happen when it reaches the Senate and the cold hands of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada). Still, this is an excellent opportunity to call attention to profligate spending on the UN in a nation awash in debt. Said Rep. Duncan: "We're $14.3 trillion n debt. Why should we pay countries to hate us when they've shown they're willing to do it for free?" I don't have a good answer to that question.

Already in the crosshairs of the amendment are terrorist-supporters Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Pakistan. In addition, those nations which promote abortions as state policy would be included (it's the "Mexico City policy" abandoned by the Obama administration). I'd include China on that list, except that any funding we give them we borrowed from them in the first place. There is also a non-waivable provision that would cut off funding to any nation that opposes moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Whether the Organization of American States could be included is iffy, since it is an affiliate rather than a formal member of the General Assembly.

On straight "yes" or "no" votes in 2010, only twenty-seven percent of UN members (53 out of 191) voted with the United States more than fifty percent of the time. Given that the Obama administration is in-sync with many UN initiatives, the percentage of nations voting with us is much higher than it was in 2008 when the Bush administration opposed every single initiative coming out the the UN Human Rights Commission. With recent Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment, Obama administration concurrence with gun-grab UN initiatives will likely be good for funding our enemies, but unlikely to reach full treaty status in the Senate.

Of the 53 nations which voted with the United States more than 50% of the time, not a single one is in Central or South America. There is only one in the African region (the Seychelles), and in Asia there are only Japan, South Korea, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau. The few remaining nations are either NATO members or newly-emerged former Soviet governments in Eastern Europe.

It's probably not necessary to mention that of those nations which support the United States, our strongest major supporter is Israel at 91.8%, exceeded only by the minuscule Palau at 96.5% and Micronesia at 94%. Of those nations which receive immense American foreign aid, the number who oppose the United States is an appalling comment on American foolish generosity. Pakistan voted with the United States a mere 21.3% of the time. Pakistan is followed by Egypt at 31.4%, Kenya at 31.7%, Ethiopia at 32.8%, Nigeria at 33.9%, Jordan and South Africa at 33.8%, Afghanistan at 34.3%, and finally the great exporter of humans and guns to the United States, Mexico at 37.5%.

A separate list is also kept on those issues considered to be of primary importance to the United States. Those are the ones for which the President would have to issue waivers. Among these are the Cuban embargo, human rights violations in North Korea and Iran, the death penalty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Durban racism process, nuclear missile proliferation and disarmament, and the Muslim-proposed initiatives on "religious defamation."

Of the top American aid recipients, only Israel, Mexico and Kenya voted with the United States in 2010 more than fifty percent of the time on those "priority" issues. Of the remaining top recipients, Afghanistan was at 46.2%, Ethiopia at 44.4%, Nigeria and Jordan at 40%, South Africa at 30%, Egypt at 25%, and Taliban-Al Qaeda-hiding Pakistan at 22.2%.

A fool and his money are soon parted. We have been fools for far too long. If the proposed amendment only shakes up a few of the executive fools and calls attention to the monstrous and dangerous waste of American taxpayer dollars in hard times, it will have been worth it. The only remaining question is how much of this debate will the mainstream media even mention?

Addendum: The Youth Initiative of the United Nations Population Fund just voted to make children's sexual rights a priority to be brought before the General Council. The group defines "youth" as people between the ages of 10 and 24. Here's their goal: “In order to fully recognise young people’s sexual and reproductive rights, especially the right to choose [abortion], we must achieve universal access to safe and youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health care services, including access to evidence-based comprehensive sexuality education, in formal and non-formal settings." It should be interesting to see how that plays out in our scenario, and where the Obama administration will put its vote.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Dancing On The (Debt) Ceiling

I MAY owe Mitch McConnell an apology. I’m not sure yet. I’ve been looking into this whole debt ceiling thing and I’m actually starting to see the cleverness in his plan, especially compared to the alternatives. Wanna talk about the debt ceiling? You know you do. Don’t worry, I’ll make this as painless as possible.

Ok, here are some basics.

1. The debt ceiling was first put in place by statute in 1939 by the Public Debt Act, which set the maximum amount the government could borrow. This number has been raised many times and currently stands at $14.294 trillion. . . roughly 4 trillion Big Macs.

2. The government will break through this ceiling on August 2 like a clown bursting out of a cake. . . hmmm, cake.

3. Everyone has a plan for dealing with this.

● the Do Nothing Plan: Do nothing. Kind of self-explanatory. Of course, this means that 80 million people won’t be getting their checks, and our cost of borrowing will go up, and a bunch of investment stuff with explode like a Congressman in a microwave.

● the Dumb~ss Plan: S&P and Moodys want Congress to eliminate the debt ceiling, which would be like parking your armored car at a thieves convention.

● the Double Dumb~ss Plan: Bill Clinton thinks Obama should just declare himself king and say that he has the power to raise the debt ceiling. Clinton also thinks yer kinda sexy.

● The Tom Coburn Plan: Tom Coburn is ready to do some serious cutting. He proposes $9 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. This would include a trillion from the Pentagon budget, modernizing military health care, significant reforms of Social Security and Medicare, and the elimination of “corporate welfare” through the elimination of subsidies (e.g. ethanol and targeted tax credits) and many deductions. Grover Norquist (which I swear is the name of a Muppet) says: “it is now clear Sen. Coburn’s plan all along was a trillion dollar tax hike. . . [I have you now Coburn, there's no escaping the Grovernator]!”

● The Gang of Six: This group of reprobates are proposing a $3.4 trillion plan that isn't a real plan. It goes a little something like this.

(1) Find $500 billion in cuts now, mainly by reducing the cost of living increase for Social Security. Impose spending caps until 2015, freeze congressional pay and sell unused federal property. . . like Hawaii.

(2) Within 6 months come up with a plan to find more cuts.

They also suggest guidelines like simplifying the tax code by making three brackets (8-12%, 14-22%, 23-29%), setting the corporate tax at 23-29%, and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (which sucks when it hits you. . . “what do you mean my deductions don’t count?! Alternative what?! Did I step into an alternative reality? If that’s true, then where’s my beard Mr. IRS ‘you owe us’ letter?! Where's my beard?!”).

Beyond that, this is just a plan to work on things... kind of like the Underwear Gnomes on South Park.

● the Tea Party Plan: The House just passed a really cool bill (Cut, Cap and Balance Bill) that does a lot of cutting ($5.8 trillion), would require a balanced budget amendment, and doesn’t raise taxes and it’s really cool and I like it a lot and stuff. . . but it’s D.O.A. at the Senate. Move along, nothing to see here.

● the McConnell Plan: Finally, we come to the McConnell Plan.

When I first heard the McConnell Plan, it sounded downright stooopid. As filtered by the press, McConnell was proposing to give Obama the power to raise the debt ceiling. If Congress wanted to stop him, they would need to pass a law stopping him. Since he could veto it, that meant Congress needed 2/3 support to stop him. . . and that ain't gonna happen.

The purpose of this plan seemed to be to let Obama get his debt ceiling increase, while claiming the Republicans tried to stop him, without actually stopping him. I was not pleased. And seeing Nancy Pelosi clapping her hands over this like one of those monkey toys with the symbols made me even more suspicious. If Pelosi likes it, it can’t be good.

Then I heard more details of exactly what McConnell is proposing. Apparently, to raise the debt ceiling, Obama also would need to recommend $1 of spending cuts for every dollar he wants to raise the debt ceiling. Now that is a horse of a different shade of green. That would mean for Obama to get a $1 trillion extension to the national credit line, he would need to propose $1 trillion in cuts. Wow! Me likely!

Not only would this mean Obama would be the one responsible for raising the debt limit (as he could avoid it by offering cuts instead), but he would also be forced to make cuts. Cuts which his peeps will absolutely hate! What’s more, the Republicans can vote against those cuts (claiming they would have made different cuts) because Obama has more than enough Democrats to let his veto survive!

Now, there are some caveats here. First, I think the Republicans need to send a series of budget cuts to him and have him veto those first -- as a showing to the public that they tried to get cuts. Secondly, they need to be very careful in how they write this. It better not include any chance of him raising taxes or this will go over like a lead balloon with the public (although... it might be a good way to let him do some of the dirty work of tax simplification to keep the Grover Norquists off Republican backs).

At this point, we don’t know exactly what the deal entails, but this may actually be a smart plan. Hence Obama and the monkey with the clap (Pelosi) are now rooting for the gang of six proposal instead (Reid doesn’t like it).

Stay tuned.

There... that wasn’t so bad was it? If you have any complaints, please leave them below.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Dueling Immigration Laws

Congressman Lou Barletta (R-PA) is going before the House with a bill which would eliminate federal handouts to cities which refuse to enforce immigration law. Sanctuary cities are awash with illegal immigrants and illegal immigrant crime. I've mentioned this before in posts about Sanctuary City Numero Uno--San Francisco.

It has gotten so bad that the liberals are at war with the radicals over enforcing cooperation with the feds over this issue. The radical left San Francisco Board of Supervisors re-wrote city ordinances so that only illegals convicted of violent felonies would be reported to the federal authorities. The previous rule had been that illegal immigrants, including minors, were reported to the feds upon arrest for any felony or misdemeanor. Liberal former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, unable to get enough votes to override a veto, simply ordered the police department to continue to report the miscreants to the feds and ignore the Board. It's an ongoing battle between the mayor's office and the Supes.

Barletta's proposed legislation (dubbed the "Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act," or "MASCA") would clamp down on the cities that gladly take federal funds but refuse to follow federal rules regarding reporting illegal immigrants. Barletta's move came in the wake of the Republican takeover of the House, the failure of the DREAM Act, and the inability of the Democrats and Republicans to agree on some sort of "comprehensive immigration reform" (aka "amnesty").

Barletta first came to the attention of political junkies when, as mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania he cracked down on illegal immigrants. Now he has announced that he is forming the Congress Immigration Reform Caucus, dedicated to striking a major blow to the ease with which illegal immigrants can hide out. He has already recruited several new Republican young turks to join him. Says Barletta: "My intention is to face illegal immigration head on." By cutting off the source of major illegal immigration enabling--federal funds.

Meanwhile, back here in La La Land, California legislators are using loopholes in the federal "must report" program which automatically checks the immigration status of arrestees. In a state which accounts for more than one-third of illegal immigrant deportations, the Democrats fear the loss of one of their major political constituencies and its major source for future (and present) Democratic voters. So they have to find a way to keep their people from being deported in even larger numbers. You see, of the 102,000 illegals deported since the program began in 2008, twenty-nine percent have been arrested for, but not convicted of criminal activity. That doesn't please the radicals-in-residence in city halls located in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Under the program, local police are expected to report illegal immigrant arrestees to the FBI, and the current program added ICE and Homeland Security to the list of agencies to be notified, along with a copy of the arrestee's fingerprints as additional identification. But the enabling Congressional legislation did not directly address "sanctuary cities," leaving them free to make their own decisions about whom to report without the real and immediate threat of having their federal benefactor cut them off. ICE's goal of having nationwide cooperation by 2013 spurred the pro-illegal immigrant California crowd into action.

The proposed California legislation would simply allow cities to opt into or out of the national program. Illinois has pending legislation that would allow this, and Washington State already has such a law in place. This is more insidious than you might think because what it actually accomplishes is the elimination of the highly dubious pariah status of "sanctuary city" (which has no legal standing) by creating a legislated sanctuary city without the need for skirting the law and use of an appellation that has no meaning in American law.

This is a very clever ploy. By giving cities the legal right to opt into or out of the reporting program, the offending states create huge buffer zones where illegals can hide out with semi-legal confidence. Current sanctuary cities will opt out because they want to continue encouraging illegal immigration (and a future Democratic base). But many smaller towns may also opt out solely because they could cut expenditures and manpower in a state where most municipalities are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

This is not the classic states rights versus federal preemption argument. The California legislators get what they want, while at the same time not interfering with federal prerogatives. If a city ops out, it would theoretically lose its federal assistance. But that hasn't happened, ever, under the current system which coddles the amorphous "sanctuary cities." They have been hiding in plain sight, and would now have the imprimatur of the state government.

Currently, federal law does not mandate the termination of federal funds going to cities which harbor illegal immigrants. California would simply be taking advantage of that fact by legitimizing sanctuary cities. Without the mandate to cut off federal funds, Democrats and timid Republicans have simply ignored their ability to starve sanctuary cities. Thinking Congress critters who oppose illegal immigration but fear losing voters should be aware that they will actually gain votes. The voting public wrath in the current sanctuary cities will largely be turned on the local officials who arrogantly flouted the federal law when the "free goodies for everyone" crowd suddenly doesn't have those federal funds to throw around for other, more legitimate efforts. Los mas furiosos illegals would go into tizzy mode, but so far, they haven't been given the vote.

Barletta's MASCA legislation would change the rules of the game, and at the same time defeat California's legitimization of sanctuary cities. Under Barletta's proposed bill, opt-out cities would automatically have their federal funds cut off (all that would remain would be determining how much would be cut off). Whether this bill has any chance of passing, particularly given the Democratic control of the Senate and the White House remains to be seen. Nevertheless, even introducing such a bill would be an heroic move. I wish Barletta all the best.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Milking The Cash Cow Dry

A few days back, we reviewed the REINS bill, designed to rein in the federal administrative agencies and their czars and get control back into the hands of elected, accountable representatives. Now in case you're wondering, that's a stack of money equaling $10.6 million. And what is that? It's the amount of your hard-earned dollars that is spent every single day on "global warming/climate change/climate disruption."

Now I know that $10.6 million sounds like chump change, even when translated into $3.8 billion annually. At least next to our $14 trillion federal deficit. But it establishes the point of just how much Congress allows in merely one example to be frittered away be agencies whose only purpose is self-perpetuation. That money is being spent on "global warming research," not on anything that actually stops it. They're just spending it to prove their untenable position about anthropomorphic weather effects. Cap 'n Tax was supposed to be the solution, but without that crazy scheme, all that's left is to continue useless research.

First, they posit that climate is changing. Oh, you mean the thing that has been changing with or without human beings for 4 billion years? But the 2011 "Advancement of Science" budget item has a chapter 15, which requests even more "study" money based on its previous junk-science research which concludes that "humans are very likely responsible for most of the well-documented increase in global average surface temperatures over the last half century." And for the benefit of the profligate and arrogant EPA, "that further greenhouse gas emissions, particularly of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, will almost certainly contribute to additional widespread climate disruptions."

Now how's that for asking for gobs of money to research what you have already decided is a fact? A spurious fact, of course. There has been no global warming since 1998, so they changed to "climate change." The climate has remained somewhat stable, so to explain an occasional hurricane or tornado, they added "climate disruption." All of it based on debunked junk science, particularly the methodology for measuring ground surface temperatures. And there's always that beautiful hockey stick graph.

And on it goes: "This climate disruption poses considerable risk to society because it can be expected to cause major negative consequences for most nations and to a wide range of species." Talk about boot-strapping. Since they've already done all the studying of climate necessary, and decided that mankind is causing global climate disruption, why do we need to spend millions of dollars a day to research it further? It's like the fifty-year old grad student working on his sixth advanced degree in order to avoid actually having to do something with them.

The few solutions they have proposed answer that question. Solar power and wind power, which are wasteful and ineffective can survive only with big federal subsidies. Lighting your house with the entire roofline covered with solar panels that provide nearly enough power is not the same thing as providing power to major cities with millions of houses. Mo' money, mo' money.

So who are the big winners of federal largess? The National Science Foundation is requesting an additional $1.6 billion, including $766 million for their "Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability" project. That's a 15.9 percent increase over last year. And lest the mission be forgotten, they are asking for $370 million for the US Global Change Research Program. They also want another $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, whatever that is.

Coming in a close second is the US Department of Energy. They want an additional $627 million for renewable energy (is hot air a renewable form of energy?). And joining hands with the EPA, the DOE wants to eliminate $2.7 billion in subsidies for industries that emit "large amounts of carbon dioxide." In order to put it into their own coffers, I assume.

The list of gummint farmers wanting to milk this cash cow goes on and on, including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (the source of the debunked ground temperature increase studies), the Department of the Interior, and, of course, the EPA itself. If you want to know where to start gutting the outrageously bloated budget that produces the unsustainable deficits, this would be as good a place as any. How do you eat a whale? One bite at a time.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Best Proposal You've Probably Never Heard Of

We've all heard the seemingly-endless acronyms Democrats have used to cover up their schemes. The most recent was the DREAM Act, which went down to defeat when Republicans couldn't figure out how to make the letters stand for "nightmare." Well, here's one from the right that you might like--the REINS Act. The letters stand for "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny." It's designed to rein in the massive power-shift from the elected branches to the federal bureaucracy.

Introduced as HR 3765 in the House and S 3826 in the Senate, the bill went nowhere. Our fabulous bipartisan Democrat-controlled Congress wouldn't even vote the bill out for discussion. However, with the takeover of the House and the shaky Democrat majority in the Senate, the bill will undoubtedly be introduced again. The Tea Party supported candidates who knew that the growth of the federal bureaucracy was a serious danger to representative democracy. Conservatives have been criticizing the growth for about seventy years.

The biggest gripe is that more and more extremely important positions are being filled by bureaucrats harboring a highly leftist agenda without having to be confirmed by the Senate. We have more czars today than the Russian Empire had in its entire history. Equally important is the fact that these czars (confirmed or not) are passing regulations without any control from Congress or the White House. The czars have little oversight and zero political accountability. The best recent example is the EPA's highjacking of the Clean Air Act when the left decided Congress was not acting quickly enough nor radically enough. With solid Republican opposition and some Democratic opposition, Congress refused to enable cap 'n tax by declaring CO2 a major cause of global warming (aka globaloney or climate change).

This was a bureaucratic seizure of power without any basis in law or the Constitution. In theory (and previously at law), a bureaucracy could only implement regulations that addressed issues within the act from which the agency gets its authorization. "Global warming" and CO2 were not even on the Clean Air Act radar when passed in 1970 and no amendments to the Act which would even hint at regulation of CO2 have ever been passed, even in the revisions of 1996. But the 1996 revisions did suggest that Congress had the ultimate power to create an expedited process for consideration of joint resolutions to overturn regulations of which Congress disapproves.

Recognizing that even with control of both houses of Congress, "global warming" remedies (carbon-trading schemes) were not going to become the law of the land, the White House gave the green light to the EPA to move on the issue anyway. Constitutional scholars Barack Obama and Eric Holder aren't the least bit concerned that the Constitution is a "living document" on this one. They went straight to considering the Clean Air Act a living document and allowed a bureaucracy to make up rules and regulations on a topic that isn't even covered by the Clean Air Act.

That is what the REINS bill addresses. The Congress since the 1930s and the creation of the Roosevelt "alphabet" agencies has granted broad power to bureaucratic agencies, but have passed concomitant limits on their actions. Sadly, as leviathan grew, the agencies did as well, but the Congressional oversight was honored more in the breach than in the observance. Conservative Republicans have decided to reverse that trend.

The Act would limit new agency regulations to a short life to cover emergencies (at the moment, 90 days seems to be the target), at which point the regulations would have no force or effect without Congressional approval. In other words, unlike previous limitations, the regulations don't continue until Congress nixes them. They last only a limited period of time, then die, unless Congress actively approves them. That would mean that radical measures taken by an agency would not disappear into the woodwork to be cited as precedent later for more radical measures. The Act also purports to limit bureaucratic regulations addressing any issue which is not contained in the enabling legislation (think "global warming" and CO2).

The statist bureaucrats (which include most Democrats, most liberals and all leftists) of course object on the ground that such an Act would limit the agencies and create a difficult hurdle for federal regulations, particularly those which affect health, safety or the environment, and create another opportunity for business interests to block regulatory initiatives. Well--no duh! That's the whole idea. Of course they always throw private business in as the evil Grinch, just because there actually is a record of some rogue corporations defying or ignoring reasonable regulations or blocking attempts by agencies to thwart their naughty ways.

Much like the current attempts to repeal Obamacare, this bill is unlikely to succeed for the present. But also like the repeal attempt, it is not merely symbolic. It is notice to the other side that enough is enough. Midnight arm-twisting and defiance of the people to pass legislation, as well as bureaucratic usurpation of Congressional responsibilities are about to come to an end. Conservatives and moderate/conservative Republicans as well as sensible Independents will learn who stands for unfettered bureaucracy and who stands against. Likewise, if and when the Act actually passes, the people will know where each Congress critter stands because his or her vote for or against a new bureaucratic regulation will be required and become public record.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republicans Play Smart!

Prior to the Giffords shooting, the media was busy trying to discredit House Republicans for their first week in power. They spun stories of a lavish “Republican” fundraiser (though only a handful of Republicans attended), they whined about two Republicans not being properly sworn in (a non-issue at best), and they complained that Republicans didn’t cut $100 billion from the budget on day one. Of course, few people fell for these smears. What's more interesting though is something that's gone almost entirely unnoticed by the media, something that could turn out to be significant.

Years back, the Congress put a limit on the size of the federal debt. But the federal budget is so out of control that the Treasury keeps running into that limit. Consequently, the Congress must repeatedly vote to raise the debt ceiling or face the music as government spending grinds to a halt and the government begins defaulting on its obligations.

One such moment came up prior to the election. But with the Democrats likely to lose the election, they decided to set a trap for the Republicans. By voting only to extend the debt ceiling for a few months worth of spending, the Democrats hoped that one of the first votes the new Republican Congress would need to make would be to raise the debt ceiling. The Democrats hoped this would embarrass the Republicans and alienate them from their Tea Party allies. It seemed like a nice trick.

But like everything else the Democrats do, this one has blown up in their faces. Indeed, rather than just hold their noses and vote to raise the debt ceiling, as the Democrats expected, the Republicans decided to hold out until Obama agrees to budget concessions. Said Speaker John Boehner:

"The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the president and Congress to cut spending and end the job-killing spending binge in Washington. While America cannot default on its debt, we also cannot continue to borrow recklessly, dig ourselves deeper into this hole, and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren."

Even the RINOs are on board. Said Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.):

“This is an opportunity to make sure that the government is changing its spending ways. I will not the vote for the debt ceiling increase until I see a plan in place that will deal with our long-term obligations, starting with Social Security.”

Graham’s demands are similar to those of many Tea Party activists -- raise the retirement age for Social Security, means test benefits, and slash non-security discretionary spending to 2008 levels. The Republican leadership is on board as well, as are most members, though some are opposed to raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.

Obama first tried to castigate the Republicans for “playing chicken” with “catastrophe,” but now indicates he’s willing to reach a deal with the Republicans. Harry Reid too has climbed on board, though many on the left continue to resist. Said Dick Durbin (D-Ill): "Using this doomsday scenario and putting the American economy at risk I don't think is a responsible way to govern." Wah!! What does Durbin know about responsibility?

What makes this such an interesting issue is that the Republicans could well be on the verge of obtaining actual, serious concessions from Obama. Consider that for a moment. When the Republicans won the House but not the Senate, the assumption was that nothing would happen until 2012, when Obama could be replaced and a majority obtained in the Senate. But through the careful application of political pressure, the Republicans may be about to obtain concessions that begin to right our fiscal house and reshape the federal budget toward conservative goals.

Combined with actual cuts ($35 billion in the House budget), Issa’s deviously clever plan to let American business have a hand in slashing regulations, and the seeming easy unity of Tea Party people and RINOs (and even some Democrats), things appear to be off to a pretty good start in Washington. Maybe these really aren’t the same old Republicans?

What do you think?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Let's Read It So We'll Know What's In It

Yes, my friends, I must admit I had a great sense of schadenfreude watching the botoxed face of Nancy Pelosi having to read from the Constitution on the second day of the new Congress. She knew she had to do it, but it must have seemed to her like being required to down an entire bottle of castor oil. There they were. All those Democrats being introduced for the very first time to the foundational document of the greatest Republic in history.

I kept waiting for San Fran Nan to lose it and start shouting "it's alive, it's alive!" Once I realized that wasn't going to happen, I re-ran the moment just to determine if she had her fingers crossed. No luck there either. Just imagine the humiliation. She's lost her throne, her plane, her perks, and much of her influence, and now she's required to read from the very document that guaranteed the people the power to kick her skinny arse out of that seat.

Prior to the bipartisan reading of the document from the well of the House, several liberal Democrats made it clear they were unhappy. Sort of like the early Renaissance Church authorities who wanted the Mass to be heard in Latin only, lest the peasants find out what the priests were really telling the congregations and what the Bible actually says. You can never find an Inquisition when you need one. Lefty Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) was incensed at even the suggestion of a reading of the Constitution. "It's a stunt," he said, "and it [the Constitution, I presume] is irrelevant to the issues we have to face. It's as if the thing was some kind of sacred document."

There were a few legitimate complaints, however. Talking heads kept yammering about "which version" of the Constitution was going to be read. Huh? There's only one version. What they were actually trying to say is "will the Constitution be read straight up?" The answer, sadly, was no. And it gave some demagogic Democrats a legitimate reason to complain, even if for the wrong reasons. In order to avoid having to read the portions of the original Constitution, sans the Bill of Rights and later Amendments, the Republicans went all politically-correct and deleted the portions relating to slavery and slaves as being only three-fifths of a person.

Their excuse was that there was no point in reading portions of the Constitution of 1789 which had subsequently been changed or eliminated as a result of later Amendments. That left the Democrats an opportunity to complain that the agony of black slaves was being ignored by the redacting Republicans. And Jesse Junior Jackson wasted no time tossing that theory into the ring.

Instead of walking on eggs, the Republicans should have been touting the glory of a document so rich in the rights of man and the responsibilities of government that it provided for change when those goals were being suppressed or ignored. What's the point of the Civil War Amendments if not to rectify the most major error the Founders made? What could the Supreme Court have based its decision in Brown v. Board of Education on if there were no Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?

Of course we can always count on the New York Times to get it all wrong. They missed the part about the politically-correct redacting (which would have been a legitimate ground for criticism). All they heard was that those damned Republican right-wing reactionary fascists were going to read the Constitution. Using the device of the backhanded insult, they commented: "Surely the Republican leadership is not suggesting that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person." Anyone who knows the Times knows that the historically-ignorant and constitutionally deficient editors were inferring that the Republicans meant exactly that. I'm guessing they don't know that those annoying Civil War Amendments are part and parcel of the Constitution.

All of that said, this was a patriotic gesture which will not produce new legislation nor change the minds of doctrinaire liberals and leftists. They will still consider the Constitution an impediment to good governance. But at least, probably for the very first time, Democrats were forced to read from the Constitution, out loud, in Congress, in front of cameras broadcasting to the world, or face explaining why they found the document so repulsive. I'm rather amazed at how few of them choked, gagged or teared-up. They're better actors than I would have thought. It was ninety minutes of joy for those of us who love the Constitution, and ninety minutes of agony for those who think you're just supposed to make things up as you go along.

That's my take on the worthiness of taking time out to read--really read--the Constitution. It was merely symbolic and a gesture to patriotism and the love of limited government, but couldn't we all use a little more of that in our lives?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Is This A Good Start?

I'm not sure that this is an auspicious start for a Republican Party that took over the House of Representatives claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility and down-to-earth identification with the struggling middle class. I understand the need to get the freshmen Congressman together to join in a common cause, but a lavish party with re-election as the centerpiece is at least a dubious convocation.

Incoming freshman Congressman Jeff Denham (California, natch) organized a very expensive party to welcome newbie Republicans to Washington DC. Also invited to the fancy-schmantzy Hotel W gala were lobbyists and PAC managers who paid $2500 each for the joy of rubbing elbows with freshmen. The event, held this past Tuesday, featured a performance by country and western star LeAnn Rimes. For the wannabe future influencers of the votes on the public's business, there was an extra package available: $50,000 purchased eight tickets to the event along with a VIP suite where the lobbyists and PACmen can wine and dine the freshmen. Heady stuff, indeed.

Now who doesn't like a good party? But there are plenty of Obamists out there, with the assistance of the MSM, who would love to claim that the new Republicans are fiddling while Rome is burning. One of Denham's PR people, Dave Gilliard, offered the following: "Helping the freshmen get reelected is a project that Denham is very interested in and, of course, his own reelection is part of that. It's such a huge freshman class, and that first reelection is the time that you end up losing people, so he really wants to help keep the majority."

I can't help thinking that this is a very big misunderstanding of what the recent election was about. The freshman Democrats didn't perform at all, or performed badly, and they were defeated by freshman Republicans. The American people would very much like to see some accomplishments from their new representatives before they give any consideration to voting for them again. What Gilliard said is exactly the opposite of that. It's a statement that money and reelection are the important things, and performance is secondary. That has been the accusation the Democrats have been using extremely well against those "rich Republicans" for decades. It's like sex with no foreplay--it feels good when you do it, but it's not very satisfying in the long run.

Denham was previously a two-term California State Senator from a very safe Republican district, and perhaps missed the message the electorate just sent to Congress. He prides himself on being "one of the best fundraisers in the California Legislature." Though he would have won election to replace retiring Republican George Radanovich almost by default, Denham was still only one of two California freshman who had his own PAC. The other is a Democrat.

Fundraising is vitally important to the life of any political party. The adage that still hasn't changed is that "money is the mother's milk of politics." But even the Bible tells us that there's a time an a place for everything under heaven. There are many conservative Republicans who believe that this was neither the time nor the place. Following the "great national malaise" of Jimmy Carter's presidency, Ronald Reagan threw an elaborate and very expensive series of inaugural balls, for which he was excoriated by the left. But that action was both appropriate and necessary to restore America's pride in itself. Fund-raising was certainly a part of the formula, but that was not at all what Reagan was attempting to accomplish.

To flaunt wealth and excess to freshmen Congressmen as the purpose of being a Representative is simply the wrong message. The message from Denham is that if you start fundraising and campaigning immediately after election, you can have all this and much more. Barack Obama is in that mode perpetually. Fortunately a few notable Republican invitees have said "get thee behind me, Denham." Speaker-elect John Boehner was among those declining the invitation, and as of this writing, Majority Leader Eric Cantor hadn't accepted. On the other hand, National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Pete Sessions of Texas accepted the invitation enthusiastically.

As part of the proceedings, Denham has formed a fundraising venture called "America's New Majority," which is the named sponsor of the event. He encouraged freshmen Republicans to join the ANM committee, and as of December 10, eleven of the incoming Republicans had signed up. One unnamed Republican political consultant advised against joining the committee, saying "it's causing a buzz because it's in direct contradiction to the image that leadership is trying to portray as a conference that wants to get down to business."

When Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats took over the House, Republicans (particularly conservatives) strongly criticized and ridiculed the lavish victory party for being both excessive and in bad taste. That extravaganza only cost $1000 per ticket, and featured performances by Tony ("I Left My Wallet In San Francisco") Bennett and what was left of the Grateful Dead. It won't be that hard for the Democrats to place the shoe on the other foot. But at least this time the party leadership is not involved, at least not directly or publicly.

Another Republican fundraising consultant criticized not only the timing and lavishness of the event, but also pointed out that it probably wasn't even cost-effective, costing nearly as much as it raised. He also pointed out that it's a very transparent ploy for gaining a leadership position using the old tried and true method of buying friends. Denham has already passed out largess to several freshmen from his PAC, and it's not that hard to imagine that they will now feel obligated to him for present and future gifts.

Many of the new Republicans were elected after gaining support from the Tea Parties. Some signed pledges regarding fund-raising as well as the Contract From America pledging fealty to the Constitution and limited government. Going to a fundraising/reelection party at the palace of Mammon may not be the best way to solidify their conservative and Tea Party supporters. Andrew Ian Dodge, Maine coordinator for Tea Party Patriots described the Denham/Rimes fundraiser as "a tone deaf signal that some freshmen did not internalize the tea party's message of changing the political culture in Washington."

Tea Partiers, conservatives and those with common sense are watching for "business as usual" to rear its ugly head. Meanwhile, Democrats, the "party of the people" are looking for major gaffes on the part of the new Republican majority. This event may discourage the former and energize the latter. Let's hope we don't see anything like this again until at least a few real accomplishments have been achieved in Congress.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...