The Voice of Reason

University Student Vindicated After Expulsion for Religious Beliefs

2012-01-29T10:16:00.000-05:00

Administrators at a government university for their persecution of a counseling student over her religious n beliefs:

University Student Vindicated After Expulsion for Religious Beliefs

'Nuff Said

2011-11-18T13:29:00.001-05:00

Moron of the Day: Dick Durbin (D-IL)

2011-10-04T10:05:00.000-04:00

Moron of the Day, Sen. Dick Durbin

Inside the otherwise insane Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill lurks the Durbin Amendment, promoted by today's winner of the coveted Moron of the Day award, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The Durbin Amendment established a price control to limit the amount that banks could charge for the use of debit cards. Only boneheads think that government price controls actually work, and today's winner is no exception. Government price controls inevitably produce shortages, work-arounds and regulatory mischief.

Thanks to Bonehead Dick Durbin (and the rest of the Dodd-Frank supporters, like RINO Scott Brown of Massachusetts), the Durbin amendment goes into effect today. In response, Bank of America has started charging it customers a $5 per month fee for the privilege of using the debit card. Other banks are following suit, mostly at lesser fees, to make up for lost revenue.

Inevitably, the demagogues in Congress will blame the victims of the Durbin Amendment, the banks. But loyal readers here know the truth.

Congratulations to today's Moron of the Day, Senator Dick Durbin. Today's Moron of the Day did not merely say something stupid (as most of our award winners), but he successfully put his stupidity into action, hurting the very people he -- thanks to his ignorance of economics -- thought he would help: low income folks who can't get credit cards and must rely on debit cards.

Ali Akbar Letter to Morgan Freemen

2011-09-29T13:09:00.001-04:00

This is an excerpt from the letter by Ali Akbar, a black tea party activist to Morgan Freeman. It is a great letter, and I hope you will click the link to read it all.

Over half a century since we started voting for Democrat policies, blacks in America are worse off than before. Black Americans are more likely to get involved with drugs, go to prison, and die younger than our white counterparts. Over 70% of our children are born out of wedlock. Our abortion rate has never been higher. There are two explanations for these results. 1) Blacks are an inferior race and can’t take care of themselves. 2) Despite the best of intentions, the government has created and implemented “social justice” policies that promote perpetual dependence. I choose to believe the latter. Therefore, I have become a Republican.

Mr. Freeman, I’m not asking you to adopt my political views. You’re in your seventies, and a political shift is not in your future. I’m reaching out to you because I want you to think better of your fellow countrymen. Barack Obama is in the White House, and Herman Cain just won the Florida straw poll. America is the land of opportunity for black Americans like never before.

I’m hoping that you’ll come to a tea party in Tennessee — the place of your birth. Really anywhere in the country that works for you; I’ll set it up with the one of the thousands of activists I know around our great country. I’d be delighted to introduce you to good people who will welcome you with open arms, disagree with you, and then feed you some of the best barbeque you’ve ever tasted.

Tea Party Candidate Herman Cain wins Florida Straw Poll: Black Caucusers Still Think Tea Party is Racist

2011-09-26T13:54:00.001-04:00

One of the Tea Party's favorite candidates, Herman Cain, won the Florida straw poll by a large margin. Yet, Big Government is showing a series of interviews from the Black Caucus convention in which interviewees routinely claim that racism "underlies" the tea party, even if it is not overtly racist. Story here.

The tea party issues are all about smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. The reasoning of the black caucausers seems to be that the Tea party must be racist because it did not spring up until Barack Obama was president.

Newsflash to the Black Caucus: Barack Obama is a big government, bid spending liberal. The tea parties sprang up after the House passage of Obama's pork-filled stimulus bill, which was a big government solution to economic problems best solved by smaller government. Race has nothing to do with the widespread public dissatisfaction with the president, then or now.

It is of course ironic that the exclusively Black Caucus can accuse anyone of racism. Pot-Kettle, anyone?

That fact is, the Tea Parties and the vast majority of Americans appreciate candidates who make sense, like Herman Cain. Unlike Barack Obama. If the Tea parties are rally racist, they must also be blind, becuase otherwise they would know that Herman Cain is black.

The thing about name-calling liberals is that the facts don't matter. Expanding the Nanny state matters.

Here is an example of name-calling based upon facts that do matter:

After a few caffeine-heavy refills at our corner table, I asked [Herman Cain] about President Obama’s new effort to raise taxes on the wealthy, and Cain just about blew a blood vessel — especially when I mentioned the part where Obama says it’s about “math” not “class warfare.”

“Can I be blunt? That’s a lie,” Cain said, before the sound of his voice began to rise noticeably higher. “You’re not supposed to call the president a liar. Well if you’re not supposed to call the president a liar, he shouldn’t tell a lie. If it’s not class warfare, it’s highway robbery. He wants us to believe it’s not class warfare, oh okay, it’s not class warfare. Pick my pockets, because that’s what he’s doing!”

Source: http://nation.foxnews.com/herman-cain/2011/09/26/herman-cain-obama-liar-his-class-warfare-rhetoric-bull#ixzz1Z5CzBG00

Milton Friedman on Uncommon Knowledge

2011-09-21T12:40:00.000-04:00

The clip below was recorded in 1999, but the interview information is still fresh. And still beyond the comprehension of President Obama and his cronies.

How The government Can Help Job Creation: Get Out of the Way!

2011-09-20T16:38:00.000-04:00

The following written testimony was entered into the record of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending hearing.

How the Government Can Create Jobs
September 13, 2011

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member, and all distinguished members of this panel. Thank you for inviting me here today to offer my opinions as to how the government can help the American economy recover from the worst crisis in living memory.

Despite the understandable human tendency to help others, government spending cannot be a net creator of jobs. Indeed many efforts currently under consideration by the Administration and Congress will actively destroy jobs. These initiatives must stop. While it is easy to see how a deficit-financed government program can lead to the creation of a specific job, it is much harder to see how other jobs are destroyed by the diversion of capital and resources. It is also difficult to see how the bigger budget deficits sap the economy of vitality, destroying jobs in the process.

In a free market jobs are created by profit seeking businesses with access to capital. Unfortunately Government taxes and regulation diminish profits, and deficit spending and artificially low interest rates inhibit capital formation. As a result unemployment remains high, and will likely continue to rise until policies are reversed.

It is my belief that a dollar of deficit spending does more damage to job creation than a dollar of taxes. That is because taxes (particularly those targeting the middle or lower income groups) have their greatest impact on spending, while deficits more directly impact savings and investment. Contrary to the beliefs held by many professional economists spending does not make an economy grow. Savings and investment are far more determinative. Any program that diverts capital into consumption and away from savings and investment will diminish future economic growth and job creation.

Creating jobs is easy for government, but all jobs are not equal. Paying people to dig ditches and fill them up does society no good. On balance these “jobs” diminish the economy by wasting scarce land, labor and capital. We do not want jobs for the sake of work, but for the goods and services they produce. As it has a printing press, the government could mandate employment for all, as did the Soviet Union. But if these jobs are not productive, and government jobs rarely are, society is no better for it.

This is also true of the much vaunted “infrastructure spending.” Any funds directed toward infrastructure deprive the economy of resources that might otherwise have funded projects that the market determines have greater economic value. Infrastructure can improve an economy in the log-run, but only if the investments succeeds in raising productivity more than the cost of the project itself. In the interim, infrastructure costs are burdens that an economy must bear, not a means in themselves.

Unfortunately our economy is so weak and indebted that we simply cannot currently afford many of these projects. The labor and other resources that would be diverted to finance them are badly needed elsewhere.

Although it was labeled and hyped as a “jobs plan,” the new $447 billion initiative announced last night by President Obama is merely another government stimulus program in disguise. Like all previous stimuli that have been injected into the economy over the past three years, this round of borrowing and spending will act as an economic sedative rather than a stimulant. I am convinced that a year from now there will be even more unemployed Americans than there are today, likely resulting in additional deficit financed stimulus that will again make the situation worse.

The president asserted that the spending in the plan will be “paid for” and will not add to the deficit. Conveniently, he offered no details about how this will be achieved. Most likely he will make non-binding suggestions that future congresses “pay” for this spending by cutting budgets five to ten years in the future. In the meantime money to fund the stimulus has to come from someplace. Either the government will borrow it legitimately from private sources, or the Federal Reserve will print. Either way, the adverse consequences will damage economic growth and job creation, and lower the living standards of Americans.

There can be no doubt that some jobs will in fact be created by this plan. However, it is much more difficult to identify the jobs that it destroys or prevents from coming into existence. Here’s a case in point: the $4,000 tax credit for hiring new workers who have been unemployed for six months or more. The subsidy may make little difference in effecting the high end of the job market, but it really could make an impact on minimum wage jobs where rather than expanding employment it will merely increase turnover.

Since an employer need only hire a worker for 6 months to get the credit, for a full time employee, the credit effectively reduces the $7.25 minimum wage (from the employer’s perspective) to only $3.40 per hour for a six-month hire. While minimum wage jobs would certainly offer no enticement to those collecting unemployment benefits, the lower effective rate may create some opportunities for teenagers and some low skilled individuals whose unemployment benefits have expired. However, most of these jobs will end after six months so employers can replace those workers with others to get an additional tax credit.

Of course the numbers get even more compelling for employers to provide returning veterans with temporary minimum wage jobs, as the higher $5,600 tax credit effectively reduces the minimum wage to only $1.87 per hour. If an employer hires a “wounded warrior”, the tax credit is $9,600 which effectively reduces the six-month minimum wage by $9.23 to negative $1.98 per hour. This will encourage employers to hire a “wounded warrior” even if there is nothing for the employee to do. Such an incentive may encourage such individuals to acquire multiple no-show jobs form numerous employers. As absurd as this sounds, history has shown that when government created incentives, the public will twist themselves into pretzels to qualify for the benefit.

The plan creates incentives for employers to replace current minimum wage workers with new workers just to get the tax credit. Low skill workers are the easiest to replace as training costs are minimal. The laid off workers can collect unemployment for six months and then be hired back in a manner that allows the employer to claim the credit. The only problem is that the former worker may prefer collecting extended unemployment benefits to working for the minimum wage!

The $4,000 credit for hiring the unemployed as well as the explicit penalties for discriminating against the long-term unemployed will result in a situation where employers will be far more likely to interview and hire applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. Under the law, employers would be wise to refuse to interview anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months, as any subsequent decision not to hire could be met with a lawsuit. However, to get the tax credit they would be incentivized to interview applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. If they are never hired there can be no risk of a lawsuit, but if they are hired, the start date can be planned to qualify for the credit.

The result will simply create classes of winners (those unemployed for four or five months) and losers (the newly unemployed and the long term unemployed). Ironically, the law banning discrimination against long-term unemployed will make it much harder for such individuals to find jobs.

At present, I am beginning to feel that over regulation of business and employment, and an overly complex and punitive tax code is currently a bigger impediment to job growth than is our horrific fiscal and monetary policies. As a business owner I know that reckless government policy can cause no end of unintended consequences.

As I see it, here are the biggest obstacles preventing job growth:

1. Monetary policy

Interest rates are much too low. Cheap money produced both the stock market and real estate bubbles, and is currently facilitating a bubble in government debt. When this bubble bursts the repercussions will dwarf the shock produced by the financial crisis of 2008. Interest rates must be raised to bring on a badly needed restructuring of our economy. No doubt an environment of higher rates will cause short-term pain. But we need to move from a “borrow and spend” economy to a “save and produce” economy. This cannot be done with ultra-low interest rates. In the short-term GNP will need to contract. There will be a pickup in transitory unemployment. Real estate and stock prices will fall. Many banks will fail. There will be more foreclosures. Government spending will have to be slashed. Entitlements will have to be cut. Many voters will be angry. But such an environment will lay the foundation upon which a real recovery can be built.

The government must allow our bubble economy to fully deflate. Asset prices, wages, and spending must fall, interest rates, production, and savings must rise. Resources, including labor, must be reallocated away from certain sectors, such as government, services, finance, health care, and educations, and be allowed to into manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, agriculture, and other goods producing fields. We will never borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by too much borrowing and spending. The only way out is to reverse course.

2. Fiscal policy

To create conditions that foster growth, the government should balance the budget with major cuts in government spending, severely reform and simplify the tax code. It would be preferable if all corporate and personal taxes could be replaces by a national sales tax. Our current tax system discourages the activities that we need most: hard work, production, savings, investment, and risk taking. Instead it incentivizes consumption and debt. We should tax people when they spend their wealth, not when they create it. High marginal income tax rates inflict major damage to job creation, as the tax is generally paid out of money that otherwise would have been used to finance capital investment and job creation.

3. Regulation

Regulations have substantially increased the costs and risks associated with job creation. Employers are subjected to all sorts of onerous regulations, taxes, and legal liability. The act of becoming an employer should be made as easy as possible. Instead we have made it more difficult. In fact, among small business owners, limiting the number of employees is generally a goal. This is not a consequence of the market, but of a rational desire on the part of business owners to limit their cost and legal liabilities. They would prefer to hire workers, but these added burdens make it preferable to seek out alternatives.

In my own business, securities regulations have prohibited me from hiring brokers for more than three years. I was even fined fifteen thousand dollar expressly for hiring too many brokers in 2008. In the process I incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills to mitigate a more severe regulatory outcome as a result of hiring too many workers. I have also been prohibited from opening up additional offices. I had a major expansion plan that would have resulted in my creating hundreds of additional jobs. Regulations have forced me to put those jobs on hold.

In addition, the added cost of security regulations have forced me to create an offshore brokerage firm to handle foreign accounts that are now too expensive to handle from the United States. Revenue and jobs that would have been created in the U.S. are now being created abroad instead. In addition, I am moving several asset management jobs from Newport Beach, California to Singapore.

As Congress turns up the heat, more of my capital will continue to be diverted to my foreign companies, creating jobs and tax revenues abroad rather than in the United States.

To encourage real and lasting job growth the best thing the government can do is to make it as easy as possible for business to hire and employ people. This means cutting down on workplace regulations. It also means eliminating the punitive aspects of employment law that cause employers to think twice about hiring. To be blunt, the easier employees are to fire, the higher the likelihood they will be hired. Some steps Congress could take now include:

a. Abolish the Federal Minimum Wage

Minimum wages have never raised the wages of anyone and simply draw an arbitrary line that separates the employable from the unemployable. Just like prices, wages are determined by supply and demand. The demand for workers is a function of how much productivity a worker can produce. Setting the wage at $7.25 simply means that only those workers who can produce goods and services that create more than $7.25 (plus all additional payroll associated costs) per hour are eligible for jobs. Those who can’t, become permanently unemployable. The artificial limits encourage employers to look to minimize hires and to automate wherever possible.

By putting many low skill workers (such as teenagers) below the line, the minimum wage prevents crucial on the job training, which could provide workers with the experience and skills needed to earn higher wages.

b. Repeal all Federal workplace anti-discrimination Laws

One of the reasons unemployment is so high among minorities is that business owners (particularly small business) are wary of legal liability associated with various categories of protected minorities. The fear of litigation, and the costly judgments that can ensue, are real. Given that it is nearly impossible for an employer to control all the aspects of the workplace environment, litigation risk is a tangible consideration. Given all the legal avenues afforded by legislation, minority employees are much more likely to sue employers. To avoid this, some employers simply look to avoid this outcome by sticking with less risky employee categories. It is not racism that causes this discrimination, but a rational desire to mitigate liability. The reality is that a true free market would punish employers that discriminate based on race or other criteria irrelevant to job performance. That is because businesses that hire based strictly on merit would have a competitive advantage. Anti-discrimination laws titled the advantage to those who discriminate.

c. Repeal all laws mandating employment terms such as work place conditions, over-time, benefits, leave, medical benefits, etc.

Employment is a voluntary relationship between two parties. The more room the parties have to negotiate and agree on their own terms, the more likely a job will be created. Rules imposed from the top create inefficiencies that limit employment opportunities. Employee benefits are a cost of employment, and high value employees have all the bargaining power they need to extract benefits from employers. They are free to search for the best benefits they can get just as they search for the best wages.

Companies that do not offer benefits will lose employees to companies that do. Just as employees are free to leave companies at will, so too should employers be free to terminate an employee without fear of costly repercussions. Individuals should not gain rights because they are employees, and individuals should not lose rights because they become employers.

d. Abolish extended unemployment benefits

In addition to being a source of emergency funds, unemployment benefits over time become more of a disincentive to employment than anything else (although the disincentive diminishes with the worker’s skill level — i.e. high wage workers are unlikely to forego a high wage job opportunity to preserve unemployment benefits). For marginally skilled workers unemployment insurance is a major factor in determining if a job should be taken or not.

Even if unemployment pays a significant fraction of the wage a worker would get with a full time job, the money may be enough to convince the worker to stay home. After all, there are costs associated with having a job. Not only does a worker pay payroll and income taxes on any wages he earns, the loss of unemployment benefits itself acts as a tax. Plus workers must pay for such job related expenses as transportation, clothing, restaurant meals, dry cleaning and childcare, and they must forgo other work that they could do in their free time (providing care for loved ones, home improvement, etc.).

Understandably, most people also find leisure time preferable to work. As a result, any job that does not offer a major monetary advantage to unemployment benefits will likely be turned down. This entrenches unemployment insurance recipients into a class of permanently unemployed workers.

It is no accident that employment increases immediately after unemployment insurance expires for many categories of workers. In fact, many individual will seek to max out their benefits, and remain unemployed until those benefits expire. If they work at all, it will be for cash under-the-table, so as not to leave any money on the table.

Mr. Schiff's oral testimony is here:

Unfortunately, we can't expect the government to show any actual common sense.

Quote of the Day: National Review

2011-09-20T14:06:00.000-04:00

From a piece by the editors of the National Review Online:

We did not have high hopes for Barack Obama as an economic thinker, but he continues to underperform our lowest expectations.

Read it all.

Moron of the Day: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL and DNC Chairman)

2011-09-14T11:28:00.000-04:00

I am starting to see the light. Fuzz-head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-NY and DNC Chair) OWNS our Moron of the Day title. This time, it is her comment on GOP candidate Bob Turner's upset victory in the special election to replace Anthony Weiner in a New York City congressional district.

Democratic party leaders insisted the loss wasn't a harbinger of things to come. "It's a very difficult district for Democrats,'' said Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, noting its Democratic margins there tend to be the second lowest of all the districts in New York City.

Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1 in the district. To a fuzzy-headed Democrat, that is a difficult district? Does reality have any place in the thinking of the DNC chair?

It getting tiresome having to constantly congratulate fuzz-head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, our most frequent (and best deserved) Moron of the Day.

President Obama's "Jobs" Speech

2011-09-09T23:36:00.000-04:00

In his so called jobs speech, at least he was consistent. He got pretty much everything wrong. What this country needs is not so much a stimulus, but a, yes I'm saying it, dismantling of government interference with innovation, initiative, confifence in the future.

Yes,government really is the problem. Every attempted government solution is doomed to fail.

The president's solutions are more of the programs that did not work in 2009, 2010, or the gret depression.

Dumb. Lord help us.

Fun Political Ad

2011-09-09T13:53:00.000-04:00

The President's Speech

2011-09-09T11:07:00.000-04:00

From Patterico.com:

I just presented my wife with a proposal that I buy me a shiny new car I can’t afford. I asked her if she is going to put family first and approve my proposal now.

It is a bipartisan proposal, even though she doesn’t agree with it, because the word bipartisan sounds good.

And it won’t cost us a cent, because my proposal pays for the car, through unspecified cuts in the “out years.”

One of my bipartisan proposals to pay for my shiny new car includes my wife taking on a second job and not spending any money on new clothes.

She’s not buying my proposal. In fact, there is no such proposal. I made it up for rhetorical purposes. Not that I’m that enamored of my 11-year-old car with 130,000 miles. Here’s the problem. I’m not going to do something we can’t afford and justify it with phony arguments and lies.

Read that last sentence out loud three times, Mr. President.

Sounded nice, huh?

That would have been a better speech.

Click on Patterico.com above for the comments.

Peolsi: Republicans Insult Obama By Refusing to Go Public With Jobs Speech Disagreementsementw with HIm public

2011-09-07T14:39:00.000-04:00

Fox News is reporting that the Republicans will not give a public rebuttal to the president's jobs speech. Nancty Pelosi says that is disrepectful. Do we need any more proof the Nancy Pelosi is nuts?

Republicans have decided they're not going to give a rebuttal to President Obama's jobs speech later this week, a decision House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi took as a high affront to the White House.

...

Pelosi said the party's "silence" would "speak volumes about their lack of commitment to creating jobs."

"The Republicans' refusal to respond to the president's proposal on jobs is not only disrespectful to him, but to the American people," Pelosi said.

But Boehner spokesman Mike Steel said Obama's proposals on Thursday "will rise or fall on their own merits," suggesting a GOP response was not needed.

I'm sorry, but that is just weird. Nancy Pelosi wants someone to rebut the President? Out of respect? Public disagreement implies respect? Wouldn't respect be to agree with him? Doesn't respect include listening, digesting any proposals and thoughtfully responding after careful consideration? does respect require an immediate response before Republicans have had the opportunity to discuss matters among themselves? Doesn't the immediate rebuttal imply mostly partisanship?

I can see only one argument that the refusal to rebut is disrespectful, but Nancy Pelosi did not make that argument. She could have argued that the failure to make a formal rebuttal trivializes the President's speech, implying that his ideas are not worth public dialogue. But she did not make that argument.

Whether the President's proposal are trivial remains to be seen. We certainly expect nothing less from the President than big government solutions that will make the problem worse. Whatever the President has to say, discussion by Congress happens in a different forum, not necessarily on the public airwaves.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's Non-Answer

2011-09-06T13:14:00.000-04:00

Is DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz truly horrible in this clip? Ir is it just me? I think when a politician is asked a difficult question, they give a truthful answer to the question asked. I understand they will spin it a bit, but ANSWER THE QUESTION.

This only thing I can conclude from this clip is that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz officially endorses Jimmy Hoffa's rhetoric of violence.

Of course as we have repeatedly pointed out in this blog, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz is a fuzz-head. that was probably the best she could do given her minimal level of skills. Not the best anyone could do. The best she could do.

Tea Party Racism?

2011-09-02T12:53:00.001-04:00

From Toby Toons.com

Rick Perry

2011-08-29T10:42:00.000-04:00

According to Rick Perry: “I’ll work every day to try to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your life as I can.”

That is the attitude I want in a politician.

Great Political Ad

2011-08-26T10:34:00.000-04:00

Col. Allen West Says the Obvious about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

2011-08-15T12:53:00.000-04:00

According to Col. Allen West, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is not smart. See below

This comes as no surprise to us. Fuzz-head Wasserman-Schultz is the only three-time winner of our coveted Moron of the Day award.

After winning one of our awards, most folks think twice before they speak. No one wants to win it twice, or so we think. Not Debbie.

At the rate she is going, we will have to create a once-only Moron-of-a-Lifetime award just for her.

Quote of the Day: Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter

2011-08-09T13:37:00.000-04:00

The following quotes come from Mayor Nutter's remarks from the Mount Carmel; Baptist Church pulpit where he excoriated some (obviously not all) of the black, urban youth of his city in which he said about flash mobs that attack the innocent on Philadelphia streets, “You’ve damaged yourself, you’ve damaged another person, you’ve damaged your peers and, quite honestly, you’ve damaged your own race” He also said,

“Take those God darn hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt ’cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt. Nobody.”

“If you walk into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you? They don’t hire you ’cause you look like you’re crazy!”

“The Immaculate Conception of our Lord Jesus Christ took place a long time ago, and it didn’t happen here in Philadelphia. So every one of these kids has two parents who were around and participating at the time. They need to be around now.”

“Parents who neglect their children, who don’t know where they are, who don‘t know what they’re doing, who don‘t know who they’re hanging out with, you’re going to find yourself spending some quality time with your kids in jail.”

To fathers: “If you’re not providing the guidance,and you’re not sending any money, you’re just a sperm donor.”

These observations are certainly not limited to black youths, either, although some are addressed to the worst of urban styles.

Poor in America

2011-08-08T12:30:00.000-04:00

Livin' the Obama Budget Plan

2011-08-05T09:40:00.000-04:00

Gotta love Ray Stevens!

A Picture is Worth A Thousand Words

2011-08-05T09:14:00.000-04:00

h/t GraniteGrok

False Claims of Terrorism in Debt Deal

2011-08-03T11:20:00.000-04:00

Charles Krauthammer:

You had one congressman, I wrote it down — Mike Doyle in the meeting with the vice president yesterday actually said, ‘We have negotiated with terrorists. The small group of terrorists has made it impossible for us to spend any money.’ Well, that’s a hell of a definition of terrorism. Normally a terrorist says, ‘I want you to convert. I want your daughter, I want your money, I want your submission.’ This guy says a bunch of terrorists in Congress have stopped us from spending money we don’t have. You think that’s an argument that will carry with the American people? I think not.”

Of course, terrorism is not about goals, but a strategy or tactic. These Congresscritters who cheapen the word "terrorist" truly make me angry.

Hey, you clowns, terrorism is a tactic that involves actual creation of terror through death or destruction. What you Congressclowns don't like is the game of chicken, known in negotiating circles a "brinksmanship." Sometimes brinksmanship is the only thing that brings parties close enough to be able to make a deal.

I don't know if this current debt deal is good or bad. I don't know what good and bad mean in this context. I don't know who, if anyone won. Usually in Congress any deal means the American people lose, but that remains to be seen.

What is disappointing is that I don't see anything in the current deal that will shrink government.

Economics For Liberals. Obama, Are you Watching?

2011-08-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

Obama Creates Jobs ... in China

2011-07-29T16:36:00.000-04:00

President Obama and his merry band of regulators and union allies is doing great things for the economies of third world countries. By chasing United States companies' operations out of the US by excessive, confusing, conflicting and oppressive regulation, President Obama is creating a "global economy" with new job creation in China, India and all over the world.

Everywhere but here, of course.

The latest, though comes not from Obama, but from his progressive tax-and-tax compatriots in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts (yes, the home state of its former governor, RINO Republican candidate for president Mitt Romney). The Boston Globe reports on a medical device manufacturer cutting jobs "worldwide" but creating 1000 jobs in China:

Yesterday’s move, a day after Boston Scientific disclosed it was investing $150 million and hiring 1,000 people in China, raised fears that the company will gradually shift more work to foreign sites with less government oversight and lower costs than the United States.

"Oversight." It sounds so much less evil than "over-regulation." but over-regulation, it is.

More government, fewer jobs. Like clockwork.

Quote of the Day: Mark Steyn

2011-07-27T13:38:00.001-04:00

From Mark Steyn writing for National Review Online:

As Obama made plain in his threat to Gran’ma last week that the August checks might not go out, funding non-productivity is now the principal purpose of the modern state.

Welcome to Obama's America.

Col. Allen West: Obama Class-Warfare Marxist

2011-07-25T13:11:00.000-04:00

On July 17, 2011, Col. Allen West (D-FL) said,

The President’s concern is about getting reelected. The President’s concern is that he is an intransigent, liberal, progressive socialist who is also Marxist because of the class warfare rhetoric that he espouses. And I think that when you heard him on Friday and the more he comes out and talks, the more truly out of touch and incompetent he seems.

He has a vision for this country that is anathema to the vision of the founding fathers and our belief in individual responsibility and accountability and our free enterprise system.

I have been criticized for calling President Obama a Marxist. Actually, I have said his understanding of economics is middle school Marxist.

Col. West is obviously correct. President's Obama's class warfare rhetoric is consistent with Marxist rhetoric.

I love it when a politician like Col. West is clear and says exactly what he means. It is rare and refreshing.

Concerned Women of America Speak Out, With Humor: Spenditol Ad

2011-07-21T08:56:00.000-04:00

SEIU Exposed As Evil By Its Own Documents

2011-07-20T10:47:00.000-04:00

In an internal training manual obtained in the course of litigation discovery, SEIU tells members to make false accusations of against the targeted company of "racism, sexism, exploitation of immigrants, or proposals that would take money out of the community for the benefits of distant stockholder." The training manual exposes all sorts of sordid, unethical and borderline illegal tactics that the union trains its operatives to engage in. Read more here.

Evil? You bet.

What it the legacy media doing to report the scandal? You guessed it. Nothing.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is "Vile, Despicable and Cowardly"

2011-07-20T10:07:00.002-04:00

Our three-time Moron of the Day winner Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has been publicly described as "vile, despicable and cowardly" by Col. Allen west, R-FL.

And I thought she was just stupid.

RNC Ad On Obama

2011-07-20T09:51:00.003-04:00

I think President Obama is much worse than this ad implies.

President Obama is the Problem: Democrat Stephen Wynn

2011-07-19T11:29:00.001-04:00

Stephen Wynn is a Democrat and a Las Vegas businessman, the Wynn Casino for one. Here is his explanation to investors about the problems with Barack Obama:

Well, here's our problem. There are a host of opportunities for expansion in Las Vegas, a host of opportunities to create tens of thousands of jobs in Las Vegas. I know that I could do 10,000 more myself and according to the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitors Convention Bureau, if we hired 10,000 employees, it would create another 20,000 additional jobs for a grand total of 30,000. I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States.

You watch television and see what's going on, on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating. And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems -- that keeps using that word redistribution.

Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money.

Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. You bet. And until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, "Oh God, don't be attacking Obama." Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government, and there's no need to soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth.

And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

I am not sure why anyone would be surprised by this president. As a university student, he fancied himself a Communist. Even if he has moved somewhat closer to capitalism, he is still far to the left of rational economic thought.

Folks like the president think that government regulation, if not ownership or everything, is the answer to all their perceived ills of society. Sure, they think, big government has been a bit of a problem in the past (Soviet purges, the Nazis' final solution), but surely we will get it right this time.

Continual ratcheting of government regulation destroys incentives for businesses to expand. Uncertainty is an serious enemy to business prosperity. Undoing the regulatory ratchet would be a positive and a friend, but even a steady state of frozen regulation would be better than Obamaisn. (Obamaism = "If it creates private jobs, regulate it, so it won't grow.")

Of course with all the new regulations from the Obama administration and Congress, the problem cannot be solved with a freeze. No one knows how the mass of new regulations will be interpreted. So the uncertainty is here to stay without a bunch of repeals.

2012 elections can't come too soon. Impeachment would be quicker, but unfortunately is unlikely.

Scaremonger In Cheif

2011-07-18T11:41:00.000-04:00

Here is what President Obama is really saying, when he threatens that social security check might not go on if the debt ceiling is not raised:

I would rather pay my hordes of overpaid bureaucrats than to protect you senior who are struggling to get by on social security.

"Don't Call My Bluff"

2011-07-15T11:19:00.002-04:00

President warned the Republicans negotiating the debt ceiling deal, "Don't call my bluff."

Really? When some admits they are bluffing, I say call it!

Fight the Light Bulb Ban: Don't Let This Happen to Us!

2011-07-14T17:42:00.002-04:00

Moron of the Day: Energy Secretary Steven Chu

2011-07-12T15:48:00.000-04:00

Unbelievable. In speaking about the upcoming ban of inexpensive incandescent bulbs (in favor of the environmentally dangerous CFLs), Energy Secretary Steven Chu defended the government action to remove the choice for Americans on light-bulb efficiency, saying “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”

So, according to Mr. Chu, it is the job of the Federal government to keep you from spending your own money on what you want to spend it if the Federal government (in its infinite wisdom) thinks it is wasteful.

A hearty congratulations for today's Moron of the Day to Steven Chu.

Free Market Environmentalism

2011-07-12T13:40:00.000-04:00

I have advocated for the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency and its supporting legislation. Why? The EPA epitomizes Soviet-style central planning. Its approach to environmental problems ia a form of tyranny that kills jobs and destroys the environment globally by exporting pollution.

In a review of a global warming book, economist Walter Block explains,

Let us make a few heroic assumptions. Anthropogenic global warming, due to greenhouse-gas emissions, is a fact. Sunspots, etc., are not responsible. There is an ideal world temperature, such that man's actions will either exceed it, or fall below it, and that this will be harmful on net balance, not beneficial.

On this basis, Baer et al. consider two approaches to addressing this danger: first, "assign obligations to the industrialized countries on the basis of both their ability to pay (wealth) and their responsibility for the majority of prior emissions, or, second, to assign emissions rights on a (possibly modified) equal per capita basis."

But, they ignore a third, which is far more justified than either of those. For, given our assumptions, emitting gas constitutes, in effect, a trespass. And what, pray tell, does "equity" have to say about uninvited border crossings? It is simple: the perpetrators of these property-rights violations, and only the perpetrators, must be brought to the bar of justice. I agree with their emphasis on individuals, not groups, but equity requires that we should ignore ability to pay as a criterion for fines. Rather, the guilty should pay, and not the innocent, just as in the case for ordinary trespass.

The EPA approach is for the relatively innocent to pay, because they can bully the innocent (or, relatively innocent).

Who are the guilty? Third world (sorry, developing? Uh, I'm not sure the current politically correct euphemism) countries, mostly.

The excessive EPA regulations in this country contribute to high production costs. what does a rational company do? Import from cheaper sources abroad. That is how we export our pollution.

Walter Block is an interesting guy.

Stimulus Failed to Stimulate

2011-07-07T12:29:00.000-04:00

Can there be any doubt at this juncture that the Porkulus bill passed in early the Obama Administration, 2009, has failed to actually stimulate?

Economists who deal in something other than Paul Krugman-like wishful thinking are not surprised.

I have said it before. Barack Obama has the economic sophistication of a middle school Marxist. He has demonstrated his economic incompetence (and that of his administration) over and over.

We have to dump Obama in 2012. It can't come soon enough.

Woman fined $100 for improper newspaper disposal

2011-07-06T09:12:00.000-04:00

Has government run amok?

Evidence abounds.

Consider that case of the 83 year old woman terrorized and fined ... by a sanitation worker. For throwing her newspaper in the street trash can.

Read about it here.

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ... v. Regents of the University of Michigan

2011-07-05T11:14:00.002-04:00

In a case that sets the 14th Amendment squarely on its head, in Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights And Fight For Equality By Any Means Necessary (Bamn) et al. v. Regents of the University of Michigan et al, ___ F. 3d ___ (7/1/2011), the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that a state may not ban discrimination on the basis of race if the ban results in minorities not being able to be the beneficiaries of racial discrimination.

In 2006 the citizens of Michigan voted to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, including preferences, by a referendum proposition that read,

(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

(2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(3) For the purposes of this section “state” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.

In a 2 to 1 decision, in bafflingly obtuse language, the majority suggested that the proposition "works as a reallocation of political power or reordering of the political process to place 'special burdens' on racial minorities."

Huh?

How is it possible, logically or practically, that eliminating preferences places special burdens on minorities? The only "burden" is a prohibition upon race-based preferences.

In my view, discrimination on the basis of race is wrong. Period.

In a university admissions policy, for example, there are as fixed number of admissions available. preferring one race necessarily discriminates against another. However the elites may think it benefits society to have racial quotas, from the standpoint of the student refused admission to support another's preference, it is wrong, pure and simple.

In its analysis, the majority said that because the proposition classified on the basis of race, the court had to strictly scrutinize the legislation. The majority had the legal analysis exactly backward. As the dissent pointed out:

“The central purpose of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the prevention of official conduct discriminating on the basis of race.” Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976). We apply strict scrutiny to those laws that racially classify individuals, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 216 (1995), and intermediate scrutiny to those laws that classify individuals based on gender, United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531 (1996). Racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny if (1) the law classifies on its face or (2) the law has a discriminatory impact and a discriminatory purpose. See Davis, 426 U.S. at 241. The district court concluded that Proposal 2, which prohibits racial classifications, a fortiori does not classify facially on the basis of race. Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action, 539 F. Supp. 2d at 951. Although the district court did find “sufficient evidence to establish a fact question on the disparate impact part of the test,” it did not find a discriminatory purpose. Id. Indeed, it stated that “the demonstration of a discriminatory purpose . . . dooms [the] conventional equal protection argument.” Id. Furthermore, the district court found the equal protection argument based on gender “even less compelling” due to the less exacting level of scrutiny. Id. at 952. I agree with the conclusions of the district court.

Proposal 2 does not establish a facial racial classification because its text does not draw distinctions on the basis of race; in fact, it prohibits them. Additionally, Proposal 2 does not classify racially on an impact theory because it lacks a discriminatory purpose. “[A]bsent a referendum that facially discriminates racially, or one where although facially neutral, the only possible rationale is racially motivated, a district court cannot inquire into the electorate’s motivations in an equal protection clause context.” Arthur v. Toledo, 782 F.2d 565, 574 (6th Cir. 1986). Thus, no heightened level of scrutiny need be applied to Proposal 2, and under rational basis review, Proposal 2 is easily justifiable. Proposal 2 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause under the conventional analysis.

How can a state law prohibiting racial discrimination, but either placing burdens upon or preferring minorities ever be a race based classification? It can't, except in the Orwellian world of the progressives.

I think the Supreme court will likely take this case for review, because it is so high-profile and so important.

Click on the title of the case for a .pdf of the whole thing.

Flawed Justice System

2011-06-27T11:56:00.000-04:00

From a Mark Steyn comment on the NRO site,

A New Hampshire neighbor of mine had the misfortune to attract the attention of federal prosecutors for one of those white-collar “crimes” no one can explain in English. The jury acquitted him in a couple of hours. Great news! The system worked! Not really. By then, the feds had spent a half-decade demolishing his life, exhausting his savings, wrecking his marriage, and driving him to attempt suicide. He’s not a big scary businessman like Conrad, just a small-town nobody. And he’ll never get his life back. Because, regardless of the verdict, the process is the punishment — which is the hallmark of unjust justice systems around the world.

Mr. Steyn nails a major defect in the American justice system. Best in the world, maybe .. maybe not. I have not studied all other justice systems.

Our system is terrible unless they prosecutors act with an intellectual honesty that is massively hard for the human brain to accomplish. The prosecutors become buddies with the police and more aligned with the police than is healthy for their independence. The prosecutors get in tight with the judges, because they see the same judges day after day. they ear more deference, frequently, than defense counsel. It is not a deliberate unequal deference by the judges, but a psychologically, the judges are inclined to cut prosecutors more slack.

The prosecutors have the power to over charge a defendant to put undue pressure for the innocent to plead guilty. They have the power to grant leniency or immunity to criminals to get their testimony (and give the criminals incentive to lie).

Juries are unpredictable, but I have seen juries fail to give the benefit of reasonable doubt. After all, the police would not have charged the defendant if he weren't guilty, they seem to think.

Police have the power to continue questioning the innocent (who do not exercise their rights to remain silent or to counsel (because, being innocent, they have nothing to fear, do they), until exhausted and under pressure they falsely confess. It happens more often than one would think.

For more information on how to conduct yourself when dealing with police, see the videos here and here.

Why Not Raise Taxes?

2011-06-21T13:21:00.002-04:00

Sarah Palin Too Dumb to Be President?

2011-06-21T13:07:00.000-04:00

Stupid Style, But Not Indecent Exposure

2011-06-16T17:19:00.000-04:00

The baggy pants style is reaaly, really stupid. The style comes from prisons, where "bitches" advertised their availability, showing their underwear covered butts.

Indecent exposure? That requires a review of the statute or ordinance, but the dumb style does not normally include the exposure of actual genitalia (and probably did not in this case).

Democrats Weinerless

2011-06-16T13:54:00.000-04:00

The Democrats are losing their Weiner. He is announcing his resignation from Congress this afternoon.

Timeless Advice

2011-06-15T21:35:00.002-04:00

William J.H. Boetcker 90 years ago wrote,

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.

And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

Are any of the president's people listening?

Republicans Not Giving Light Bulbs Back

2011-06-14T11:52:00.001-04:00

I am going to link to a column at Biggovernment.com that I wish I had written about the sad failure of Republicans to correct the light bulb disaster, uh, incandescent bulb ban, forcing all of us to use dangerous CFL bulbs. If you don't understand that they are dangerous, you have not checked the USEPA web site on how to clean up after a broken CFL bulb.

I was Feeling Guilty....

2011-06-14T11:39:00.000-04:00

I was feeling guilty about missing last night's televised "debate" (mutual press conference is more like it) of the Republican candidates (well, not all of them), but after Ed Morrisey's review I realize I really did not miss much.

The teaser:

The biggest losers at last night’s CNN debate were the people who tuned in for political enlightenment, and ended up watching a two-hour game show. CNN’s moderator, John King, had me thinking of Rudyard Kipling and “good old grinnin’, gruntin’ Gunga Din” — but without the ironic redemption. Any political insight got lost in King’s continuous “uh uh uh uh uh” soundtrack that kicked in within seconds of a Republican attempting to speak. Not that there was much insight to be had in a format that insisted on asking “This or That?” questions, such as “Thin crust or deep dish?”

For the full review at Hot Air, go here.

Obama the Luddite

2011-06-14T11:13:00.000-04:00

President Obama seems determined to prove that he knows absolutely nothing about economics, except the economic theories espoused by Marx (Karl, not Groucho). From Fox Nation:

President Obama explained to NBC News that the reason companies aren't hiring are not because of his policies, it's because the economy is so automated. ... "There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."

This is the same, sad Luddite opinion that prevailed in the days of Franklin Roosevelt and before and which has been wholly discredited by the booms of the 1960's, 1980's, and 1990's and the first half of the 2000's, all the while that we were becoming more and more automated.

It is no surprise that our president is an economic dunce.

The government is a cause of our serious unemployment problems, through excessive regulation and taxation. We need to eliminate most of the government agencies that now exist, and go back to the basics.

Moron of the Day: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL and DNC Chairman)

2011-06-13T13:24:00.001-04:00

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is as fuzzy-headed as they come, literally and figuratively:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Congratulations to today's Moron of the Day, second time winner, fuzz-head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who brags that President Obama has turned this economy around.

John Boehner on Anthony Weiner

2011-06-13T12:02:00.002-04:00

"They call me 'boner' but at least I'm not a Weiner"

Cyber-Predator Anthony Weiner

2011-06-10T11:55:00.000-04:00

"Sadly, the Internet is the predator's venue of choice today. We need to update our strategies and our laws to stop these offenders who are a mere click away from our children." --Rep. Anthony Weiner in 2007

Should America Stop Throwing Taxpayer Money Down the Hole?

2011-06-10T10:11:00.000-04:00

A serious report from The Onion, that unfortunately, gets it about right:

Debbie Downer aka Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

2011-06-09T10:33:00.001-04:00

I guess I am not alone in my feelings about this person.

I would only add that someone needs to introduce Debbie Downer to a comb.

Economic Policy Made Simple

2011-06-07T13:13:00.000-04:00

To end unemployment, first you have to create unemployment. Repeal all government agencies, except those necessary for foreign relations and defense, and make those former government workers find real jobs that produces stuff or services people with things that they actually want and need.

Say good bye to the wasteful United States Environmental Protection Agency. We need an new environmental paradigm. We need to get rid of our central planning model and trade it for something that works better.

We don't need those agencies to protect us. In the long run, they do more harm than good. For every person they favor with "help," they hurt more than one in the process.

Without the excessive regulatory state, we would have innovation again. More jobs. More advances in every field.

Our politicians lack the guts and the foresight.

I said it and I'm glad.

Anthony Weiner, Untrustworthy Liar

2011-06-07T12:42:00.000-04:00

Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has just completed ten days of lies and misleading half-truths. Yesterday, he admitted that he took the suggestive pictures and sent them to young women via tweet.

There was no hacked Twitter account.

There was no prank.

His original and repeated denials of responsibility were false.

As in Watergate, it was not the original behavior (reprehensible, but essentially private), it is the cover-up.

Anthony Weiner is a liar. Anthony Weiner is untrustworthy. How could anything he says be believed if he is saying something in his own best interest?

Andrew Klavan's One State Solution

2011-06-06T13:50:00.000-04:00

Anthony's Weiners in New York

2011-06-06T13:35:00.000-04:00

I said I wouldn't, but I can't help myself.

The beer special is Smuttynose India Pale Ale.

More on the story from the New York Daily News.

Be sure to check out Biggovernment.com as the story trickles out.

Last Word On Weinergate

2011-06-04T12:25:00.004-04:00

I can't write any more on Weinergate, because I could never top the coverage by my brother, The Funeral Guy. Click on over to get the skinny on this pic:

Alameda County CA: County of Cowards

2011-06-02T22:53:00.000-04:00

Alameda county rescue workers watched for an hour while a swimmer took his time drowning.

Cowardice rules in the People's Republic of California.

My Take on Weinergate

2011-06-02T13:18:00.000-04:00

When congressman Anthony Weiner said, that he could not "say with certitude" whether the lewd picture twitted to a college girl was of him, Congressman Weiner effectively admitted that (1) it looks like his underwear; (2) he has taken pictures of himself turgid or someone has done it for him. Otherwise, he would absolutely know that the picture was not him.

Accordingly, guilty or innocent of that particular tweet, he knows he cannot absolutely deny that the picture was of him and effectively admits that it could be.

Furthermore, if his account was hacked or pranked, he should have immediately reported it to the FBI, which is easily done online. Or he could still do so. Why not? Because if he actually sent the tweet, the false report would be a crime.

To me the evidence on Weinergate is that the wiener in question is Weiner's.

Anti-Palin Books Don't Sell: Leftists Write But Don't Read

2011-05-31T12:09:00.000-04:00

The American Thinker reports that Anti-Palin books don't sell:

Palin-flamethrower, Geoffrey Dunn of the Huffington Post released The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power May 10th and Frank Bailey, former Aide to Palin, teamed up with Palin-critic Jeanne Devon to release Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin: A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years on May 24th. Ardent opponents of Sarah Palin have been highly-anticipating these books which promised to tear down Palin's public image for the long-term.

Interestingly, Geoffrey Dunn's book has not even hit Amazon's top-100 list since its release; and after a week of media coverage including appearances on NBC, ABC's The View, Fox News, CNN, and many more, Frank Bailey's "memoir" disappointingly debuted at #40 and has already fallen to #75.

There is a good reason for that. Leftists don't read.

That goes along with the apparent fact that leftists either don't or can't think past step one of any problem. The typical example is minimum wage. The apparent obvious effect is that people with jobs get a minimum amount of hourly money. Step two is that there are fewer jobs. Step three is that minority youths are hurt the most by the lack of jobs. Leftists can't think past step one.

This sort of non-thinking is what leftist demagoguery appeals to. Hint to leftists: demagoguery by definition refers to appeals to emotion rather than logic. Every time I hear as leftist refer to a reasoned argument as demagoguery, I have to assume they don't know what the word means.

Reading implies thinking. So, it is not surprising that non-thinkers are also non-readers.

Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

2011-05-31T11:01:00.000-04:00

Drew Carey tried to save Cleveland, but Cleveland refused to be saved.

How bad is a city government that refused to recognize its state supreme court telling it that it has a loser case? That is what happened here.

Buckeye firearms sued Cleveland because Cleveland's gun laws conflict with state gun laws and the Ohio Revised code contains a clear preemption provision. The City of Cleveland went to the Ohio Supreme Court to challenge the preemption on "home rule" grounds. In Ohio, home rule for municipalities is quite strong, but the City of Cleveland lost in the Supreme Court.

Back in the common pleas court, the City of Cleveland is enjoined from enforcing is onerous, anti-gun laws. A copy of the preliminary injunction is here.

Moron of the Day: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL and DNC Chairman)

2011-05-30T15:22:00.002-04:00

Congratulations to our first repeat offender, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This woman is so far left, she almost makes Sherrod Brown look rational. (Well, maybe that thought goes too far. Sherrod Brown is pretty moronic on the daily basis, and it would not be fair to other candidates to give him the Moron of the Day awards he probably deserves.)

Anyway, Ms. Schultz gets her award for not knowing that it is already illegal, indeed it is a now a criminal offense, to be in this country illegally. She thinks that making illegals, well, illegal, is part of a dastardly Republican plot.

Thanks, Debbie, for being our first repeater. You are definitely in the running for becoming our first Moron of the Year. Keep up the good work!

(Um, could somebody introduce Ms. Wasserman-Schultz to a comb?)

State v. Barnes Update

2011-05-27T14:38:00.000-04:00

In State v. Barnes, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned hundreds of years of precedent to allow the prosecution of a resident in his home who resisted an illegal entry by the police on which I reported here.

Here is a protest in Indiana against that decision:

Obama In the U.K.

2011-05-27T14:21:00.002-04:00

Barack Obama is in the U.K.

Do we really have to let him back in? Just some wishful thinking.

Republicans Block More Recess Appointments

2011-05-27T13:31:00.003-04:00

After the United States Senate refused to confirm the appointment of Craig Becker, radical union lawyer, to the National labor Relations board, President Obama waited until the Senate recessed and appointed Becker anyway. Under the United States constitution, many officers must be appointed subject to confirmation by the United States Senate. However, there is an exception. If the Senate is not in session, the president may appoint and the officer does not need to be confirmed until after the next session of Congress.

According to the Washington Examiner:

Sen. Jim DeMint has confirmed that the House will block President Obama from making recess appointments, in the following statement emailed to the Examiner:

“President Obama has been packing federal agencies with left-wing ideologues, but thankfully he won’t be able to for at least the next week. The House will not be sending an adjournment resolution to the Senate, we will remain in pro forma session, and no controversial nominees will be allowed to circumvent the confirmation process during the break.”

According to the Constitution, these recess appointments are only supposed to be for vacancies that "happen during the recess." This is a procedure that President Obama and others before him have seriously abused.

Paul Ryan on Medicare

2011-05-27T12:46:00.000-04:00

Paul Ryan gets the economics correct.

It boggles the mind that the Obama "progressives" think that a bankrupt, failed centrally planned system is "progress." I don't. Do you?

Obama Botches Toast to the Queen of England.

2011-05-25T10:10:00.000-04:00

Hotair.com is reporting on President Obama's botched toast to the Queen of England. He failed to wait until "God save the Queen" completed before completing the toast (or something). Here is the video:

This may reasonably viewed with mixed feelings. Here is our President, the guy who snubbed the British by returning the gift of the bust of Winston Churchill against showing his lack of cool. Or, we could just say that our president is not ready for the international prime time. Or, we could say that snooty British protocol stuff is part of the reason we broke away form those folks in the place.

Personally, I blame President Obama's staff (and the buck stops at the President) for inadequately preparing the President. He did not make a fool of himself on purpose.

David Gregory Reveals His Racist Thinking

2011-05-23T12:14:00.000-04:00

By assuming that receivers of "food stamps" are black, David Gregory of NBC, shows himself to be racist (video below). Clearly David Gregory is racist in his head, because when he hears "food stamps" he thinks black people. How else can you explain his question to Newt Gingerich?

Sarah Palin calls Gregory out on his racism.

The real problem is that racism underlies so much of the progressive agenda. "Affirmative action" is the most egregious example, because the underlying assumption is that blacks are inferior to whites that they cannot make it on their own without a a "progressive" helping hand. I do not believe that. Sadly, blacks vote for Democrats in large numbers to take advantage of the Democrats' benevolent racism. The intentions may be a benevolent helping hand for the "disadvantaged" (as they prefer to characterize it), but the attitude is racist nevertheless.

Campaign Ads

2011-05-20T15:18:00.001-04:00

Is President Obama listening?

Supposed Believers in First Amendment Petition to Limit Speech of Conservative Talkers

2011-05-20T14:56:00.000-04:00

If I had the petition signers' names, there would be multiple morons of the day today. Watch and groan.

Stupid Government Trick: Lottery Winner Gets Food Stamps

2011-05-19T12:37:00.000-04:00

Here is another story from our entitlement culture:

Hate Crime: Saudi Woman Spits on Fellow Customer at Walmart

2011-05-19T12:34:00.000-04:00

I am not a fan of hate crime enhancements. What this woman did was awful, but it should not be a felony.

More on the story from The Blaze.

High School Soccer Trick Play

2011-05-19T12:29:00.000-04:00

I am not a soccer fan, but this is fun:

Kentucky v. King: Welcome to the Police State

2011-05-18T14:38:00.002-04:00

In Kentucky v. King, the United States Supreme Court continued the judicial encroachment on our fundamental freedoms. here are the facts from the court's syllabus:

Police officers in Lexington, Kentucky, followed a suspected drug dealerto an apartment complex. They smelled marijuana outside anapartment door, knocked loudly, and announced their presence. As soon as the officers began knocking, they heard noises coming from the apartment; the officers believed that these noises were consistent with the destruction of evidence. The officers announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked in the door, and found respondent andothers. They saw drugs in plain view during a protective sweep of the apartment and found additional evidence during a subsequent search. The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent circumstances—the need to pre-vent destruction of evidence—justified the warrantless entry.

The apartment the police entered did not contain the drug dealer they were chasing. But after entry, the police charges these folks who were simply in their own apartment.

The court called this warrantless entry "objectively reasonable." Really?

The court held as follows:

For these reasons, we conclude that the exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not gain entry topremises by means of an actual or threatened violation ofthe Fourth Amendment. This holding provides ampleprotection for the privacy rights that the Amendment protects.

When law enforcement officers who are not armed with a warrant knock on a door, they do no more than any private citizen might do. And whether the person who knocks on the door and requests the opportunity to speak is a police officer or a private citizen, the occupant has noobligation to open the door or to speak. Cf. Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497–498 (1983). (“[H]e may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way”).When the police knock on a door but the occupants choosenot to respond or to speak, “the investigation will havereached a conspicuously low point,” and the occupants “will have the kind of warning that even the most elaborate security system cannot provide.” Chambers, 395 F. 3d, at 577 (Sutton, J., dissenting). And even if an occupant chooses to open the door and speak with the officers, the occupant need not allow the officers to enter the premises and may refuse to answer any questions at any time.

Occupants who choose not to stand on their constitutional rights but instead elect to attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame for the warrantless exigent-circumstances search that may ensue.

Granted the folks whose apartment the police invaded were doing something illegal. Even if people are doing something illegal in their homes, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a warrant from entry, except for what should be limited circumstances.

In this case, there was no reason that the police could not have posted an officer outside the apartment or outside building entrances to obtain a warrant based upon the noise and odor of marijuana.

Here is what is scary about this decision. Every time a police officer wants to justify a warrantless entry, all the officer needs to do now is claim that the officer heard noises that he or she thought might be destroying evidence.

I agree with the following that begins Justice Ginsberg's dissent:

The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement indrug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neu-tral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample timeto obtain a warrant. I dissent from the Court’s reduction of the Fourth Amendment’s force.

Welcome to the police state.

Moron of the Day: Steve Israel (D-NY)

2011-05-17T12:16:00.001-04:00

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, prove that the Democratic party lacks the slightest clue about economics. Re. Israel said, yest actually said, that raising taxes on oil companies will lower gas prices. That's right, higher taxes will lower gas prices.

Here is a transcript:

CHRIS JANSING, MSNBC HOST: "Let me ask you is there anything Congress can do to lower fuel prices?"

REP. STEVE ISRAEL (D-NY): "Yeah, there's lots of things we can do. Start by eliminating the $4 billion subsidy that big oil companies get."

JANSING: "They say, Congressman, they say that will not affect the price of gas."

ISRAEL: "Well, of course they're going to say that. They're getting the subsidies. It doesn't surprise me that a bunch of rich oil executives would go to Congress and say 'don't touch our subsidies, you have to lower our taxes.' That's a self-serving argument. It is just ludicrous that we are continuing to provide $4 billion a year in subsidies to big oil companies that are making more profits than they've ever made. And the notion that we can end Medicare in order to fund tax cuts and tax subsidies to oil companies is really transforming this election and electoral battleground."

This guy is really a moron if he believes higher taxes on oil companies will lower gas prices. He may be even dumber than Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Hard to believe. the rest of his straw man argument is pure demagoguery.

Congratulations to Steve Israel, today's Moron of the Day.

(By the way, I agree with eliminating the depletion allowance for oil companies, the misnamed "subsidy" to which our Moron of the Day refers. However it is talking-point madness to suggest that the elimination of tax breaks would cause lower oil prices. Of course, I think we should replace the entire tax code with the Fair Tax, eliminating all tax breaks in the income tax.)

Medicare Reform Video from Center for Freedom and Prosperity

2011-05-17T11:39:00.000-04:00

I offer these videos from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, because they are uniformly well-reasoned and thought provoking. This one is no exception, especially in the wake for Newt Gingerich's stumbling on Sunday's Meet the Press in which he criticized Paul Ryan's plan. Newt proved himself to be a big government politician, just not quite as big government as Barack Obama. Whoop-de-doo. That is not saying much. I'll say again, Good-bye, Newt.

David Evans Must Read, From Former Global Warming Alarrmist

2011-05-16T17:21:00.000-04:00

Here is the teaser:

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

You know you want to read it all. Read it in the Financial Post (Canada).

Land of the Formerly Free

2011-05-16T14:43:00.000-04:00

The 2011 Heritage Freedom Index is out, and the United States is barely in the top ten.

Read it and weep.

Allen West Exposes Obama Corruption and Ineptitude

2011-05-16T14:35:00.000-04:00

A draft executive order would require people making proposal to the Department of Defense contractors to disclose their political contributions. The Obama official shown makes the claim that political contributions will never be a basis for selection. He is either a liar or stupidly naive. No responsible person in Washington could make that claim, It does not pass the straight face test. Why is he here, anyway?

Watch:

There is no reason to have anything in a contractor's request for proposal that will not be considered in the selection process.

Requiring contractors to disclose political contribution is an invitation to corruption. Nay, it exposes just how corrupt the Obama administration has become.

State v. Barnes: Government Takes Away Another Freedom

2011-05-16T13:26:00.002-04:00

In State v. Barnes, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned 800 years of settled law to find, "We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers."

That is right. In Indiana, police officers now may enter your home illegally, and you can't resist.

One's home is no longer one's castle, at least not in Indiana.

Ohio still recognizes that a person has a right to resist an unlawful entry, and suggests that the right to refuse an unlawful entry is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (which is supposed to apply even in Indiana): State v. Holmes (9th Dist App.), 2005-Ohio-1632:

{¶16} The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution confers the right to refuse consent to enter a residence, and the assertion of that right cannot be a crime. State v. Robinson (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 490, 496 (characterizing the right to resist an unlawful entry as a privilege sufficient to defeat obstruction charge). See, also, Ohio Const. Section 14, Article I. In the present case, the police officers admittedly forced the entry into the home, without justification of either a warrant or any exigent circumstance. Facially, this is an unlawful entry giving rise to a privilege to resist such an entry.

{¶17} Similarly, because the Ohio statute does not prohibit resisting an unlawful arrest under such circumstances, it follows that it will not per se prohibit resisting an unlawful entry. Elyria v. Tress (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 5, 9 (reversing conviction for resisting arrest when police forced entry through defendant's door). See, also, State v. Cummings, 9th Dist. No. 20609, at *13-14, 2002-Ohio-213 (affirming the suppression of evidence obtained after a similar forced entry). Therefore, if we are to follow our prior holdings, we must conclude that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a necessary element of the crime of which Mr. Holmes was convicted, i.e., lawfulness of the officer's entry and absence of privilege. In re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 358, 364, 25 L.Ed.2d 368.

There is an interesting discussion of State v. Barnes at The Volokh Conspiracy in the comments section. On commenter quotes an Indiana statute that specifically authorizes resistance to an unlawful entry. I guess the court simply magically created a exception for unlawful entry by police.

Any police entry by force causes me serious concern, both for the occupant and for the police. If the police do the right thing and announce themselves as police before entering sometimes violently, how is the homeowner to know it is really the police? How do they know it is not home invaders claiming to be police?

I know of arrests witnessed by people whose observations I trust. Aside from the automobile stop alongside the road, there is usually no good reason for a violent arrest tactic when the offender is not resisting. Unnecessary violence creates resistance, doesn't it? In more cases than not, the alleged offender will show up voluntarily at the police station just to avoid a violent arrest. I understand concerns for police safety, but there must be a better way than police exercising violent to arrest a passive alleged offender. It gives police a bad reputation, I think.

Good-Bye Newt Gingerich; Newt Responds

2011-05-16T12:02:00.002-04:00

Here is a really good reason to forget Newt Gingerich as a candidate, from Meet the Press yesterday:

“Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care,” said Gingrich. “And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you're going to be held accountable.”

He thinks that is going to make libertarians happy? In what universe? Not this one.

Newt is endorsing the individual mandate. That shows he is really just another big government type. Bad medicine.

Newt Gingerich for president? A definite and resounding NO from the Voice of Reason.

Update: Newt Responds:

Really? How can anyone explain the inconsistencies with yesterday's statement and for his 1993 support for an individual mandate (reported at CNS News)? When politicians say different things at different times to different people, color me suspicious.

Obama, A President Lost in Space

2011-05-13T15:00:00.000-04:00

Where did the Democrats ever find this guy?

President Obama responds to a woman who was laid off from her government job: "Let me just first of all say that workers like you, for the federal, state, and local governments, are so important for our vital services. And it frustrates me sometimes when people talk about 'government jobs' as if somehow those are worth less than private sector jobs. I think there is nothing more important than working on behalf of the American people."

I don't know how you could get anymore wrongheaded. It is only private employment that generates the taxes that permits government jobs to exist. Of course government jobs are worth less than private jobs. Far too many government jobs exist at all. We need to focus on eliminating government jobs.

This is a government-uber-alles president.

On a related note, it is altogether wrong to ask what government agencies can be eliminated. We should instead ask what government agencies do we need to keep.

Chris Christie Responds to Evolution Question

2011-05-13T13:13:00.000-04:00

Gotta love it!

From Fox Nation:

JERSEY CITY - Gov. Chris Christie refused to comment when asked if he believes in evolution or the theory of creationism when asked at a press conference earlier today.

"That's none of your business," Christie said.

He is right, of course. Even if he were a candidate for president, he would still be right. It is none of our business.

I don't care what President Obama thinks about that question either.

Lawyers and Justice

2011-05-13T13:07:00.002-04:00

This is an interesting discussion from a PBS program "The Open Mond" about 30 years ago. This dicussion is about justice and the law. It is about our system and about the lawyers role in seeking the truth ... or not. It presents issues as fresh today as when originally broadcast. By presenting this video, I do not necessarily agree with everything Judge Frankel says, but it is extremely thought-provoking and highly recommended for anyone seeking justice from the law and from the courts:

Watch the full episode. See more The Open Mind.

Obama Running for Reelection?

2011-05-13T13:06:00.000-04:00

The voters would have to be out of their minds to want to reelect Mr. Obama.

Of course the opponent matters.

Mitt Romney? Ecchh. Mr. Romeneycare, too similar to Obamacare. Loser.

Mike Huckabee? Anyone who supporte Michelle obama's federal child obesity initiative lack a proper understanding of federalism. Fighting obesity is not the job of Federal government on the taxpayer's dime. No, thank you.

Herman Cain? We love what we know about him so far.

More to come ....

Eat The Rich

2011-05-09T13:00:00.000-04:00

This is also the title of a wonderful book by P.J. O'Rourke.

I like Herman Cain

2011-05-07T13:31:00.002-04:00

I am not alone. This is a South Carolina Republican focus group, not a bi-partison group:

Note: I am not ready to endorse anybody, but I really like what he has to say and his experience.

"Natural Born Citizen" Before the Fourteenth Amendment

2011-05-02T11:27:00.000-04:00

I quote here from a United States Supreme Court case, 1847, discussing the citizenship of a child who is born in the United States of a British citizen father and United States citizen mother:

4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during its father's temporary residence therein,-twenty-two months and twenty days,-notwithstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitated by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint; Constitution United States, art. 3, 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sail. Snug Harb., 3 Pet., 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. 3, cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Cl. & F., 523; Story Confl. L., 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelf. Marriage, Ferg., 397, 398.

Barry v. Mercein (1847), 46 U.S. 103, 46 U.S. 103 (How.)(Footnote 4).

Of course this rule of law as to citizenship of the child changed with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it illustrates that a "natural born citizen" as used in Article II, Section 1 of United States Constitution when it was adopted excluded a child to a father who was a British subject, even though the child was born in the United States. The child had to be born with fealty to the United States alone.

Of course it will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court (eventually) to decide whether under the Fourteenth Amendment a "natural born citizen" is fully equivalent to a "born citizen" who may be born with dual allegiance. Stated differently, is sole allegiance to the United States at birth the determiner of "natural born citizen?" Or did the Fourteenth Amendment change that requirement?

California Bullies Public Preachers

2011-04-29T13:33:00.000-04:00

This is unbelievable. If you think America is the "land of the free," think again. This video shows what a police state we really live in.

What freedom loving person who believes in the First Amendment would ever have believed that the police would arrest a man for preaching in public.

Here is a copy of the complaint filed against the office and the California Highway Patrol in the United States district Court.

Can We Afford Any More Obama?

2011-04-28T14:49:00.000-04:00

Barack Obama was Born in Hawaii... Yawn.

2011-04-27T10:42:00.001-04:00

Confirming what I have been saying all along, Barack Obama released the long for birth certificate confirming that he was born in Hawaii.

However, does that make him a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of Article II, Section 1 of the United Sates Constitution?

There is a serious school of thought, supported by historical record, that to be a natural born citizen, one must not only be born on American soil, but also be born of parents who are American citizens.

As I think about that, especially considering how our society has changed from the days when births out-of-wedlock were rare, I have the following questions in analyzing the legal issue:

If the child is born of a single mother, does it matter the citizenship of the father?
As to 1, what if the mother does not know who the father is? What if that is impossible to determine?
If the mother had no relationship with the father at the time of birth or after, why should the father's citizenship matter?
It is said in the case of Barack Obama that his parents were married, but since the father had another wife in Kenya, was the Hawaii marriage legal? Does that matter as to the natural born citizen determination?

If a court has to make a decision, the court needs to consider the ramifications of any ruling in light of these and similar questions for the future.

I am long on questions, short on answers.

Public University Advocates Violence and Industrial Sabotage

2011-04-26T13:10:00.000-04:00

Unbelievable.

The Professors are Judy Ancel, Director of Labor Studies at UMKC and Don Giljum, proud member of the Communist Party and business manager for the International Union of Operating Engineers at Ameren UE in St. Louis.

A college course in advanced thuggery?

The taxpayers are funding this. A Brave New World under Progressivism, I guess. Hope and Change.

Recycling A Campaign Ad That Remains Fresh

2011-04-22T15:04:00.000-04:00

This campaign ad tells us all we need to know about Barack Obama's understanding of economics. Too bad Mr. Britton did not win the campaign.

Crowder on the Latest Trig - Sarah Scandal

2011-04-22T14:47:00.000-04:00

Rep. & Col. Allen West on Obama

2011-04-22T14:27:00.000-04:00

From Rep. and Col. Allen West on President Obama:

I am sick and tired of this class warfare, this Marxist, demagogic rhetoric that is coming from the President of the United States of America. It is not helpful for this country and it’s not going to move the ball forward as far as rectifying the economic situation in our country. And I’m not going to back away from telling what the truth is.
[...]
There’s a great depth to my conviction, and part of my conviction is telling the truth. I don‘t think it’s very presidential when Barack Hussein Obama refers to my colleague, Paul Ryan, as a simple little accountant, either. So I think that when you look at what a community organizer is turning out to be, it does seem to be like a low-level socialist agitator.

Video here.

Any day now, Jesse Jackson will accuse Col. West of being a racist.

Natural Born Citizen Issues Not Simply About Place of Birth

2011-04-21T13:32:00.004-04:00

A few days ago, I wrote a post, "Natural Born Citizen Obama." This is a follow up with new (to me) analysis.

To be eligible for the presidency, a person must be a 'natural born citizen." The overwhelming evidence is that President Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. However that may not be the end of the story.

A scholarly article on The Federalist Blog, "Defining Natural born Citizen" written in November 2008 explains the history of the term "natural born citizen" and discusses the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment. The article contains the following statement in the analysis:

One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

Barack Obama's father was a British citizen.

In other words, it is reasonable to questions Mr. Obama's eligibility to serve, but darned tough to get that issue to court. The Supreme Court has already refused to hear an emergency petition this issue which were raised in Leo Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, which I believe (from memory, sometimes faulty) in the lower court was decided on a standing issue, i.e., Leo Donofrio, citizen, lacked standing to raise the natural Born citizen issue over then candidate Barack Obama.

The following statement was released by Leo Donofrio after the Supreme Court declined to hear his emergency petition:

Before I address the legal facts of this headline, I want to address all of the other Presidential eligibility cases that went before SCOTUS including my own. It’s true that – technically – Donofrio v. Wells could still be pending if I chose to submit a full petition for writ of certiorari. Many have written to me and asked why I haven’t resorted to that tactic. The answer is fairly simple: my case is moot.

The same is true for Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, Lightfoot v. Bowen and the Berg cases, all of which asked for emergency stays or emergency injunctions to stop a candidate from becoming “president-elect” and later president.

Once my case stay application was denied, I had exhausted the only emergency procedure available to me and the US Supreme Court Rules would not have facilitated the resolution of a full petition before the candidate was sworn in as President (or become president-elect).

When Obama was sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts as President, our Constitutional separation of powers kicked in big time. Because of the separation of powers enumerated in our Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has no ability to remove a sitting President. Nowhere in the Document does it give the Supreme Court (or the judicial branch) any authority to remove a sitting President.

All of the eligibility law suits – brought before electoral college votes were counted in Congress – sought to challenge the qualifications of candidate Obama to be President. Once he graduated from “candidate Obama” to “President-elect Obama” and later “President Obama”, every single eligibility law suit pending before SCOTUS became moot.

Full statement here.

For more reading: Natural Born Citizen blog.

Wikipedia's Natural Born Citizen Clause which includes discussion of other presidents and candidates whose eligibility was questioned.

American Thinker article, Obama and the Natural Born citizen Clause.

Obama Presidential Eligibility, An Introductory Primer.

Hypocrisy of Students Exposed

2011-04-21T12:51:00.000-04:00

Students at the University of California-Merced thought it is fair to tax more money from high income earners to redistribute the wealth to help the poor, but could not wrap their heads around the concept of similarly redistributing grade point averages (GPA's) to help poor students.

How sad is our education system? Redistribution is not fair if it takes from their hard-earned grades, but it is fair if it takes from people's hard earned incomes. Hmmm.

Dolts.

Maybe after they have thought more about it....

One can only hope, I guess.

Evan Sayet

2011-04-21T12:26:00.000-04:00

The following video of a 2009 talk by Evan Sayet is truly insightful about how modern liberals think, and still fresh: