Friday, March 30, 2012
Remy Explains How One-Size-Fits-All Insurance Mandates Drive Up Prices
LIKE HAVING TO BUY PIZZA WITH ALL SEVENTY INGREDIENTS. And we won't even get into all the mandatory reproductive 'toppings' our federal nannies require.
Video via Powerline
Juan Williams Interviews Marco Rubio: Republicans Are the Pro-Legal Immigration Party
WITH EMPHASIS ON LEGAL.
Against protests to the contrary, Rubio may very well be the best choice as Romney's VP pick.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
WSJ Reviews This Week's ObamaCare Reckoning
ONE OF THE FINEST WRAP-UPS TODAY on the Supreme Court hearings on the Affordable Care Act over the past three days appears online at the Wall Street Journal. So good and well-written, I publish it in full. Hope you have time to read it all:
AFTER THE THIRD AND FINAL DAY of Supreme Court scrutiny of the Affordable Care Act, the bravado of the legal establishment has turned to uncertainty and in some cases outright panic. Everyone who said the decision was an easy fait accompli has been proven wrong by a Court that has treated the constitutional questions that ObamaCare poses with the seriousness they deserve.
This reckoning has also been a marvelous public education. The oral arguments have detailed the multiple ways in which the individual mandate upsets the careful equilibrium of the American political system. The Obama Administration's arguments in favor of the mandate to buy health insurance or pay a penalty stand exposed as a demand for unlimited federal power.
Most of the Justices seem to be discomfited by this proposition, to one degree or another, and in Wednesday's session they grappled with the Court's options and the consequences if the mandate falls. Over the 90-minute exchange the Justices conducted a tutorial about the limits of judicial power in handling a huge bill if its core is found to be unconstitutional.
The issue is known as "severability," or what happens to the rest of a law if part of it is struck down. Usually Congress includes a clause that clearly defines its intent in that event. But the Obama Democrats neglected to include one amid the political rush to pass the law, and Supreme Court precedents are less than clear.
The Court could uphold the individual mandate, in which case the point is moot. It could overturn the mandate without invalidating any other provision. Or it could say that everything else never would have passed without the mandate, so everything else should be taken down with it.
That last is the persuasive contention of Paul Clement, the attorney who argued for the 26 states challenging the law. He argued that the mandate is "the very heart of this act" because it is meant to subsidize the insurance regulations that drive up costs. It forces the younger and healthier to buy coverage they may not need to finance people who consume more health care.
That requirement is also tied to ObamaCare's "exchanges" where everyone will buy coverage, which are in turn tied to the new entitlement subsidies, which are in turn tied to the Medicaid expansion, the many tax increases and all the other things on the periphery of the law that wouldn't have passed without the individual mandate.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Mr. Clement is asking the Court to conduct "a wrecking operation," before stating that "the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything." The Obama Administration didn't say exactly that, but it did argue that the mandate is indispensable to its supposedly well-oiled regulatory scheme and if it is thrown out the insurance rules should be too.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy doubted Justice Ginsburg's logic, since by taking out only the individual mandate the Court would in effect be creating a new law that Congress "did not provide for, did not consider." To wit, costs would soar without any mechanism to offset them.
"When you say judicial restraint," Justice Kennedy said, "you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite." Overturning the mandate alone, he continued, "can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike the whole."
Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in to note that severing would require the Justices to comb through ObamaCare's 2,700 pages and pick out the parts that are connected to the mandate and those that aren't—essentially asking them to play omniscient time travellers, if not legislators. Striking it down altogether would paradoxically be a gift of judicial modesty by avoiding the legal invention of a new law. A clean slate gives Congress the most options.
As Mr. Clement argued, the best analogy is the Court's misbegotten 1976 Buckley decision, which struck down some campaign finance provisions but not others and has led to a hash of contradictory and ambiguous rules for political speech that continues to this day.
The Court's liberals pushed back by suggesting that the individual mandate is "just a tool to make other provisions work," as Justice Elena Kagan put it. Yet by that standard the Court ought to strike down the entire law or most of it if it strikes down the mandate, because it shows that Congress used an illegitimate device to do things that it could have done constitutionally without it.
***
So far the larger liberal reckoning hasn't been as nuanced as the High Court's, as evidenced by the media mugging of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Liberals castigated his performance during oral arguments Tuesday and all but blamed him for any ObamaCare defeat.
Mr. Verrilli may not be Daniel Webster, but he was more than competent. The problem isn't that he's a bad lawyer, it's that he is defending a bad law with the bad arguments that are the best the Administration could muster. Liberal Justices such as Sonia Sotomayor all but begged him to define a limiting principle on the individual mandate and therefore on federal power. He couldn't—not because he didn't know someone would ask but because such a principle does not exist.
Mr. Verrilli came closest to a limiting principle—and got some sympathy from Justice Kennedy—when he claimed that everyone will use health care at some point in their lives, so what's the big deal with making young people pay more earlier?
Even if this were true, it is a deeply radical claim. The government is mandating that everyone buy health insurance specifically, but by this reasoning any economic or personal decisions that touch on health care could be used as a pretext for federal police powers. People who lead healthy lives consume fewer medical services than others, so the government could mandate exercise, a healthy diet, and more.
This is power without limit, which is not what the Constitution provides, or what its framers intended, or what the Supreme Court has ever tolerated. That is why this week's arguments have been so careful, why they have revised the establishment's thinking, and why they are so important for the future of American liberty.
A version of this article appeared Mar. 29, 2012, on page A18 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The ObamaCare Reckoning.
AFTER THE THIRD AND FINAL DAY of Supreme Court scrutiny of the Affordable Care Act, the bravado of the legal establishment has turned to uncertainty and in some cases outright panic. Everyone who said the decision was an easy fait accompli has been proven wrong by a Court that has treated the constitutional questions that ObamaCare poses with the seriousness they deserve.
This reckoning has also been a marvelous public education. The oral arguments have detailed the multiple ways in which the individual mandate upsets the careful equilibrium of the American political system. The Obama Administration's arguments in favor of the mandate to buy health insurance or pay a penalty stand exposed as a demand for unlimited federal power.
Most of the Justices seem to be discomfited by this proposition, to one degree or another, and in Wednesday's session they grappled with the Court's options and the consequences if the mandate falls. Over the 90-minute exchange the Justices conducted a tutorial about the limits of judicial power in handling a huge bill if its core is found to be unconstitutional.
The issue is known as "severability," or what happens to the rest of a law if part of it is struck down. Usually Congress includes a clause that clearly defines its intent in that event. But the Obama Democrats neglected to include one amid the political rush to pass the law, and Supreme Court precedents are less than clear.
The Court could uphold the individual mandate, in which case the point is moot. It could overturn the mandate without invalidating any other provision. Or it could say that everything else never would have passed without the mandate, so everything else should be taken down with it.
That last is the persuasive contention of Paul Clement, the attorney who argued for the 26 states challenging the law. He argued that the mandate is "the very heart of this act" because it is meant to subsidize the insurance regulations that drive up costs. It forces the younger and healthier to buy coverage they may not need to finance people who consume more health care.
That requirement is also tied to ObamaCare's "exchanges" where everyone will buy coverage, which are in turn tied to the new entitlement subsidies, which are in turn tied to the Medicaid expansion, the many tax increases and all the other things on the periphery of the law that wouldn't have passed without the individual mandate.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Mr. Clement is asking the Court to conduct "a wrecking operation," before stating that "the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything." The Obama Administration didn't say exactly that, but it did argue that the mandate is indispensable to its supposedly well-oiled regulatory scheme and if it is thrown out the insurance rules should be too.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy doubted Justice Ginsburg's logic, since by taking out only the individual mandate the Court would in effect be creating a new law that Congress "did not provide for, did not consider." To wit, costs would soar without any mechanism to offset them.
"When you say judicial restraint," Justice Kennedy said, "you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite." Overturning the mandate alone, he continued, "can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike the whole."
Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in to note that severing would require the Justices to comb through ObamaCare's 2,700 pages and pick out the parts that are connected to the mandate and those that aren't—essentially asking them to play omniscient time travellers, if not legislators. Striking it down altogether would paradoxically be a gift of judicial modesty by avoiding the legal invention of a new law. A clean slate gives Congress the most options.
As Mr. Clement argued, the best analogy is the Court's misbegotten 1976 Buckley decision, which struck down some campaign finance provisions but not others and has led to a hash of contradictory and ambiguous rules for political speech that continues to this day.
The Court's liberals pushed back by suggesting that the individual mandate is "just a tool to make other provisions work," as Justice Elena Kagan put it. Yet by that standard the Court ought to strike down the entire law or most of it if it strikes down the mandate, because it shows that Congress used an illegitimate device to do things that it could have done constitutionally without it.
***
So far the larger liberal reckoning hasn't been as nuanced as the High Court's, as evidenced by the media mugging of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Liberals castigated his performance during oral arguments Tuesday and all but blamed him for any ObamaCare defeat.
Mr. Verrilli may not be Daniel Webster, but he was more than competent. The problem isn't that he's a bad lawyer, it's that he is defending a bad law with the bad arguments that are the best the Administration could muster. Liberal Justices such as Sonia Sotomayor all but begged him to define a limiting principle on the individual mandate and therefore on federal power. He couldn't—not because he didn't know someone would ask but because such a principle does not exist.
Mr. Verrilli came closest to a limiting principle—and got some sympathy from Justice Kennedy—when he claimed that everyone will use health care at some point in their lives, so what's the big deal with making young people pay more earlier?
Even if this were true, it is a deeply radical claim. The government is mandating that everyone buy health insurance specifically, but by this reasoning any economic or personal decisions that touch on health care could be used as a pretext for federal police powers. People who lead healthy lives consume fewer medical services than others, so the government could mandate exercise, a healthy diet, and more.
This is power without limit, which is not what the Constitution provides, or what its framers intended, or what the Supreme Court has ever tolerated. That is why this week's arguments have been so careful, why they have revised the establishment's thinking, and why they are so important for the future of American liberty.
A version of this article appeared Mar. 29, 2012, on page A18 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The ObamaCare Reckoning.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Dramatic Moment In America's History Unfolding At SCOTUS?
TODAY'S SCORE FOR THE CONSTITUTION: Sanity and Liberty +7, Bondage to big government +3.
At least it may looking like that. Don't want to count all our chickens before they hatch, but it's been a very long couple of years. If this bill eventually goes down the unconstitutional drain, as it should, it would be a victory for sanity and only the first step in turning the tide towards smaller governemt and greater personal responsibility on every front. The GOP cannot, must not EVER go on business-as-usual no matter how the court rules. Otherwise it will be forever be replaced by the Tea Party
At least it may looking like that. Don't want to count all our chickens before they hatch, but it's been a very long couple of years. If this bill eventually goes down the unconstitutional drain, as it should, it would be a victory for sanity and only the first step in turning the tide towards smaller governemt and greater personal responsibility on every front. The GOP cannot, must not EVER go on business-as-usual no matter how the court rules. Otherwise it will be forever be replaced by the Tea Party
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
One of Many Moments of Truth In Today's SCOTUS Hearings: Justice Alito Shreds Verrilli's Arguments
INTRADE ODDS UP +39.7% TO 53% IN FAVOR OF NEGATIVE RULING
WORD OF THE DAY: SKEPTICISM
THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE forcing every American citizen to buy health insurance has not gone down easy today in the hearings. Could it be that there's real hope and light at the end of this dark tunnel?
Again, here are the 4 issues the Justices must rule on:
1.Does Anti-Injunction Act prohibit states and other parties from challenging the individual mandate? (Highly unlikely)
2. Is the individual mandate that requires all Americans to buy health insurance unconstitutional? (Looking more likely. Though I am only cautious optimistic at this point.)
3.Can the individual mandate, if ruled unconstitutional, be severed from the Affordable Care Act? (Unknown since it hasn't yet been addressed yet)
4.Did Congress exceeded its enumerated powers under the Spending Clause and violate basic federalism principles by placing heavy regulations on states that receive Medicaid funding? (Likelihood unknown)
Again today's developments are very encouraging although I do not want to get overly giddy and then be crushed if the Justices rule in favor of this behemoth law. At this point nothing is a done deal.
Meanwhile, good ole Harry Reid soldiers on saying if the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare, it could likely help President Obama's chances of re-election.....o----kay......
WORD OF THE DAY: SKEPTICISM
THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE forcing every American citizen to buy health insurance has not gone down easy today in the hearings. Could it be that there's real hope and light at the end of this dark tunnel?
Again, here are the 4 issues the Justices must rule on:
1.Does Anti-Injunction Act prohibit states and other parties from challenging the individual mandate? (Highly unlikely)
2. Is the individual mandate that requires all Americans to buy health insurance unconstitutional? (Looking more likely. Though I am only cautious optimistic at this point.)
3.Can the individual mandate, if ruled unconstitutional, be severed from the Affordable Care Act? (Unknown since it hasn't yet been addressed yet)
4.Did Congress exceeded its enumerated powers under the Spending Clause and violate basic federalism principles by placing heavy regulations on states that receive Medicaid funding? (Likelihood unknown)
Again today's developments are very encouraging although I do not want to get overly giddy and then be crushed if the Justices rule in favor of this behemoth law. At this point nothing is a done deal.
Meanwhile, good ole Harry Reid soldiers on saying if the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare, it could likely help President Obama's chances of re-election.....o----kay......
Monday, March 26, 2012
Obama Almighty's Presidential Rhetoric
MEANWHILE RICK PERRY'S COME-BACK TOUR: HE TOTALLY KILLED IT SPEAKING AT THE GRIDIRON CLUB
DULL, BANAL, TRITE BEYOND BELIEF.
Zzzzzzz. Or who needs sleep aids when we have this kind of robo-speak to anesthetize our senses, glaze our eyes and those of our allies.
ALSO Roger Simon @ PJMedia on Obama, the Democrats and their desperate Society For the Preservation of Racism.
DULL, BANAL, TRITE BEYOND BELIEF.
Zzzzzzz. Or who needs sleep aids when we have this kind of robo-speak to anesthetize our senses, glaze our eyes and those of our allies.
ALSO Roger Simon @ PJMedia on Obama, the Democrats and their desperate Society For the Preservation of Racism.
Sunday on Monday, Quotes By J.C. Ryle
10 Marks of the Holy Spirit's Presence in a Believer
1. The Spirit awakens a person’s heart.
2. The Spirit teaches a person’s mind.
3. The Spirit leads to the Word.
4. The Spirit convinces of sin.
5. The Spirit draws to Christ.
6. The Spirit sanctifies.
7. The Spirit makes a person spiritually minded.
8. The Spirit produces inward conflict.
9. The Spirit makes a person love the brethren.
10. The Spirit teaches a person to pray.
These are the great marks of the Holy Spirit’s presence. Put the question to your conscience and ask: Has the Spirit done anything of this kind for your soul?
~ J.C. Ryle
Source
Having been away from the computer over 48 hours (I did have my cell phone with several favorit my links) I never got around to posting Sunday. Don't like to do that but sometimes it happens.
1. The Spirit awakens a person’s heart.
2. The Spirit teaches a person’s mind.
3. The Spirit leads to the Word.
4. The Spirit convinces of sin.
5. The Spirit draws to Christ.
6. The Spirit sanctifies.
7. The Spirit makes a person spiritually minded.
8. The Spirit produces inward conflict.
9. The Spirit makes a person love the brethren.
10. The Spirit teaches a person to pray.
These are the great marks of the Holy Spirit’s presence. Put the question to your conscience and ask: Has the Spirit done anything of this kind for your soul?
~ J.C. Ryle
Source
Having been away from the computer over 48 hours (I did have my cell phone with several favorit my links) I never got around to posting Sunday. Don't like to do that but sometimes it happens.
The Rhetoric of Obama As President and Chief of State
DULL, BANAL, TRITE BEYOND BELIEF.
Zzzzzzz. Or who needs sleep aids when we have this kind of thing to anesthetize our senses?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Congratulations to K and J!
OBAMA'S IRRESPONSIBLE, INAPPROPRIATE ENTRY INTO THE TRAYVON MARTIN CASE
IS ANYTHING MORE WONDERFUL THAN A NEW BABY? EXCEPT TWO NEW BABIES!
Stay tuned. They've worked so hard, waited so long for these precious twins---a girl and a boy-- Zoey and Luke.
Blessings to you and your family. Wish all babies were as welcome in the world as these two.
IS ANYTHING MORE WONDERFUL THAN A NEW BABY? EXCEPT TWO NEW BABIES!
Stay tuned. They've worked so hard, waited so long for these precious twins---a girl and a boy-- Zoey and Luke.
Blessings to you and your family. Wish all babies were as welcome in the world as these two.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Hunger Games: Why Every Freedom-Loving American Needs to See the Horrors of Big, Centralized Government
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BECOME THE GIVER-MENT
I'M GUESSING THIS MOVIE---COMING IN AN ELECTION YEAR- - just might have an impact on voters of all persuasions, especially young voters.
Did not read the book but can't wait to see the movie. Anyway, my friend John Tamny has knocked the ball out of the park on reviewing it.
As our federal government grows like Johnson grass in summer almost out of control everywhere we look, Tamny doesn't spare responsibility to either side of the political spectrum. Republicans as well as Democrats are guilty of focusing far too much importance on the powers that were never enumerated by the Constitution to the feds of the now monolithic givernment. We as voters have let this happen as we turn a blind eye on voting as well as wanting to get some of the goodies of the federal till. Welfare for all, even the rich. It's unsustainable and when the bottom drops out, will we too be faced with playing The Hunger Game?
Suzanne Collins' "The Hunger Games" Illustrates the Horrors of Big Government
By John Tamny @ Forbes
It says here that HBO’s The Wire, which ran from 2002-2008, is the greatest television drama of all time. The show, essentially an historical-fiction style documentary on the tragedy that is Baltimore (MD), notably appealed to all sides of the political spectrum.
Liberals of the American variety seemed to like it for revealing how very crushing and insurmountable poverty is, conservatives perhaps liked it for televising the human error frequently behind poverty, not to mention the corruption inside media and government, and then libertarians including this writer surely enjoyed it for laying out the totally ineffective nature of the “war on drugs”, and the sheer incompetence of government.
It’s said about The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins’ blockbuster novel that will be released in movie form this Friday, that it appeals to a broad demographic ranging from teens to senior citizens. If so, it’s fair to assume that a not insignificant portion of the book’s devotees see a political message within. Cue up the hateful comments, but my libertarian instincts tell me the novel is a boisterous comment about the certain horrors of big government.
To provide background for those who’ve not yet read the book, The Hunger Games takes place in a post-modern North America where society has collapsed thanks to drought, famine and war. The country is Panem, which has a major city called Capitol run by the governing elite. Those in power oversee twelve districts.
Each year at the pleasure of brutal politicians desperate for sadistic entertainment, two representatives from the twelve districts engage in a televised game of survival whereby only one person comes out alive. Though the novel has a variety of characters, most of the story centers on Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark, Hunger Games representatives from District 12 (presumably West Virginia), and their efforts to emerge from the games alive.
On its face the book reveals the oppressive cruelty that is big government. Indeed, while the global political class and their enablers in the media to this day try to explain away droughts and the resulting famines from an “Act of God” point of view, the simple truth is that economically free countries don’t suffer them.
Though food is surely the most essential, life-enhancing good on the planet, it’s plentiful in the most barren of climates where it’s not grown or farmed owing to the free-trade truth that we trade products for products; all manner of non-perishable items exchanged for food with great regularity. Simply put, visitors to Arizona don’t witness distended bellies among the citizenry due to a lack of farmers, instead Arizona is prosperous and its citizens well fed for the latter pursuing all manner of work the product of which enables them to freely exchange the fruits of their labor for other goods, including groceries.
Those who were around in the ‘80s doubtless remember the droughts that allegedly created a famine in Ethiopia, but the greater truth is that Ethiopian citizens at one time exported food so plentiful was it; the famine that properly tugged at our heartstrings a function of a brutal dictatorship that socialized agriculture. It was said after Great Britain left India that famines in the former Jewel in the Crown became a thing of the past, but the truer reality is that “famines” were redefined to whitewash the socialist basket case that India became once independent. “Inflation” is presently low in the United States, but that’s only true insofar as the commodities most sensitive to monetary error have been removed from the calculation. Droughts and famines are an inevitable effect of overbearing, interventionist and greedy governments.
As for war, though history says most have economic underpinnings, it is governments and politicians that start wars. This tells us that the horrific country that is Panem is the result of initial government error of the warring kind that led to something much worse.
Back to the malnourishment that pervades Panem, and underlies the story, Katniss muses at one point early on “What it must be like, I wonder, to live in a world where food appears at the press of a button? How would I spend the hours I now commit to combing the woods for sustenance if it were so easy to come by?” Well, in countries where individuals are allowed to keep the product of their work and trade it freely, food can essentially be had at the press of a button, or in modern parlance, with the click of a mouse.
Alternatively, as Bastiat long ago observed, when goods don’t cross borders, armies eventually do. A lack of free trade not only means we get to enjoy much less of the world’s plenty, but it also means we have no rooting interest in the ability of others to produce for us so that we can produce for them. Instead, suffering from a lack of what we want with no avenue to get what we want, we go to war in order to forcibly take that which would otherwise reach us through voluntary, mutually wealth-enhancing exchange.
Page 2 of 2
Panem is essentially a society at war, in this case a war for food. This scenario is happily one that Americans are unaware of owing to our ability to largely produce surplus in order to consume the surplus of others irrespective of country, but one that other countries have sadly known all too well thanks to oppressive government. A hapless, interventionist, warring government is the only kind that could have fostered the societal crack-up that is Panem, and then Panem reflects – if possible – politicians even more inept pouring gasoline onto the proverbial fire.
Gale Hawthorne, Katniss’s best friend back in District 12, ably fills the role of wise government skeptic. Katniss imagines him saying in response to the government’s efforts “to plant hatred between the starving workers of the Seam and those who can generally count on supper”, that “It’s to the Capitol’s advantage to have us divided among ourselves.” Of course it is.
Free societies, personally and economically, don’t rely on government. Instead, a natural harmony eventuates as self-interested individuals create what they’re best at so that they can trade their production for that of others. The problem for political types under such a scenario is that people realize not only that they don’t need government, but that even those who can’t provide for themselves are taken care of thanks to the benevolent doings of those who can.
In the U.S., assuming a better world where special interest groups didn’t regularly descend on Washington seeking that which natural market forces won’t provide them with, the plain truth is that politicians would invent them. Divided societies give politicians an important role whereby their decisions about the allocation of resources to the politically connected weaken a society, thus boosting their status as our allegedly benevolent Nanny. Second, with the productive ever eager to achieve no matter the barriers placed in front of them in a world where government, as opposed to market forces dictates action, politicians know that the best and brightest will similarly have to go to great lengths to please them in order to keep more of what they earn.
In Panem food, something we take for granted, is scarce thanks to power hungry politicians. Even more than monetary debasement, the creation of food scarcity through unnatural barriers to production and trade is the easiest way for politicians to divide the citizenry, and to be fair, often results from monetary debasement. And with hunger a constant burden, politicians have created a situation whereby the brutalized citizens of Panem will do anything to eat, including killing their fellow citizens in government-organized games that so thrill the Capitol politicians.
Of course the Hunger Games not only entertain the politicians, they’re also the Capitol’s way of, as Katniss puts it, “reminding us how totally we are at their mercy.” Panem’s citizens know that if they desire any kind of comfortable life with good housing and plentiful food, they must not only participate in the Games, but also be the last one standing. Wealth in this Dystopian nightmare of a country is not earned by fulfilling the needs of others, but results from pleasing politicians through the murder of others.
We’re thankfully a very faint shadow of Panem in the United States, but increasingly we live at the mercy of politicians irrespective of party. If this is doubted, try to evade your taxes, and when you get a letter from the IRS asking for them, ignore the letter. Eventually you’ll be visited by government officials who, if not carrying guns, will be backed by those who do.
Republicans might say that at least Republican politicians seek to lower our rates of taxation, but think about that for a moment. When politicians promise lower tax rates, they’re implicitly telling all of us that they have the power to charge us as much or as little as they want to for our work. A nation founded on deep skepticism of government and politicians now has leaders who “grant” us the right to keep more of our money.
Taking this further, both parties, consciously or subconsciously realizing “we are at their mercy”, offer us tax breaks if we live as they want us to. If you buy a house your mortgage interest payments will be tax deductible, give to a charity and it’s similarly tax deductible, and then in Rick Santorum’s case if you “make things” as a manufacturer, or have kids, zero corporate tax rates (manufacturing) and tax deductions (per child) are in your future. Mitt Romney will “grant” you a lower tax rate on capital gains for instance, but only if you’re not rich. President Obama is bolder in his presumption that we’re at his mercy and that we need to pay his government even more in the way of tribute. Yes, we’re under the thumbs of politicians, and The Hunger Games shows the extremes of where this can lead when they’re handed too much power. Democrat and Republican partisans beware.
Closer to the book’s end, Katniss thinks about her “fury against the cruelty, the injustice they [the rulers] inflict upon us”, and wonders if there’s some “way to take revenge on the Capitol.” While considering this, she remembers Peeta’s words “I keep wishing I could think of a way to…to show the Capitol they don’t own me. That I’m more than just a piece in their Games.” Absolutely. Excessive government IS ownership, of the fruits of our labor, and our personal freedoms. Katniss and Peeta are ultimately fighting to get their lives back from the greedy hands of the politicians in the Capitol.
Back in the real world, something similar is at work. Though agreement is not uniform, and our government not nearly as oppressive as the one in The Hunger Games, many Americans simply want to be left alone, to get their lives back. The Hunger Games seems to channel this natural, and very American, urge to be free.
I'M GUESSING THIS MOVIE---COMING IN AN ELECTION YEAR- - just might have an impact on voters of all persuasions, especially young voters.
Did not read the book but can't wait to see the movie. Anyway, my friend John Tamny has knocked the ball out of the park on reviewing it.
As our federal government grows like Johnson grass in summer almost out of control everywhere we look, Tamny doesn't spare responsibility to either side of the political spectrum. Republicans as well as Democrats are guilty of focusing far too much importance on the powers that were never enumerated by the Constitution to the feds of the now monolithic givernment. We as voters have let this happen as we turn a blind eye on voting as well as wanting to get some of the goodies of the federal till. Welfare for all, even the rich. It's unsustainable and when the bottom drops out, will we too be faced with playing The Hunger Game?
Suzanne Collins' "The Hunger Games" Illustrates the Horrors of Big Government
By John Tamny @ Forbes
It says here that HBO’s The Wire, which ran from 2002-2008, is the greatest television drama of all time. The show, essentially an historical-fiction style documentary on the tragedy that is Baltimore (MD), notably appealed to all sides of the political spectrum.
Liberals of the American variety seemed to like it for revealing how very crushing and insurmountable poverty is, conservatives perhaps liked it for televising the human error frequently behind poverty, not to mention the corruption inside media and government, and then libertarians including this writer surely enjoyed it for laying out the totally ineffective nature of the “war on drugs”, and the sheer incompetence of government.
It’s said about The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins’ blockbuster novel that will be released in movie form this Friday, that it appeals to a broad demographic ranging from teens to senior citizens. If so, it’s fair to assume that a not insignificant portion of the book’s devotees see a political message within. Cue up the hateful comments, but my libertarian instincts tell me the novel is a boisterous comment about the certain horrors of big government.
To provide background for those who’ve not yet read the book, The Hunger Games takes place in a post-modern North America where society has collapsed thanks to drought, famine and war. The country is Panem, which has a major city called Capitol run by the governing elite. Those in power oversee twelve districts.
Each year at the pleasure of brutal politicians desperate for sadistic entertainment, two representatives from the twelve districts engage in a televised game of survival whereby only one person comes out alive. Though the novel has a variety of characters, most of the story centers on Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark, Hunger Games representatives from District 12 (presumably West Virginia), and their efforts to emerge from the games alive.
On its face the book reveals the oppressive cruelty that is big government. Indeed, while the global political class and their enablers in the media to this day try to explain away droughts and the resulting famines from an “Act of God” point of view, the simple truth is that economically free countries don’t suffer them.
Though food is surely the most essential, life-enhancing good on the planet, it’s plentiful in the most barren of climates where it’s not grown or farmed owing to the free-trade truth that we trade products for products; all manner of non-perishable items exchanged for food with great regularity. Simply put, visitors to Arizona don’t witness distended bellies among the citizenry due to a lack of farmers, instead Arizona is prosperous and its citizens well fed for the latter pursuing all manner of work the product of which enables them to freely exchange the fruits of their labor for other goods, including groceries.
Those who were around in the ‘80s doubtless remember the droughts that allegedly created a famine in Ethiopia, but the greater truth is that Ethiopian citizens at one time exported food so plentiful was it; the famine that properly tugged at our heartstrings a function of a brutal dictatorship that socialized agriculture. It was said after Great Britain left India that famines in the former Jewel in the Crown became a thing of the past, but the truer reality is that “famines” were redefined to whitewash the socialist basket case that India became once independent. “Inflation” is presently low in the United States, but that’s only true insofar as the commodities most sensitive to monetary error have been removed from the calculation. Droughts and famines are an inevitable effect of overbearing, interventionist and greedy governments.
As for war, though history says most have economic underpinnings, it is governments and politicians that start wars. This tells us that the horrific country that is Panem is the result of initial government error of the warring kind that led to something much worse.
Back to the malnourishment that pervades Panem, and underlies the story, Katniss muses at one point early on “What it must be like, I wonder, to live in a world where food appears at the press of a button? How would I spend the hours I now commit to combing the woods for sustenance if it were so easy to come by?” Well, in countries where individuals are allowed to keep the product of their work and trade it freely, food can essentially be had at the press of a button, or in modern parlance, with the click of a mouse.
Alternatively, as Bastiat long ago observed, when goods don’t cross borders, armies eventually do. A lack of free trade not only means we get to enjoy much less of the world’s plenty, but it also means we have no rooting interest in the ability of others to produce for us so that we can produce for them. Instead, suffering from a lack of what we want with no avenue to get what we want, we go to war in order to forcibly take that which would otherwise reach us through voluntary, mutually wealth-enhancing exchange.
Page 2 of 2
Panem is essentially a society at war, in this case a war for food. This scenario is happily one that Americans are unaware of owing to our ability to largely produce surplus in order to consume the surplus of others irrespective of country, but one that other countries have sadly known all too well thanks to oppressive government. A hapless, interventionist, warring government is the only kind that could have fostered the societal crack-up that is Panem, and then Panem reflects – if possible – politicians even more inept pouring gasoline onto the proverbial fire.
Gale Hawthorne, Katniss’s best friend back in District 12, ably fills the role of wise government skeptic. Katniss imagines him saying in response to the government’s efforts “to plant hatred between the starving workers of the Seam and those who can generally count on supper”, that “It’s to the Capitol’s advantage to have us divided among ourselves.” Of course it is.
Free societies, personally and economically, don’t rely on government. Instead, a natural harmony eventuates as self-interested individuals create what they’re best at so that they can trade their production for that of others. The problem for political types under such a scenario is that people realize not only that they don’t need government, but that even those who can’t provide for themselves are taken care of thanks to the benevolent doings of those who can.
In the U.S., assuming a better world where special interest groups didn’t regularly descend on Washington seeking that which natural market forces won’t provide them with, the plain truth is that politicians would invent them. Divided societies give politicians an important role whereby their decisions about the allocation of resources to the politically connected weaken a society, thus boosting their status as our allegedly benevolent Nanny. Second, with the productive ever eager to achieve no matter the barriers placed in front of them in a world where government, as opposed to market forces dictates action, politicians know that the best and brightest will similarly have to go to great lengths to please them in order to keep more of what they earn.
In Panem food, something we take for granted, is scarce thanks to power hungry politicians. Even more than monetary debasement, the creation of food scarcity through unnatural barriers to production and trade is the easiest way for politicians to divide the citizenry, and to be fair, often results from monetary debasement. And with hunger a constant burden, politicians have created a situation whereby the brutalized citizens of Panem will do anything to eat, including killing their fellow citizens in government-organized games that so thrill the Capitol politicians.
Of course the Hunger Games not only entertain the politicians, they’re also the Capitol’s way of, as Katniss puts it, “reminding us how totally we are at their mercy.” Panem’s citizens know that if they desire any kind of comfortable life with good housing and plentiful food, they must not only participate in the Games, but also be the last one standing. Wealth in this Dystopian nightmare of a country is not earned by fulfilling the needs of others, but results from pleasing politicians through the murder of others.
We’re thankfully a very faint shadow of Panem in the United States, but increasingly we live at the mercy of politicians irrespective of party. If this is doubted, try to evade your taxes, and when you get a letter from the IRS asking for them, ignore the letter. Eventually you’ll be visited by government officials who, if not carrying guns, will be backed by those who do.
Republicans might say that at least Republican politicians seek to lower our rates of taxation, but think about that for a moment. When politicians promise lower tax rates, they’re implicitly telling all of us that they have the power to charge us as much or as little as they want to for our work. A nation founded on deep skepticism of government and politicians now has leaders who “grant” us the right to keep more of our money.
Taking this further, both parties, consciously or subconsciously realizing “we are at their mercy”, offer us tax breaks if we live as they want us to. If you buy a house your mortgage interest payments will be tax deductible, give to a charity and it’s similarly tax deductible, and then in Rick Santorum’s case if you “make things” as a manufacturer, or have kids, zero corporate tax rates (manufacturing) and tax deductions (per child) are in your future. Mitt Romney will “grant” you a lower tax rate on capital gains for instance, but only if you’re not rich. President Obama is bolder in his presumption that we’re at his mercy and that we need to pay his government even more in the way of tribute. Yes, we’re under the thumbs of politicians, and The Hunger Games shows the extremes of where this can lead when they’re handed too much power. Democrat and Republican partisans beware.
Closer to the book’s end, Katniss thinks about her “fury against the cruelty, the injustice they [the rulers] inflict upon us”, and wonders if there’s some “way to take revenge on the Capitol.” While considering this, she remembers Peeta’s words “I keep wishing I could think of a way to…to show the Capitol they don’t own me. That I’m more than just a piece in their Games.” Absolutely. Excessive government IS ownership, of the fruits of our labor, and our personal freedoms. Katniss and Peeta are ultimately fighting to get their lives back from the greedy hands of the politicians in the Capitol.
Back in the real world, something similar is at work. Though agreement is not uniform, and our government not nearly as oppressive as the one in The Hunger Games, many Americans simply want to be left alone, to get their lives back. The Hunger Games seems to channel this natural, and very American, urge to be free.
Markets in Everything: Dial-A-Star
AND I DO MEAN EVERYTHING!
IF YOU'VE GOT MONEY BURNING A HOLE IN YOUR POCKET and nothing better to do, then here's a new way to dispatch it with reckless abandon:
There's a new website in town and here's the scoop via Carpe Diem.
Mark Perry explains:
The new website Dial-a-Star.com claims that it is the only place you can talk directly to a TRUE Celebrity on the phone.
Sample rates:
Danielle Staub: $18 per minute ($1,080 per hour)
Tila Tequila: $20 per minute ($1,200 per hour)
Dina Lohan: $18 per minute ($1,080 per hour)
Nadya Suleman (OctoMom): $12 per minute ($720 per hour)
Michael Lohan: $10 per minute ($600 per hour)
No thank you.
As my grandmother used to say, if that doesn't take the cake---nothing will.
IF YOU'VE GOT MONEY BURNING A HOLE IN YOUR POCKET and nothing better to do, then here's a new way to dispatch it with reckless abandon:
There's a new website in town and here's the scoop via Carpe Diem.
Mark Perry explains:
The new website Dial-a-Star.com claims that it is the only place you can talk directly to a TRUE Celebrity on the phone.
Sample rates:
Danielle Staub: $18 per minute ($1,080 per hour)
Tila Tequila: $20 per minute ($1,200 per hour)
Dina Lohan: $18 per minute ($1,080 per hour)
Nadya Suleman (OctoMom): $12 per minute ($720 per hour)
Michael Lohan: $10 per minute ($600 per hour)
No thank you.
As my grandmother used to say, if that doesn't take the cake---nothing will.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Holy Sexuality: Christopher Yuan on Christian Faithfulness and Being Gay
February 23, 2012 - Christian Faithfulness & Homosexuality from Fellowship Nashville on Vimeo.
AN AMAZING TALK AND TESTIMONY FOR EVERYONE I KNOW. There is no one---gay, straight, man or woman---who can't benefit from listening to Christopher's spell-binding story and the healing and wisdom that's come from it. I hope you take the time to listen to this in its entirety. I agree with everything he says. Hetero sexual sin is just as offensive to God as any other. And we are all sinners of one kind or another.
I linked to Yuan's blog on my sidebar last year and listened to several of his talks there. However, a friend---Dr. David Craig @ Vertical Living Ministries---sent me this particular video last week and I thank and credit him for calling my attention to it. Thanks David.
Let he who is sinless, cast the first stone. --John 8:7
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Cumberland Gap TN, VA, KY
FROM MRED @ INVINCIBLE ARMOR: HEART SURGEON TELLS REAL CAUSES OF VASCULAR/HEART DISEASE AND INFLAMMATION. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE!
HAD THE BEST OF INTENTIONS HERE THIS WEEK. I'd meant to write about how much I love red meat--- the real kind like grass-fed beef, bison and lean pork chops and tenderloin--how much it agrees with and energizes me, and how silly I think all this hoopla is (except for processed, chemical/salt-ladened lunch meats that nobody should have been eating for the past 30 years) but I got bogged down in sunshine, spring and projects away from the computer---like getting estimates for new roofs on all three of my rental houses that were damaged from the hail storm several weeks ago.
Instead of red meat I was forced to think about shingles, the number of nails necessary to secure one on the roof (4 or 5, definitely not 3!) and other things far removed from red meat or big game hunting in Africa with the Trump boys.
Anyway today the call of the mountains of East Tennessee got the best of me. I just arrived--in between strong rain storms---to join my new-found hiking buddies Friday morning for a trek to Cumberland Gap, weather permitting. The thought of hiking somewhere new and different thrills me no end.
One other thing, I think the worst foods on the planet for us are grains---both processed and unprocessed--- sugar, and simple sugars/carbs of all kinds. That includes bread and pastas. I believe starchy-sugary carbs cause cancer, diabetes, heart disease, clogged arteries and every kind of itis there is. Do yourself a favor and don't believe the conventional wisdom on food and what causes high cholesterol. Instead consider going Paleo with your diet and having more energy and less aches and pains than you ever thought possible. If you don't believe me, test it out in your body and see what happens. Amazing!
Incidentally I just recently linked to Marks Daily Apple on my sidebar. Check out what he, Mark Sissom, has to say about red meat. Over and over he debunks conventional wisdom about food and nutrition.
HAD THE BEST OF INTENTIONS HERE THIS WEEK. I'd meant to write about how much I love red meat--- the real kind like grass-fed beef, bison and lean pork chops and tenderloin--how much it agrees with and energizes me, and how silly I think all this hoopla is (except for processed, chemical/salt-ladened lunch meats that nobody should have been eating for the past 30 years) but I got bogged down in sunshine, spring and projects away from the computer---like getting estimates for new roofs on all three of my rental houses that were damaged from the hail storm several weeks ago.
Instead of red meat I was forced to think about shingles, the number of nails necessary to secure one on the roof (4 or 5, definitely not 3!) and other things far removed from red meat or big game hunting in Africa with the Trump boys.
Anyway today the call of the mountains of East Tennessee got the best of me. I just arrived--in between strong rain storms---to join my new-found hiking buddies Friday morning for a trek to Cumberland Gap, weather permitting. The thought of hiking somewhere new and different thrills me no end.
One other thing, I think the worst foods on the planet for us are grains---both processed and unprocessed--- sugar, and simple sugars/carbs of all kinds. That includes bread and pastas. I believe starchy-sugary carbs cause cancer, diabetes, heart disease, clogged arteries and every kind of itis there is. Do yourself a favor and don't believe the conventional wisdom on food and what causes high cholesterol. Instead consider going Paleo with your diet and having more energy and less aches and pains than you ever thought possible. If you don't believe me, test it out in your body and see what happens. Amazing!
Incidentally I just recently linked to Marks Daily Apple on my sidebar. Check out what he, Mark Sissom, has to say about red meat. Over and over he debunks conventional wisdom about food and nutrition.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Bombshell: Goldman Guy Goes Rogue, Announces Why He's Quitting Firm Today In NYT
GOLDMAN FIRES BACK IN TOTALLY PREDICTABLE FASHION: DISCREDIT, DISCOUNT, BELITTLE, MARGINALIZE SMITH IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE
JOSH BROWN'S PERSPECTIVE: THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 150 YEARS
TODAY IS MY LAST day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
----Greg Smith, former Goldman star
Read the whole thing.
It's good to see a big-time, successful money man with a conscience who's willing to walk away from it all and take whatever hit he must to live by his own standards of decency. Money ain't everything. In fact, it's not anything when it's obtained in disrespectful, devious ways.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of what goes on in these big New York investment banks that are rampant with greed and money grubbing at any and all costs. How refreshing that a whistle blower exists at Goldman. I'm sure there will be lots of opportunities ahead for Smith.
H/T
MORE @ ZERO HEDGE
JOSH BROWN'S PERSPECTIVE: THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 150 YEARS
TODAY IS MY LAST day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it.
----Greg Smith, former Goldman star
Read the whole thing.
It's good to see a big-time, successful money man with a conscience who's willing to walk away from it all and take whatever hit he must to live by his own standards of decency. Money ain't everything. In fact, it's not anything when it's obtained in disrespectful, devious ways.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of what goes on in these big New York investment banks that are rampant with greed and money grubbing at any and all costs. How refreshing that a whistle blower exists at Goldman. I'm sure there will be lots of opportunities ahead for Smith.
H/T
MORE @ ZERO HEDGE
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Tomorrow: A Few Words On the New Red Meat Study and Big Game Hunting For Sport
Anyway, I hope to be back early in the morning to write about both.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Monday, March 26, Obamacare Argued Before the Supreme Court
STEVE FORBES: ROMNEY CAN WIN---REAGAN WAS MUCH FURTHER BEHIND AT THIS POINT
TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY
CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THIS YEAR MORE IMPORTANT than Monday, March 26 when the newly passed health care law is argued before the Supreme Court. Extra hours have been set aside for longer, fuller oral arguments from both sides before the judges.
Make no mistake, no election, no quantitative easing, no candidate, no nothing seems more important to our and our children/grandchildren's future freedom than the judgment handed down in early summer on the constitutionality of Obamacare.
I shudder to think what will happen to this country if some part of this law is not ruled unconstitutional. Still ahead of the arguments we should all pray for reason to rule and creeping socialism to fail.
Read more.
TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY
CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THIS YEAR MORE IMPORTANT than Monday, March 26 when the newly passed health care law is argued before the Supreme Court. Extra hours have been set aside for longer, fuller oral arguments from both sides before the judges.
Make no mistake, no election, no quantitative easing, no candidate, no nothing seems more important to our and our children/grandchildren's future freedom than the judgment handed down in early summer on the constitutionality of Obamacare.
I shudder to think what will happen to this country if some part of this law is not ruled unconstitutional. Still ahead of the arguments we should all pray for reason to rule and creeping socialism to fail.
Read more.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Sunday
DEEP IN UNFATHOMABLE MINES
Of never-failing skill
He treasures up His bright designs
And works His sovereign will.
Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan his work in vain;
God is His own Interpreter,
And He will make it plain.
Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
In blessings on your head.
---William Cowper
Of never-failing skill
He treasures up His bright designs
And works His sovereign will.
Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan his work in vain;
God is His own Interpreter,
And He will make it plain.
Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
In blessings on your head.
---William Cowper
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Ann Coulter At CPAC
5 PROBLEMS WITH GEN-X ATTACHMENT---AKA HELICOPTER---PARENTING
WELL WORTH WATCHING THE ENTIRE THING....TO THE VERY END.
What's especially noteworthy is near the end when Coulter talks about Obamacare. She reviews the traditional definition of the concept of insurance and how Obamacare is not insurance for a catastrophic rainy day at all but rather socialism meant to cover every conceivable expense and need. She reiterates this is not insurance; it's creeping socialism and growing dependence on other people's money. It no longer has anything to do with insurance.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Supreme Court threw out this monstrous law in its entirety this fall?
WELL WORTH WATCHING THE ENTIRE THING....TO THE VERY END.
What's especially noteworthy is near the end when Coulter talks about Obamacare. She reviews the traditional definition of the concept of insurance and how Obamacare is not insurance for a catastrophic rainy day at all but rather socialism meant to cover every conceivable expense and need. She reiterates this is not insurance; it's creeping socialism and growing dependence on other people's money. It no longer has anything to do with insurance.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Supreme Court threw out this monstrous law in its entirety this fall?
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Lite Tuesday And Rush's Poor Choice of Name Calling
TAMNY: UNDERLYING ECONOMIC MESSAGE IN OSCAR-WINNING UNDEFEATED
IF THE PRIMARY VOTING BOOTH I JUST CAME OUT OF here in Nashville is any indication of the gravitas of what's been known as SUPER TUESDAY, then mark me, my vote and attendance as an endangered species. Wow! The crowds must all be walking in the bright sunshine down near Tootsies Orchid Lounge before five days of forecast rain.
Is it something Newt said? Or maybe it's it just my imagination.
The intrepid grounds keeper at my condo complex---who's a hard-nosed Democrat---told me emphatically a little while ago, They've gone after each other so bad, nobody cares no more.
Well maybe, maybe not, Bob. I don't like to argue with a man wielding a massive weed-eater.
Most people I know were going to vote, though most already think Mitt Romney, whom I voted for, is a shoo-in. The winner in Tennessee doesn't take all the 58 delegates unless he wins at least 66% of the vote. Otherwise, its apportioned proportionally---if you know what I mean.
So the big deal today isn't Tennessee which will go either for Romney or Satorum, but Ohio. We'll see how it all goes later today. The polls close at 7 CST.
Meanwhile, I want to say a few words about the Rush Limbaugh melee:
First and foremost, I think Rush's name-calling was extremely inappropriate and lowered the bar for political and cultural discourse--- already dangerously low--- in our country. There is no excuse for such foolishness from a conservative talk-show host who should know better.
Having said that, his faux pas has called glaring attention to the feminist Sandra Fluke and the left's radical agenda for sexual reproductive "rights" namely the newest--- after taxpayer funded abortion and birth control---taxpayer funded sex-change operations now euphemistically known as gender reassignment.
It's all in the name of the holy grail of non-discrimination, you understand. Holy Mother of God!
If what we're seeing in this country doesn't take the cake, then nothing will. If anyone doubts that after the legalization of abortion, gay marriage and Obamacare that the radicals won't push these 'victories' to even more extreme positions and want taxpayers to pay for their agendas, then nothing will.
I would call Sandra Fluke a dependent who's radical pushing a pathetic agenda of dependence on government for relevance and survival. Anyone who believes her sad shtick is heading down an unsustainable path of government slavery.
One of the good things about the economy tanking again in the next few years, is that all Ms. Fluke's schemes will be moot beyond belief. For now, she is having her 24 hours of fame. And for the record, I reserve the right under the Constitution to discriminate in any and every way I choose.
IF THE PRIMARY VOTING BOOTH I JUST CAME OUT OF here in Nashville is any indication of the gravitas of what's been known as SUPER TUESDAY, then mark me, my vote and attendance as an endangered species. Wow! The crowds must all be walking in the bright sunshine down near Tootsies Orchid Lounge before five days of forecast rain.
Is it something Newt said? Or maybe it's it just my imagination.
The intrepid grounds keeper at my condo complex---who's a hard-nosed Democrat---told me emphatically a little while ago, They've gone after each other so bad, nobody cares no more.
Well maybe, maybe not, Bob. I don't like to argue with a man wielding a massive weed-eater.
Most people I know were going to vote, though most already think Mitt Romney, whom I voted for, is a shoo-in. The winner in Tennessee doesn't take all the 58 delegates unless he wins at least 66% of the vote. Otherwise, its apportioned proportionally---if you know what I mean.
So the big deal today isn't Tennessee which will go either for Romney or Satorum, but Ohio. We'll see how it all goes later today. The polls close at 7 CST.
Meanwhile, I want to say a few words about the Rush Limbaugh melee:
First and foremost, I think Rush's name-calling was extremely inappropriate and lowered the bar for political and cultural discourse--- already dangerously low--- in our country. There is no excuse for such foolishness from a conservative talk-show host who should know better.
Having said that, his faux pas has called glaring attention to the feminist Sandra Fluke and the left's radical agenda for sexual reproductive "rights" namely the newest--- after taxpayer funded abortion and birth control---taxpayer funded sex-change operations now euphemistically known as gender reassignment.
It's all in the name of the holy grail of non-discrimination, you understand. Holy Mother of God!
If what we're seeing in this country doesn't take the cake, then nothing will. If anyone doubts that after the legalization of abortion, gay marriage and Obamacare that the radicals won't push these 'victories' to even more extreme positions and want taxpayers to pay for their agendas, then nothing will.
I would call Sandra Fluke a dependent who's radical pushing a pathetic agenda of dependence on government for relevance and survival. Anyone who believes her sad shtick is heading down an unsustainable path of government slavery.
One of the good things about the economy tanking again in the next few years, is that all Ms. Fluke's schemes will be moot beyond belief. For now, she is having her 24 hours of fame. And for the record, I reserve the right under the Constitution to discriminate in any and every way I choose.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Dr. Kevin Leman Should Be the Hero of Every Parent Alive
BEST PARENTING ADVICE I'VE EVER KNOWN. Wish I'd had it decades ago.
Farewell To Andrew Breitbart, the Most Fearless Person I've Ever Known
GREG GUTFELD SAYS A HEARTFELT GOODBYE: He leaves a powerful legacy.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Quotes
I CAN RESIST EVERYTHING EXCEPT TEMPTATION.
— Oscar Wilde
Only a sight of his glory, and nothing else, will truly satisfy God’s people.
The hearts of believers are like a magnetized needle which cannot rest until it is pointing north. So also, a believer, magnetized by the love of Christ, will always be restless until he or she comes to Christ and beholds his glory.
— John Owen
— Oscar Wilde
Only a sight of his glory, and nothing else, will truly satisfy God’s people.
The hearts of believers are like a magnetized needle which cannot rest until it is pointing north. So also, a believer, magnetized by the love of Christ, will always be restless until he or she comes to Christ and beholds his glory.
— John Owen
Sunday, Above All
BEEN A BUSY WEEKEND. THIS is one of my favorite inspirations of all time--Above All. Then Great Is Thy Faithfulness, Lord Unto Thee...
When Bradford Pears Bloom, Strong Storms/Tornadoes Come With the Territory
TIS THE SEASON FOR FIRST BLOSSOMS, BIG STORMS AND SOMETIMES TORNADOES. Book it. It's been going on since the beginning of time. Sadly sometimes, there's true devastation and loss of life. And it could happen to any of us.
I have a good friend who was born on 3-3 a few years ago. He was delivered in his mother's house under the bed during a huge tornado. Now that's my kinda guy! Happy Birthday, my friend!
Tornadoes in the South---the New Snow Days
5:15 P.M: SUN TRYING ITS BEST TO SHINE--- BIRDS START CHIRPING...
4:30 P.M.: FRUIT TREE BLOSSOMS STREWN EVERYWHERE ON GROUND, THUNDER CONTINUES, RAIN STOPS, THEN STARTS AGAIN, MORE SIREN BLASTS...
4:00 P.M: MASSIVE RAIN AND GOLF BALL-SIZED HAIL FALLING HARD...THEN QUIET...THEN MORE SIRENS...
3:30 P.M. UPDATE: WIND PICKING UP AND SKIES GOING DARK, THUNDER PICKS UP---NO WHERE NEAR HEADING FOR THE BUNKER....SIRENS SOUND ON, THEN OFF...THINK I'LL HAVE A CUP OF JOE IN CASE I HAVE TO RUN FOR IT...
USED TO BE SNOW DAYS WERE THE BEST WAY TO GET OUT OF SCHOOL AND SOMETIMES WORK.
Not any more.
Mention a forecast of tornadoes and thunderstorms and cities/towns in the south and mid-west go on high alert and lock down: Schools let out, grocery stores are swarmed and talk of weather goes ballistic.
Is it realistic? Probably not. That's because for every dire prediction, there are at least 100-1,000 no shows. Still that 1 in 1,000 can be pretty bleak and devastating---like the 1 in 100,00 plane crashes that make headlines for days.
Bad storms in Nashville are predicted from 2 to 8 p.m.. Yet, the sun is shining profusely here though the wind is gusting up to 30mph. So what?
My guess is we're on the periphery of the bad weather and won't see anything of the likes of the TV dramas that are upping their ratings (which I never watch) by alarmist bulletins and ongoing coverage.
We live in a world of alarmism on all fronts. It gets hits on in web, and sells newspapers, especially when the worst happens.
Still, the sun shines and wildflowers blossom, even as the worst of the weather could conceivably/perhaps/maybe happen.
Will keep you posted if I have to evacuate and am fortunate enough to find a hole to crawl in when the big one comes.
But for now all is well in sunny, breezy Nashville. Spring is springing profusely and it's perfectly wonderful. Rough storms are a part of our Scotch-Irish culture. We're used to it.
4:30 P.M.: FRUIT TREE BLOSSOMS STREWN EVERYWHERE ON GROUND, THUNDER CONTINUES, RAIN STOPS, THEN STARTS AGAIN, MORE SIREN BLASTS...
4:00 P.M: MASSIVE RAIN AND GOLF BALL-SIZED HAIL FALLING HARD...THEN QUIET...THEN MORE SIRENS...
3:30 P.M. UPDATE: WIND PICKING UP AND SKIES GOING DARK, THUNDER PICKS UP---NO WHERE NEAR HEADING FOR THE BUNKER....SIRENS SOUND ON, THEN OFF...THINK I'LL HAVE A CUP OF JOE IN CASE I HAVE TO RUN FOR IT...
Not any more.
Mention a forecast of tornadoes and thunderstorms and cities/towns in the south and mid-west go on high alert and lock down: Schools let out, grocery stores are swarmed and talk of weather goes ballistic.
Is it realistic? Probably not. That's because for every dire prediction, there are at least 100-1,000 no shows. Still that 1 in 1,000 can be pretty bleak and devastating---like the 1 in 100,00 plane crashes that make headlines for days.
Bad storms in Nashville are predicted from 2 to 8 p.m.. Yet, the sun is shining profusely here though the wind is gusting up to 30mph. So what?
My guess is we're on the periphery of the bad weather and won't see anything of the likes of the TV dramas that are upping their ratings (which I never watch) by alarmist bulletins and ongoing coverage.
We live in a world of alarmism on all fronts. It gets hits on in web, and sells newspapers, especially when the worst happens.
Still, the sun shines and wildflowers blossom, even as the worst of the weather could conceivably/perhaps/maybe happen.
Will keep you posted if I have to evacuate and am fortunate enough to find a hole to crawl in when the big one comes.
But for now all is well in sunny, breezy Nashville. Spring is springing profusely and it's perfectly wonderful. Rough storms are a part of our Scotch-Irish culture. We're used to it.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
My Brief Encounter With Andrew Breitbart
TAMNY: ROMNEY'S AMERICAN CENTURY IS UNAMERICAN
GEITHNER PENS ANOTHER RIDICULOUS OP/ED
LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER INTERNET JUNKIES THIS MORNING, I found myself in speechless shock when I logged onto my computer to see the headline on Drudge: Andrew Breitbart Dies At 43.
Of course we all know death can happen to any of us any time, yet Andrew's apparent death was almost impossible to grasp. It was his energy, aggressiveness, x-ray focus and total commitment to grinding the axe of the left's cultural fascism---yes, redundant--that made him seem invincible.
As I went through the motions back in Nashville after two weeks in Arizona, I thought about Andrew and his unexpected death all day.
The touching write-ups from the conservative side of the Internet have only just begun and I daresay the best thing I can do as a blogger is to link to the best of the best of them.
However, because I met Andrew briefly about a two-and-a-half years ago at the Heritage Foundation in D.C. during the evening premier of the anti-global warming documentary Not Evil, Just Wrong, I thought I'd share a few details of that encounter. Nothing earth-shaking, just one of many that this interesting man had in the course of a day:
It was October 2009 and I and my gallant D.C. escort arrived at the bone-crushing wine-cheese reception outside Lehmer Hall at Heritage on upper Mass Avenue where the documentary debunking much of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was soon to be premiers. Conservatives were swarming everywhere as wine flowed and influential people pressed in to have important conversations with whomever they could.
Andrew Breitbart was to be the moderator of a panel discussion after the film was shown.
After ten minutes fighting the crowds, the man I was with---normally a convivial social butterfly in the Harvard alum/NW Washington inner circles to which he was accustomed, bent over and confided to me there was no one he cared to talk here to nor anyone who cared to talk to him....and wondered if we could go into the peace-and-quiet of the auditorium and get a good seat so we could get this evening underway.
I was happy with this suggestion---as I took a last sip of red wine.
When we walked into the auditorium, we were the only ones there and took our seats and began to chat.
Exactly WHY were we here? What is all this commotion about? he said, loving to tease me and my conservative politics... While I was instructing him to sit back, relax and not say an unkind word to anyone, Andrew Breitbart strode in, down the aisle beside us.
He was dressed in a blue oxford shirt, navy jacket with no tie and looked very similar to the photo above. He carried a glass of white wine. I turned to my companion and told him that was Andrew Breitbart our host for the evening.
Who is Andrew Breitbart? I told him I'd brief him again later. Then Andrew spoke to me and I s stood up to chat briefly with him. It was a fun moment....
*********
ANDREW AND I CHATTED in the still empty auditorium for several minutes before his young assistant came running in. I congratulated him on Big Hollywood and the great under-cover, investigative work he was doing. He told me he had even bigger plans for Big Government, Big Environment etc, etc. just to name a few of his big ideas and he would need lots of new sources and writers.
I told him I was a small-time blogger who had written some for Pajamas Media. Then I turned to a subject near-and-dear to my heart: The story no one was adequately covering in my opinion----how the big investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, were quietly taking over the big environmental/conservation organizations like The Nature Conservancy (where I had formerly served on the national Board of Governors). They were doing this, I told Andrew, to line themselves up ahead of the investment curve to obtain the most valuable carbon offsets in the world so they could buy and sell them---after lobbying for mandatory legislation making carbon the new dollar bill. This would line up the Hank Paulsons/Al Gores of the world become wealthy beyond all human imagination.
That was why so many investment banks in New York supported Obama: The believed a liberal president would advance the cause of global warming and the need to pass more laws to regulate all greenhouse gases. The effect of this would be a monumental new tax burden on the middle class, making the Goldmans of the world richer and the rest of us poorer.
Andrew listened intently to everything I said then asked me if I had a card I would give him. I said I didn't have one on me. He then most graciously asked me if I wanted his cell phone number so I could call and give him more tips.
I thought for a second and declined. Andrew, I promise if I ever need to get in touch with you, I'll tap my sources at Pajamas and let you know immediately.
With that we wound up our conversation and said our farewells. I took my seat and Breitbart went on to brilliantly moderate the evening premier to a standing room only crowd.
As I sat with my companion, mulling over my conversation with Andrew, I realized I had honestly lost any ambition to be a bigger-time writer, investigative reporter or blogger on the conservative side of the Internet. His calling and destiny was much more high-profile and strident than I aspired to at my age. After all, I had a new grandson in Manhattan I was rushing off to see and another on the way. My time priorities were changing, but I was very glad that Andrew Breitbart was in the world and working as hard and intently as he was.
I am very saddened by his sudden death, and pray for his wife and children and all the close colleagues he left behind in total shock. It's a big, big hole he's left the conservative movement with. It's a gaping hole that won't easily or quickly be filled anytime soon.
GEITHNER PENS ANOTHER RIDICULOUS OP/ED
Of course we all know death can happen to any of us any time, yet Andrew's apparent death was almost impossible to grasp. It was his energy, aggressiveness, x-ray focus and total commitment to grinding the axe of the left's cultural fascism---yes, redundant--that made him seem invincible.
As I went through the motions back in Nashville after two weeks in Arizona, I thought about Andrew and his unexpected death all day.
The touching write-ups from the conservative side of the Internet have only just begun and I daresay the best thing I can do as a blogger is to link to the best of the best of them.
However, because I met Andrew briefly about a two-and-a-half years ago at the Heritage Foundation in D.C. during the evening premier of the anti-global warming documentary Not Evil, Just Wrong, I thought I'd share a few details of that encounter. Nothing earth-shaking, just one of many that this interesting man had in the course of a day:
It was October 2009 and I and my gallant D.C. escort arrived at the bone-crushing wine-cheese reception outside Lehmer Hall at Heritage on upper Mass Avenue where the documentary debunking much of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was soon to be premiers. Conservatives were swarming everywhere as wine flowed and influential people pressed in to have important conversations with whomever they could.
Andrew Breitbart was to be the moderator of a panel discussion after the film was shown.
After ten minutes fighting the crowds, the man I was with---normally a convivial social butterfly in the Harvard alum/NW Washington inner circles to which he was accustomed, bent over and confided to me there was no one he cared to talk here to nor anyone who cared to talk to him....and wondered if we could go into the peace-and-quiet of the auditorium and get a good seat so we could get this evening underway.
I was happy with this suggestion---as I took a last sip of red wine.
When we walked into the auditorium, we were the only ones there and took our seats and began to chat.
Exactly WHY were we here? What is all this commotion about? he said, loving to tease me and my conservative politics... While I was instructing him to sit back, relax and not say an unkind word to anyone, Andrew Breitbart strode in, down the aisle beside us.
He was dressed in a blue oxford shirt, navy jacket with no tie and looked very similar to the photo above. He carried a glass of white wine. I turned to my companion and told him that was Andrew Breitbart our host for the evening.
Who is Andrew Breitbart? I told him I'd brief him again later. Then Andrew spoke to me and I s stood up to chat briefly with him. It was a fun moment....
*********
ANDREW AND I CHATTED in the still empty auditorium for several minutes before his young assistant came running in. I congratulated him on Big Hollywood and the great under-cover, investigative work he was doing. He told me he had even bigger plans for Big Government, Big Environment etc, etc. just to name a few of his big ideas and he would need lots of new sources and writers.
I told him I was a small-time blogger who had written some for Pajamas Media. Then I turned to a subject near-and-dear to my heart: The story no one was adequately covering in my opinion----how the big investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, were quietly taking over the big environmental/conservation organizations like The Nature Conservancy (where I had formerly served on the national Board of Governors). They were doing this, I told Andrew, to line themselves up ahead of the investment curve to obtain the most valuable carbon offsets in the world so they could buy and sell them---after lobbying for mandatory legislation making carbon the new dollar bill. This would line up the Hank Paulsons/Al Gores of the world become wealthy beyond all human imagination.
That was why so many investment banks in New York supported Obama: The believed a liberal president would advance the cause of global warming and the need to pass more laws to regulate all greenhouse gases. The effect of this would be a monumental new tax burden on the middle class, making the Goldmans of the world richer and the rest of us poorer.
Andrew listened intently to everything I said then asked me if I had a card I would give him. I said I didn't have one on me. He then most graciously asked me if I wanted his cell phone number so I could call and give him more tips.
I thought for a second and declined. Andrew, I promise if I ever need to get in touch with you, I'll tap my sources at Pajamas and let you know immediately.
With that we wound up our conversation and said our farewells. I took my seat and Breitbart went on to brilliantly moderate the evening premier to a standing room only crowd.
As I sat with my companion, mulling over my conversation with Andrew, I realized I had honestly lost any ambition to be a bigger-time writer, investigative reporter or blogger on the conservative side of the Internet. His calling and destiny was much more high-profile and strident than I aspired to at my age. After all, I had a new grandson in Manhattan I was rushing off to see and another on the way. My time priorities were changing, but I was very glad that Andrew Breitbart was in the world and working as hard and intently as he was.
I am very saddened by his sudden death, and pray for his wife and children and all the close colleagues he left behind in total shock. It's a big, big hole he's left the conservative movement with. It's a gaping hole that won't easily or quickly be filled anytime soon.