John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (or whatever),said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.
What?
Those of you who know me, know I think illegal immigration is not a big deal. These people are no more prone to illegal activity than citizens. Additionally, I believe they add positively to our economy. BUT; if your job is to enforce immigration law then when confronted with an illegal alien you must act. Here we have a federal official acting to nullify law that he is tasked to uphold. What the hell are we paying him for? Clearly not to do his job.
You're fired dumbass!
Friday, May 21, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
EU to be renamed Zombieland, Euro the Zombie
The Euro is a zombie currency. That would be really funny if it wasn't so true.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Internet Explorer?
I saw a web posting, "The ONLY thing Internet Explorer is good for is downloading Firefox and Google Chrome, and it's not very good at that."
Amen to that.
Amen to that.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Tea Party - Too Popular for Comfort
Charles Postel opines on the Tea Party movement in a Reuters piece. This is a continuation of the liberal mind not being able to believe or grasp the obvious. (He is from San Francisco so he lives in a fever swamp of idiocy.) It is impossible for these progressives to understand that the movement is really just about limiting government and living within our means. Postel claims Tea Partiers are hostile to federal spending on jobs. That seems right, but that is a limiting and incomplete statement. They are hostile to federal spending for any reason that is unsustainable.
There is an anti-incumbent wave, and it is being driven by the belief that spending must be reined in. This is not just anger against Democrats. The Republicans spent like fools during the Bush presidency, and now the Democrats are doubling down. The Tea Party group seems to understand that it is not the President who budgets and spends, it is Congress, and they are willing to do something about it. Sen. Bennett of Utah lost at the state Republican convention after serving three terms, because he is a spender.
This is a sizable movement with the support of a large percentage of the general population. Continuing attempts to vilify seem to only build the movement. The liberal media doesn't understand that if they are against something, that is an indication to many that it must be a good thing.
There is an anti-incumbent wave, and it is being driven by the belief that spending must be reined in. This is not just anger against Democrats. The Republicans spent like fools during the Bush presidency, and now the Democrats are doubling down. The Tea Party group seems to understand that it is not the President who budgets and spends, it is Congress, and they are willing to do something about it. Sen. Bennett of Utah lost at the state Republican convention after serving three terms, because he is a spender.
This is a sizable movement with the support of a large percentage of the general population. Continuing attempts to vilify seem to only build the movement. The liberal media doesn't understand that if they are against something, that is an indication to many that it must be a good thing.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
A New Voice on the Supremes
Paul Campos writes a lengthy analysis of Elena Kagan as a potential nominee to SCOTUS.
It is worth a read. The takeaway is that her political views are unknown, but she is intelligent, has a good legal mind, and would be an asset to the Court. This is exactly what a nominee should bring to the table.
All of this political infighting over a nominees views on abortion in particular, or any other issue in general, is just bullshit. If a candidate is a qualified, quality jurist they should be seated.
The risk the Obama administration takes in appointing such a person is that they don't know where they will fall in their decisions. Any administration wishes to put Justices on the Court who will fit its particular political philosophy. This can result in a Souter appointment.
I say that if Pres. Obama appoints Kagan she should be swiftly confirmed.
It is worth a read. The takeaway is that her political views are unknown, but she is intelligent, has a good legal mind, and would be an asset to the Court. This is exactly what a nominee should bring to the table.
All of this political infighting over a nominees views on abortion in particular, or any other issue in general, is just bullshit. If a candidate is a qualified, quality jurist they should be seated.
The risk the Obama administration takes in appointing such a person is that they don't know where they will fall in their decisions. Any administration wishes to put Justices on the Court who will fit its particular political philosophy. This can result in a Souter appointment.
I say that if Pres. Obama appoints Kagan she should be swiftly confirmed.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Send lawyers
I just heard that the President is responding to the massive oil spill by sending a large number of government attorneys to Louisiana. That's just the right thing to remediate an oil spill. I guess you tie them end to end, and float them in front of the encroaching slick? I just can't imagine what other useful purpose they might serve.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Republicans=idiots
Just when the Republicans have everything in their hands they manage to do something totally stupid.
Why, oh why, would you stir up the immigration mess when things were going well. This is not a winning issue for Republicans and everyone knows it but them. This is as stupid as the Democrats kowtowing to the fringe of their party. Just when it looked like they would make huge gains in the House and the Senate, along comes the immigration bomb, and they reach down and light the fuse. It's like giving back all the gains made in the past 15 months.
There seemed to be a real opportunity to gain some ground, and roll back the legislative overreach, and spending splurge of the past two years. That will crawl back now, thanks to the Arizona law, and the other southern states jumping on the bandwagon.
Idiots!
Why, oh why, would you stir up the immigration mess when things were going well. This is not a winning issue for Republicans and everyone knows it but them. This is as stupid as the Democrats kowtowing to the fringe of their party. Just when it looked like they would make huge gains in the House and the Senate, along comes the immigration bomb, and they reach down and light the fuse. It's like giving back all the gains made in the past 15 months.
There seemed to be a real opportunity to gain some ground, and roll back the legislative overreach, and spending splurge of the past two years. That will crawl back now, thanks to the Arizona law, and the other southern states jumping on the bandwagon.
Idiots!
Friday, April 23, 2010
Religiosity
I find this map interesting. Living in a a Baptist enclave creates certain attitudes that are hard to understand if you don't live in such an area. I am ambivalent about this, some of these accepted norms are useful, some are extremely stifling. Tolerance of heathens is minimal.
Studying this map certainly helps to understand attitudes, moral, social and political, in each area of the country.
Studying this map certainly helps to understand attitudes, moral, social and political, in each area of the country.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
TEA Party
The American Tea Party is important, Tea stands for Taxed Enough Already.
This is not a group of racist, homophobic, or whatever other slander the mainstream media and left wing nutcases have decided to use as a label. These are American citizens, your neighbors, who are fed up with an overreaching federal government. They hold a belief that our country should adhere to its fundamentals as expressed by our founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers. There is nothing radical nor subversive in this belief. Quite the opposite, those who hold that the federal government knows best and should tax and spend in order to create a perfect government are the radicals.
Our country was not founded in order to create a perfect government, but rather, in order to assure individual rights and liberties. The Bill of Rights is not a bill of government empowerment, but a bill of individual rights that limit the power of government. The U.S. Constitution is a prescription for individual empowerment.
The history of the past 100 years is a flagrant disregard for the Constitution. Taking individual liberties and giving the federal government power to limit those very rights. This is an abomination.
Mark me down as a supporter of the movement to limit the central government. Additionally, I loathe the race baiters and demagogues, who seek to besmirch honest citizens who are merely exercising their freedom to congregate, and communally express their displeasure with the direction that our country is taking.
To hell with Democrats and Republicans alike, who think that the federal government has the RIGHT to circumvent the United States Constitution because it is to the benefit of the community. We are not a community, we are a nation of individuals who commune with those who we find agreeable.
This is not a group of racist, homophobic, or whatever other slander the mainstream media and left wing nutcases have decided to use as a label. These are American citizens, your neighbors, who are fed up with an overreaching federal government. They hold a belief that our country should adhere to its fundamentals as expressed by our founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers. There is nothing radical nor subversive in this belief. Quite the opposite, those who hold that the federal government knows best and should tax and spend in order to create a perfect government are the radicals.
Our country was not founded in order to create a perfect government, but rather, in order to assure individual rights and liberties. The Bill of Rights is not a bill of government empowerment, but a bill of individual rights that limit the power of government. The U.S. Constitution is a prescription for individual empowerment.
The history of the past 100 years is a flagrant disregard for the Constitution. Taking individual liberties and giving the federal government power to limit those very rights. This is an abomination.
Mark me down as a supporter of the movement to limit the central government. Additionally, I loathe the race baiters and demagogues, who seek to besmirch honest citizens who are merely exercising their freedom to congregate, and communally express their displeasure with the direction that our country is taking.
To hell with Democrats and Republicans alike, who think that the federal government has the RIGHT to circumvent the United States Constitution because it is to the benefit of the community. We are not a community, we are a nation of individuals who commune with those who we find agreeable.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Justice Stevens resigns
Am I the only one that thinks the genius appointment to replace Justice Stevens would be Pres. Clinton?
He is a moderate Democrat, not some uber-liberal tool of the left. He has experience from the state level to the federal level, so he understands how federal legislation affects state government.
The Party owes him for bringing them back to life. He was the only successful Democratic President since Truman. It would be respectful, and give him gravitas that he, being an impeached President, cannot attain in any other way.
Just a thought.
He is a moderate Democrat, not some uber-liberal tool of the left. He has experience from the state level to the federal level, so he understands how federal legislation affects state government.
The Party owes him for bringing them back to life. He was the only successful Democratic President since Truman. It would be respectful, and give him gravitas that he, being an impeached President, cannot attain in any other way.
Just a thought.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
This is a problem
If only half of us pay taxes then the other half can vote themselves the use of our money.
I don't think we should be taxing people with relatively small incomes, but for half of the "tax payers" to not pay any income tax is a problem. This approaches the level of theft. If you can vote to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to provide benefits to yourself, without having any skin in the game, there is a problem.
I don't think we should be taxing people with relatively small incomes, but for half of the "tax payers" to not pay any income tax is a problem. This approaches the level of theft. If you can vote to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to provide benefits to yourself, without having any skin in the game, there is a problem.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Guam is a really small island
Don't ever think for a minute that you're not smart enough to be a Congressman. Watch this video, and be in awe of the minimum necessary to be elected.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Obamacare unintended consequence #2
So the insurers claim the bill does not actually require them to cover children with pre-existing conditions. The bill merely states that if they insure children they must cover all their healthcare needs regardless of the time of onset.
Apparently, in haste to pass a 2,700 page bill that they had never read, our uber-intelligent legislators forgot the difference between coverage and guaranteed issue. Meaning, coverage need not be extended to sick children, but if it is, then all illness is covered.
The important part of this whole discussion is the definition of insurance. Insurance-A means of indemnity against a future occurrence of an uncertain event. Note the term uncertain. It is not insurance if you are merely providing a reimbursement mechanism for foreseeable expenses. That would be a risk pool. There is nothing wrong with a pool. It is a good method for spreading the costs among individuals who must use a service. But, it is not insurance. And forcing people who do not have a certain future event, but an uncertain one, into the same "insurance" plan as people with pre-existing conditions is merely socialistic redistribution of money from one individual to another.
Apparently, in haste to pass a 2,700 page bill that they had never read, our uber-intelligent legislators forgot the difference between coverage and guaranteed issue. Meaning, coverage need not be extended to sick children, but if it is, then all illness is covered.
The important part of this whole discussion is the definition of insurance. Insurance-A means of indemnity against a future occurrence of an uncertain event. Note the term uncertain. It is not insurance if you are merely providing a reimbursement mechanism for foreseeable expenses. That would be a risk pool. There is nothing wrong with a pool. It is a good method for spreading the costs among individuals who must use a service. But, it is not insurance. And forcing people who do not have a certain future event, but an uncertain one, into the same "insurance" plan as people with pre-existing conditions is merely socialistic redistribution of money from one individual to another.
Obamacare's first effect
We are starting to hear from companies about the first effect of Obamacare. Earnings are being dinged severely by the write-downs required for retiree pharmacy expenses. AT&T estimates $1 billion, Caterpillar $100 million, Deere & Co. $150 million, these are some of the largest. The Democrats cannot even legitimately claim they were unaware of this; Caterpillar published its expected $100 million write-down before the vote on the bill.
However, Henry Waxman is calling this a concerted effort on the part of Republican CEO's to make healthcare reform look bad. He is ordering these CEO's to testify before his committee so that he can preach at them about how irresponsible they are. I've always thought he was a total tool, but this proves it.
This is not an optional activity for these companies. They are required to do this by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). If they do not make these write-downs they will be in violation of SEC rules. So here we have publicly traded companies complying with the rules they must abide be, and being called before Congress to explain why they are being so evil, and trying to make Obamacare look bad.
Just another Kafkaesque moment brought to you courtesy of the wonderful Democratic Party.
However, Henry Waxman is calling this a concerted effort on the part of Republican CEO's to make healthcare reform look bad. He is ordering these CEO's to testify before his committee so that he can preach at them about how irresponsible they are. I've always thought he was a total tool, but this proves it.
This is not an optional activity for these companies. They are required to do this by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). If they do not make these write-downs they will be in violation of SEC rules. So here we have publicly traded companies complying with the rules they must abide be, and being called before Congress to explain why they are being so evil, and trying to make Obamacare look bad.
Just another Kafkaesque moment brought to you courtesy of the wonderful Democratic Party.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Is that you Cousin Mark?
I hadn't heard anything out of Cousin Mark in a while. He claims he's been really busy at work, but that sounds like an excuse to me. It's not like it's chemical engineering or anything.
His inartful question; would a Republican controlled SCOTUS possibly overturn parts or all of Obamacare?
I'm far from a constitutional scholar, but I believe the tension comes up between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
My understanding, again, I'm far from an expert, is that the Supremacy Clause has been ascendant since the War of Northern Aggression ended. The question the Court will face is whether to reinvigorate the Tenth Amendment.
Personally, I feel the time is ripe for a new look at the Tenth Amendment. Long before healthcare reform the federal government had become much to intrusive in our personal lives, and in mandating activities to the States. However, the SCOTUS is generally reluctant to overturn any precedent, especially Supreme Court case law, even if the current Court may find nits to pick with said case law.
His inartful question; would a Republican controlled SCOTUS possibly overturn parts or all of Obamacare?
I'm far from a constitutional scholar, but I believe the tension comes up between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
My understanding, again, I'm far from an expert, is that the Supremacy Clause has been ascendant since the War of Northern Aggression ended. The question the Court will face is whether to reinvigorate the Tenth Amendment.
Personally, I feel the time is ripe for a new look at the Tenth Amendment. Long before healthcare reform the federal government had become much to intrusive in our personal lives, and in mandating activities to the States. However, the SCOTUS is generally reluctant to overturn any precedent, especially Supreme Court case law, even if the current Court may find nits to pick with said case law.
Death to Dems?
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says that as many as 10 Democratic members of the House have received death threats over their vote on healthcare reform.
I can only say that there are clearly some crazy people out there. Come on, go to the public meetings your Congress critter has over the break and give them an earful. Be rude, call them socialist pigs, but death threats are way out of line.
It's just politics. We are far enough removed from Republican Rome that we don't have to murder politicians we disagree with.
I can only say that there are clearly some crazy people out there. Come on, go to the public meetings your Congress critter has over the break and give them an earful. Be rude, call them socialist pigs, but death threats are way out of line.
It's just politics. We are far enough removed from Republican Rome that we don't have to murder politicians we disagree with.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Healthcare. (what else could it be)
The Democrats had their way and passed this monstrosity of a healthcare bill. I don't doubt their motives in so doing. They did what they thought was the right thing. But, it is very much a left thing.
There is plenty of room for discussion on the issues, but the bottom line is that there are two divergent views of the direction our country should be taking. One is the progressive/liberal view of expanded government, and cradle to grave social programs. This is very much the European model. The other is the conservative view that the country was founded on individual rights and self-sufficiency. The healthcare bill is a victory for the former.
Despite the protestations of the liberals it is bald faced socialism. Socialism is the taking from the general population in order to redistribute "equally". The left has not had the temerity to properly label legislation since the adoption of Social Security.
There is plenty of room for discussion on the issues, but the bottom line is that there are two divergent views of the direction our country should be taking. One is the progressive/liberal view of expanded government, and cradle to grave social programs. This is very much the European model. The other is the conservative view that the country was founded on individual rights and self-sufficiency. The healthcare bill is a victory for the former.
Despite the protestations of the liberals it is bald faced socialism. Socialism is the taking from the general population in order to redistribute "equally". The left has not had the temerity to properly label legislation since the adoption of Social Security.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
“Who died and made you king? This is a free country! I’ll do what I damn well please!”
Bill Whittle discusses how the nanny state has taken away our ability to make that statement with authority.
He's well worth a read if you long for the time when self-appointed protectors of your well being were not so pervasive.
He's well worth a read if you long for the time when self-appointed protectors of your well being were not so pervasive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)