Monday, January 31, 2011

Obamacare Unconstitutional and Void

The full text of the decision, all 78 pages, is here.

I have not yet read and absorbed it. After I do, I may post more comments, after I have finished celebrating.

This is a temporary celebration, of course. The Supreme Court will eventually decide this.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Obama: "I want my hand in your pocket" -- And not in a good way.

From the president's speech last night.
The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don’t agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.
Wow. "Tax breaks and loopholes" is government spending to him?

The President (and you don't know how much it pains me to call him that) thinks all the money in your pocket is government money he simply hasn't yet gotten his hands on.

From the sages of the sixties:



h/t Patterico

Monday, January 24, 2011

Stop Government Abuse


I will never understand the we-need-more-government crowd. They seem to be under the constant delusion that somehow, the government will be kinder and gentler and always benevolent as it gets bigger and bigger.

It defies logic. The more government, the more government abuse.

For another tale of government abuse explaining the photo, click here.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Bankruptcy for California?

Private business sometimes go bankrupt. That can result from many things. Losing your biggest (or only) customer, for example. A business cannot force customers to come through its doors and lay down money for its products or services.

To run a state into bankruptcy takes real (negative) talent. And public employee unions. And maybe a clueless (i.e., largely "progressive") electorate. Like California.

Think about it. Bad economy, you still have to pay taxes. The government can and does force its "customers" through the door and forces them to pay. The government can cut programs. It can lay people off. It will always continue to have some income. It merely needs to cut the cost of services to the level that the state can afford on its income.

Yes, cuts get pretty unpopular with those who receive the benefits. Running a state government requires fortitude, fortitude that squishy liberals don't have. They don't want to cut the benefits of X, because they have made X so dependent on the government benefits that X might suffer. How many X's will suffer if the government goes down the tubes completely?

The Federal government is now considering allowing states to go into bankruptcy. What king of terrible governing -- governor and the legislature -- would allow that to happen. It is not like California has been unaware of its downward fiscal trend.

Man up, California. You have a problem. Go solve it as if you were run by responsible adults, rather than "gimme, gimme" children. Real adults learn how to say no to children.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Why The Left So Hates Sarah Palin

In case you were wondering why the left has such an unreasoning hatred of all things Palin, Robin of Berkeley has the answer at American Thinker. Robin, a psychologist and recovering liberal relates a story so personal and so powerful, that I can't even fairly extract any portion here. So please go read it.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Moron of the Day: Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee argues on the floor of the House that the repeal of Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Unbelievable. Click on photo to watch (her statement comes at about 1:34:35):



Congratulations to today's Moron of the Day.

Could there be any dumber argument against repeal?

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Obama Announces Plan to Fix Regulations That Kill Businesses and Jobs.

There was an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal today purportedly authored by Barack Obama (who, the WSJ helpfull informs us "is president of the United States"):
From child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to our most recent strictures against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, we have, from time to time, embraced common sense rules of the road that strengthen our country without unduly interfering with the pursuit of progress and the growth of our economy.

Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences. Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.

Over the past two years, the goal of my administration has been to strike the right balance. And today, I am signing an executive order that makes clear that this is the operating principle of our government.

This order requires that federal agencies ensure that regulations protect our safety, health and environment while promoting economic growth. And it orders a government-wide review of the rules already on the books to remove outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive. It's a review that will help bring order to regulations that have become a patchwork of overlapping rules, the result of tinkering by administrations and legislators of both parties and the influence of special interests in Washington over decades.
Beware when any politician advocates for "common sense" anything. Rarely does common sense enter into the equation, but the phrase sells. The Clean Air Act has become a nightmare that demonstrates exactly the wrong way to handle environmental issues.

Still, the thought that someone will be trying to cut down on job-killing regulation is comforting, if true. At least he recognizes the need. It seems unlikely to succeed in this administration with its proven anti-business orientation and appointees. I do not see Mr. Obama or his appointees as having the track record or mindset to understand what regulation is truly needed and what is not (especially the latter). For me, I will believe in success of the announced initiative only when I see it.

Revell v. Port Authority: Legal Transportation of Firearms Updated

Last evening, I had the benefit of a flight cancellation due to weather that allowed me to spend an extra evening visiting with my daughter. In 2005, Greg Revell had a flight cancellation, that was not so lucky.

All travelers know that on rare occasions, flights get canceled or delayed and we may thus get stranded in some unexpected city overnight. It happens. In 2005, it happened to Greg Revell who was traveling from Salt Lake city to Allentown Pennsylvania. He was lawfully carrying an unloaded firearm and ammunition in his luggage. One may transport a firearm unloaded in a locked case inside checked luggage as long as you notify the airline at time of check-in. Normally, this is no big deal.

When Mr. Revell's flight landed late at Newark for a connection to Allentown, Mr. Revell missed his connection. By mistake, his luggage had been given a final destination of Newark. As a result, Mr. Revell also missed that bus by which the airline planned to take passengers to Allentown that night. Mr. Revell retrieved his luggage and spent the night in a local Newark hotel. He did not open his luggage at the hotel. The next morning, he checked in for his flight to Allentown and quite properly notified the airline at check-in about the firearm and ammunition in his to-be-checked luggage. Apparently because he did not have a New Jersey gun permit, the airline notified TSA who called the local police. Mr. Revell spent either 3 or 10 days (reports differ) in jail. A few months later, the police or prosecutor dropped the charges, but the gun was not returned to him until 2008, after filing suit.

Mr. Revell sued the Port Authority for a violation of his civil rights, because federal law generally permits transporting unloaded inaccessible firearms as long as possession of the firearm is legal at both the point of origin and the destination. Interestingly (as a side note), the Port Authority brought a third party claim against Continental Airlines. Here is the Third Circuit opinion in .pdf..

Affirming dismissal of Mr. Revevell's complaint, here is what the Third Circuit. in 20-20 hindsight, said Mr. Revevell should have done:
Although we conclude that Revell fell outside of §926A’s protection during his stay in New Jersey, we recognize that he had been placed in a difficult predicament through no fault of his own. However, Section 926 clearly requires the traveler to part ways with his weapon and ammunition during travel; it does not address this type of interrupted journey or what the traveler is to do in this situation. Stranded gun owners like Revell have the option of going to law enforcement representatives at an airport or to airport personnel before they retrieve their luggage. The careful owner will do so and explain his situation, requesting that his firearm and ammunition be held for him overnight. While this no doubt adds to the inconvenience imposed upon the unfortunate traveler when his transportation plans go awry, it offers a reasonable means for a responsible gun owner to maintain the protection of Section 926 and prevent unexpected exposure to state and local gun regulations.
The court does not give Revell the protection of the federal statute of transportation of firearms, because the firearms were accessible to him during his overnight stay.

Wow. Under that reasoning, if you travel by car, you must completely pass through any state that does not permit you to possess a firearm. Or, maybe you can leave it in th trunk of your car exposing it to potential theft. However, since the car is stopped, a firearm in the trunk may be accessible? What if you must stop for gas?

The case does not mention the Second Amendment, so apparently Second Amendment right to transport firearms is not at issue. The court did not discuss the theory underlying the third party complaint against Continental.

the Third Circuit decision has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court and a decision whether to hear the case is expected today. I will post it as soon as I can.

Update: The decision was not issued today. I will keep following this.
Further Update: The Court decided not to hear the case. Justice not done.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Moron of the Day: Donny Deutsch of MSNBC

On Morning Joe, Donny Deutsch interview race-baiter Al Sharpton, saying that Arizona was a strange state, because among other things, it does not recognize Martin Luther King Day.

WRONG!

ARS 1-301 specifically recognizes Martin Luther King Day as a state holiday.

Al Sharpton takes the bait, of course. You would think he would know if there were still a state that did not recognize Dr. King and would organize protests or something. Still, it was Deutch who asked the question with the demonstrably false premise.

Video follows:



Congratulations to Donny Deutsch, Moron of the Day.

Martin Luther King Day



I have said loud and long in this space that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. Dr. King, whatever flaws he may have had, did a great thing for this country. He taught us most eloquently and forcefully the principle that a that person should be judged not by the color of skin, but by the content of character.

Exploiting a wonderful legacy, there are race hustlers in the country that give lip service to Dr. King's principle, but agitate for privilege based upon skin color rather than meritorious character. Shame on them. You know who they are.

Thanks to Dr. King, in my judgment, sledgehammer legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its imitators are no longer as vitally necessary as they once were. I believe that society has changed enough that as fine as are the principles in that legislation, we are now at the point that the laws are now doing more harm than good to those who are supposed to be protected. Laws have an inertia of their own. Once enacted, they are hare to get rid of or replace with something better.

I think it is time to re-examine these laws in the light of today's reality. Credit Dr. King and others who fought with him for, if not the change itself (which may have been inevitable) but for the speed at which change in society's attitudes have occurred.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Herman Cain Announces Presidency Run

Herman Cain, former Godfather's Pizza CEO and now a talk radio host in Georgia, announced yesterday that he was forming a "Presidential Exploratory Committee."

I have a sense that this next crop of Presidential candidates will include some really good choices.  from what I know of Mr. Cain, he seems like one of the good ones.

Here is an excerpt from Mr. Cain's opinion piece in the Daily Caller today:
People often ask why I would consider a potential candidacy. After all, I have enjoyed a successful career as an executive of several major American corporations and host a popular radio talk show.

My answer! It’s not about me. It’s not about us. It’s about them.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/13/its-about-them/#ixzz1AvaGUHFD

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Moron of the Day: Pete King (R-NY)

Get this. Republican Representative Pete King want to introduce legislation banning guns within 1000 of any member of congress or other "high profile official."

Dumb. Roving gun-free zones. That would make me a criminal if a congress-critter drove past my house. Forget shooting ranges. A congressman goes near, across the street even, the range has to shut down. And what about congress-folk who actually carry guns (yes, there are some)?

A well deserved "Moron of the Day" award to Rep. Pete King.

May he be dis-elected, nay trounced, next time around.

We need More Political Rhetoric, Not Less

The headline of this post is an excellent article by Geoffery P. Hunt at The American Thinker. Here is a teaser:
The Rodeo Clown Posse was led out of Tucson in a cloud of dust with a hay-burning frenzy by Arizona's Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. Close in tow were hyper-boiling politicians and the usual lefty print and TV media cowboys such as Rep. James Clyburn, columnist Paul Krugman, TV antagonista Chris Matthews, and even our own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. These tin-star constables couldn't get on their donkeys fast enough to round up the usual outlaws. The leading perennial villain, of course, is overheated political rhetoric, the euphemism for any strongly held opinion that differs from the liberal narrative.

...

Speech of all types -- political or otherwise -- is protected because it forms the fundamental platform for sustaining the marketplace of ideas without which a democratic republic cannot survive. That's not to say that all ideas are equally elegant or elegantly expressed, or even that they deserve to be heard. But most ideas, even if clumsily expressed or devoid of merit, whether asserted gently or forcefully, deferentially or in your face, form the nutrient-rich red blood cells of our great nation's discourse.
Read it all here.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's Medical Condition Stable

Rep Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in a Healthier Day

This morning's news reports no change in Rep. Giffords's medical condition, which is good news. It means there is no swelling, which was a risk.

Our prayers are with her.

One can only speculate how the tragedy would have been different if someone else in the crowd had been legally carrying a firearm. Maybe not at all. Maybe very different.

If someone had been openly carrying, would Loughner have been deterred? Or would he have targeted the openly armed citizen first? We will never know, of course.

We should not assume that more gun restrictions would have kept Rep. Giffords any safer.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Good Deed: Egyptian Muslims Shield Christians At Christmas

Here is wonderful proof that even in Egypt (home of the radical Muslim Brotherhood), most Muslims are not radicals bent on killing innocent Christians. From Ahramonline:
Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.
There are still serious problems in Islam, or at least Islamic countries, when it comes to the attitudes toward those of other religions. But this ray of hope is heartening.

Unions Exposed By Cartoon

Left Wing Media Exploit Tragedy, No Facts Needed

While the investigation of the crazed shooter in Tuscon who shot 18 people, killing six, including a federal judge, and critically wounding US Representative Gabrielle Giffords, the left wing media are predictably accusing their political opponents of being the root cause of the shooting.

The facts, as they trickle out, paint a different picture.

First, no one has determined the actual motivation for the shooting. By all accounts the young man is mentally deranged.  Neither the right nor the left has a monopoly on crazy.

Is the guy a leftist because he had Mein Kampf and A Communist Manifesto in his library and because he has an apparently satanist shrine at his home? It is a right-winger, because he ranted about going back to the gold and silver standard for money?

The left wing media (which is almost all mainstream media) is disrespecting the dead and the injured by its assumptions that political speech opposing left wing lunacy is somehow to blame.  The left calls it vitriol.

For the true vitriol, to the left face, harch! The vitriol -- which the left-wing media ignores -- is all over the place. Michell Malkin chronicles the left wing vitriol thoroughly here. Tim Blair at the Daily Telegraph also demonstrates the media hypocrisy.

In the meantime, the gun controllers can be expected to use this tragic event as a springboard to take away your Second Amendment Rights through stealth legislation.

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Are You Professional Enough?

The DEA agent in the following video just lost his suit against the DEA because of the harrassment he received when the video went viral.

I am so glad we have DEA agents that are professional enough to handle a "Glock 40" meaning, I assume a Glock .40 caliber, since Glock does not make a model 40).



Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Obama-Style Economics

200 years ago, doctors believed that they could cure disease by draining a person's bad blood. They employed leeches that attached themselves to the person but would not bleed the patient dry.

That is the President's current theory of how to cure the economy.

In the President's modern version, the leaches are entitlement recipients and other receivers of government largess. (I am not referring to money people earn that will merely be taxed less. That is not government money.)

Leeches didn't work then ....

Obamacare Repeal Bill More Than Symbolic

After so many years of enduring the Democrats' high sounding, false promising in the naming of bills, the Obamacare repeal really has it right: "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act."

All congressional legislation should be so honest.

If the House passes the repeal bill, which it surely will, it is more that merely symbolic. Yes, it send a clear message the the voting public is unhappy with Obamacare. It also forces the Democrats and the President to tell the America people that they still refuse to do what the American people want.

The repeal bill is only the first step in getting rid of Obamacare. It draws the battle lines.

I believe in the strategy.

Opposition to Voter ID is Racist?

I read a recent Mother Jones article (don't ask why) that noted that voter ID laws have a negligible effect on elections.  OK so far.  T...