Archive for the 'Progressive Tyranny' Category

Behold That Liberal Tolerance

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Free speech is just too edgy for Canada:

Coulter said she has been speaking regularly at university campuses for a decade. While she has certainly been heckled, she said this is the first time a speaking engagement has had to be cancelled because of protesters.

“This has never, ever, ever happened before — even at the stupidest American university,” she said.

Anyone who can make Havana Denny Dease look like a stalwart of civil liberty has got serious problems.

Coulter remarked on the reception she has had since entering the country.

“Since I’ve arrived in Canada, I’ve been denounced on the floor of Parliament — which, by the way, is on my bucket list — my posters have been banned, I’ve been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given, I was banned by the student council, so welcome to Canada!”

I may have to put that 0n my bucket list too. 

That, and being Olberman’s “worst person”.  That’d be fun.

In The Footsteps Of Napoleon

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

So is Obama and his money-and-power grab on the permanent ascendant in American politics?  Or is it an ugly, profoundly-damaging flash in the pan?

Flash, says Ross Douthat in the NYTimes:

Before the 2008 crash, it seemed like this new liberalism might be poised for a long run of domestic policy triumphs: First health care, then climate-change legislation, then card check and immigration reform and so on down the list. But in the wake of the Great Recession, our rendezvous with fiscal retrenchment has been accelerated, and the chances for a rolling series of progressive victories have diminished apace. Barring an extraordinary economic boom, the American situation will soon require the slow and painful restructuring of the welfare state that liberals have spent decades building.

And I think we can pretty safely bar a big economic boom.

This environment may or may not lead to a revival of D.L.C.-style centrism among the Democrats, but at the very least it’s hard to see it proving congenial to further adventures in sweeping social legislation.

As much as the GOP struggles with its own internal contradictions – between fiscal hawks, moderates and social conservatives – pale compared to the war between the Kossacks and the moderates, which has effectively led to a near-purge of moderates.

Which helps explain this past weekend’s scorched-earth assault on the free market:

I’ve talked to liberals who seem to understand this: The reckoning is coming, they allow, and the theory of health care reform has always been to get everybody inside the barrel before it goes over the falls. (I’d lay good money that this is Peter Orszag’s view of the matter.) But seen in this light, the health care victory looks less like the dawn of a bold new era, and more like the final lurch forward before a slow retreat. you might say; now they have to hope that it turns out better for them, and for America, than it did for Napoleon.

Which is where we come in.

Without Representation

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

A DFL legislator would very much like to give school districts the power to raise taxes without voter approval:

“In any other year, I would be horrified by the idea,” said Rep. Mindy Greiling, DFL-Roseville. “But I will consider this as a short-term solution. Education funding should be from the state. But schools need a lifeline right now.”

Greiling, who chairs the House K-12 Education Finance Division, introduced a bill last week that would allow school districts to levy up to $200 per pupil from local taxpayers without voter approval.

The bill is one of three that gives districts more taxing authority. They are scheduled to go in front of Greiling’s committee this week.

Great idea, DFL.  People are hurting, unemployment is booming – shake ’em down for more!

Not every DFLer has lost his mind:

“I’m very hesitant to do that. When property taxes have gone up $3.6 billion since 2003, we don’t need to be raising more property taxes,” said Rep. Paul Marquart, DFL-Dilworth, chairman of the House Property and Local Sales Tax Division.

About three-quarters of school funding — close to $7 billion annually — comes from the state.

The rest comes from property taxes. School districts across the state levied about $2.3 billion for taxes payable in 2010.

That 2.3 billion, by the way, is money that charter schools don’t get; whenever any DFL/MFT/MN2020 flaks tell you “charter schools cost more than public schools”, ask ’em why they’re leaving out a quarter of the budget.

At any rate, here’s the DFL’s message to you; “our institutions can’t operate within a budget, like the rest of you have to, so we’re going to take what we need.  We’ll let you know when we’ve decided what that is. Buh-bye”.

Shouldn’t the People be Happy?

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

The health care reform bill is making it’s way to the President (you know, the one where the people won and the insurance companies lost) and yet…

For the first time, a CNN poll has found that a majority of Americans disapprove of President Obama’s job performance.

How can this be? Didn’t we win? That’s what the President told us. Shouldn’t we be happy? Are we not good, obedient listeners?

I think the President should be telling us to be happy more. That way we’d be happy.

…and approving.

Not A Recipe For Cookies

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine combined the radicalism of Alinsky, the corruption of Springfield and the machine power politics of Chicago.

…keep the oven door closed, bake at 500 degrees for a whole weekend, and the result should be no surprise.

It is hard to imagine how much pressure they brought to bear on congressman Stupak to get him to accept a cynical, phony clearly illegal and unconstitutional executive order on abortion. The ruthlessness and inhumanity of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine was most clearly on display in their public humiliation of Stupak.

He did look like he was about to cry…or had “dropped the soap” in a prison shower.

The Morning After Pill

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

…is hard to swallow…and it’s probably too late any way. Then again, why do we need that pill now any way? The federal government will pay for an abortion.

America is pissed off, but will anyone be made to pay?

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll (…of course if this were a Fox News poll, it would be thrown out by most liberals-JR) found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, and 39 percent favored it. All of the interviews were conducted before the House voted Sunday night, but the contents of the bill were widely known.

…to the extent they’ve ever been widely known.

In addition, 56 percent said the bill gives the government too much involvement in health care; 28 percent said it gives the government the proper role and 16 percent said it leaves Washington with an inadequate role.

On the question of costs, 62 percent said the bill increases the amount of money they personally spend on health care; 21 percent said their costs would remain the same and 16 percent said they would decrease.

The poll’s results about the bill’s fiscal impact were particularly stark: 70 percent of respondents said they believed deficits would go up because of the bill; 17 percent felt they would stay the same and 12 percent said they would go down.

…not than any of this was ever about health care. This has always been about a transfer of power to Democrats by crafting a new middle-class entitlement.

Words To Remember…

Sunday, March 21st, 2010

whenever the times are as dismal as they are right now…

“…we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender,”

Now, that was a crisis.

Not that Obamacare isn’t.

If You Read Nothing Else About Obamacare…

Sunday, March 21st, 2010

…than this piece by Andy “AAA” Aplikowski

…well, then you’re the same kind of mental-lightweight doofus that got us into this mess in the first place, voting for a “President” based entirely on curb appeal and superficial “zing”.

You need to read a lot, and get very, very informed, fast.  And that information is not going to come from the media, or the gabbling hamster leftyblogs that are carrying water for Obamacare.

But, that said, Andy’s got it right:

Obama Care is a trojan horse for single payer. It is the first step towards it.Democrats in Washington are so panicked in passing something now before their radical unAmerican butts get thrown out of office…

If I’m sick of one thing, it’s bobbleheaded Obama suppoters chanting “but it’s not socialism!  It’ll actually be cheaper!  It’ll keep private insurance, if that’s what you want!”

Right.  And then, as every American who deserves the right to vote knows…:

  1. It will require everyone to buy insurance, against the penalty of having the IRS crawling up your leg.
  2. It will require private insurance to cover not only pre-existing conditions, but every kind of care imaginable, from catastrhopic care to drug addiction treatment (to say nothing of abortion)…
  3. …which will cause a huge increase in demand for a static amount of services…
  4. …which is a recipe, as everyone who ever took Econ 101 knows, for inflation…
  5. …even if the services stay static.  They will not.  Which accelerates the inflation…
  6. …so that more and more Americans and businesses will not be able to afford private insurance, which will drive insurance companies out of business and drive people over to the federally-subsidize program for “the poor” (which, in the current bill, includes families of four earning up to $88,000)…
  7. …which will cause a “crisis” that the government will have to meet by providing the “public option”, assuming it’s even an option by that point…
  8. …which, given that private insurance (except for Congress and their union pals) can not survive against the cost pressure provided by the government, it won’t be for long.

That’s not a trojan horse.  It’s a trojan field of horses bolting out of a starting gate.

Andy’s got one thing wrong, though:

…Do you see it yet, our Government now closer resembles the one we revolted from then it does the one established when we were first freed.

Well, no.  Like every dim anal-retentive lefty commentator notes when tut-tutting about the historical and philosophical “accuracy” of the term “Tea Parties”, we do have an elected government.

It was elected by the same crowd of people who put Jesse Ventura and Al Franken and Keith Ellison in office; people who don’t give a rat’s ass about politics other than every four years, when they may or may not trudge to the polls to vote for whomever they perceive to be a proximate reaction to whatever they believe the media is telling them the “big problem facing America” is, if not just whomever had the best “curb appeal”.

And they are the same Americans who will eventually show Obama and/or his party the door, since while those people are superficial and ill-informed and unjustifiably trusting of a corrupt, in-the-bag media that long ago stopped doing the job of holding government accountable, they’re not stupid.  One year they elected Jimmy Carter as a knee-jerk reaction against Nixon; four years later, they realized that the “cure” was not only worse than the problem, but that there were some real-life issues that needed real solutions.

And maybe we’re getting to that point.  The problem is, corrosive socialists like Pelosi and Reid and Obama, like boll weevils or obesity or flood water, will do a lot of damage while they’re around; prevention is always the best medicine.

But we’re way past prevention.

Open Letter To Rep. McCollum

Friday, March 19th, 2010

I just left this message at Rep. McCollum’s website:

———-

Rep. McCollum,

I’m Mitchell Berg.  I’m a constituent of yours, from the Midway.

And while I realize there’s scant chance that you will change your vote, I need to make sure you know that at least one of your constituents is revolted by the current process in Washington.  Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid are making a mockery of House and Senate rules…

…in service of a bill that *will* bankrupt this nation and *will* destroy our healthcare system. 

I realize that it’s pointless to ask you to vote for what’s best for our grandchildren and generations thereafter.  But I’m going to make sure I ask anyway.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Berg
Constituent

“Shut Up”, They Explained

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Americans have been running the Capitol’s switchboard red-hot this past week, calling by the millions to register their opposition to socialized medicine.

And it’s obvious the ruling Democrats don’t want to disturb the Master/Peasant relationship.  “Capital Confidential”, writing at Breitbart’s Big Government blog, tried calling his representative (Rep. John Garamendi (D, CA-10) .  The operator kept hanging up on him.

I called one more time. This time she said, “If you call one more time, we will notify Capital Police.” I asked why my conduct warranted involving federal law enforcement agents. She said I was “harassing” her. I tried to explain that trying to convince a representative to change his or her vote didn’t constitute “harassment.” Before I could fully explain, she hung up again.

I called back. This time, I asked to speak to her supervisor in order to report her repeated hanging up as well as the threat she made. I was placed on hold. Thinking I was holding for her supervisor, I was shocked when a Federal Agent with the Capital Police picked-up the telephone.

Fortunatey, CapCon is a former Marine – not easily intimidated…:

At first, the Agent was curt with me. He claimed I was harassing Mr. Garamendi’s staff by continually calling after being told to stop calling. I asked him when it became a federal crime to lobby a congressman. He said that it wasn’t but it was a crime to “harass” congressional members and staff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 223.

…and a lawyer, so he can’t be BS’ed about statutes:

 I told him I was an attorney (which I am) and that I would research the statute he had cited.

After researching 47 U.S.C. 223, I called Mr. Garamendi’s office again and asked to be transferred back to the Capital Police Agent. The Agent picked up the phone and I explained to him that the statute he cited was not controlling since it only prohibits people from calling with the specific intent to harass. I further explained that I was simply trying to voice my concerns with the intent of getting Mr. Garamendi to change his mind, not to harass his staff. The Agent eventually agreed with my position and said he would call Mr. Garamendi’s office and instruct his staff that I was within my rights to call my congressman and voice my concerns.

Unfortunately, not everyone who’s calling in is a lawyer:

While I’m fortunate enough to be able to legally challenge what happened today, others aren’t. The sad part is the democrats know this. They know that Americans unfamiliar with federal jurisprudence can easily be silenced when threats to involve federal agents are made. They know that most Americans don’t want trouble and they’ll go away rather than face the possibility of having to explain themselves to federal agents. That’s why I found this tactic appalling, as a Marine, as an attorney and as a proud American.

It’s simple, really; if Americans are afraid to contact their “representatives”, there won’t be any complaints or dissent to report.

November can’t come soon enough.

I’ll Bet Even Jimmy Carter Can’t Drive 55

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

I wonder if the 55 MPH speed limit, a product of his protracted era of malaise, wasn’t more of a factor in retrospect, of the quick demise of his executive branch career?

Meanwhile, over thirty years later, the government is relaxing in favor of allowing citizens to use their own judgment.

The 55 mph national speed limit enacted in 1973 in response to the first Arab oil embargo was justified as a means of conserving fuel. In 1987, the law was changed to allow speeds up to 65 mph. But the Republican Congress elected in 1994 did few things more popular than repealing the limit altogether in 1995.

Virginia will become the 34th state to boost interstate speed limits to 70 mph or higher. In big, empty states such as New Mexico, Idaho and Nevada, posted limits on rural interstates can be as high as 75 mph.

I have noticed when traveling longer distances that no matter what car I am driving, I tend to feel most comfortable just above 70 mph. The roads and our cars seem to be designed for that speed.

Left to their own devices, American drivers confronted with an open stretch of interstate highway tend to drive at about 70 miles per hour—whatever the legal speed limit happens to be.

But doesn’t speed kill?

both fatalities and fatality rates on U.S. highways are declining even as speed limits rise. The U.S. Department of Transportation last week reported that its latest estimate of highway deaths in 2009 is 33,963—the lowest number since the government began keeping these grim records in 1954. The fatality rate is estimated at 1.16 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.

Modern cars and light trucks have an average of 225 horsepower under the hood and sophisticated safety systems such as traction control. They are designed to cruise comfortably, safely and efficiently at between 65 and 70 mph—if not faster, particularly in the case of the autobahn-burners German luxury brands sell.

Anything above 75, I feel I almost have to be “too attentive” to the road and am unable to enjoy the ride.

Anything below that…I get bored.

How fast do you drive?

Tailgunner Joe Is Watching You

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Joe Bodell at MN “Progressive” Project, in the tradition of those great Americans Frank Burns and Dwight Schrute, wants to know; “did you go, or have you ever been, to a Tea Party?”

At what point does society recognize that an elected leader’s public speech has crossed the line into the territory of sedition?

About two seconds before it crosses into “witchcraft”.

Oh, give me a break.  It’s as serious as anything else in Bodell’s point.

Wikpedia’s definition:

{{facepalm}}

(Note:  When someone leads off an “argument” with a dictionary definition of a word, they are insulting you.  When they lead off the “argument” with a definition from Wikipedia, they are insulting themselves.  And you).

I digress…

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

The answer is simple, Joe.  “Sedition” is a “crime” that gets trotted out to criminalize dissent, and bully people into compliance, acquiescence and silence.

For example, if I say “Keith Ellison is a brittle, vindictive little man who is more suited to teaching Grievance Studies at a community college than representing a great city like Minneapolis in Washington, and I urge you to vote against him”, and the “local authority” in Mr. Bodell’s Wikipedia reference (sknx) “deems” it to be rabble-rousing, and has perverted the laws to make “sedition” illegal, they could sic the goons on me.

Glad I could help.

Fortunately, our “local authority” is bound by the Constitution, whose First Amendment protects my right to have an opinion about Keith Ellison just as much as it does the right to make statues of the Virgin Mary out of dung, or Joe Bodell’s right to pass off McCarthyistic misapplications of archaic, authoritarian laws as “reasoning”.

Or Michele Bachmann’s right to get a crowd whipped up against Joe Bodell’s government:

Just this past weekend, Michele Bachmann spoke at a Tea Party rally in St. Paul, saying

“But mark my words, the American people aren’t gonna take this lying down,” Bachmann later said. “We aren’t gonna play their game, we’re not gonna pay their taxes. They want us to pay for this? Because we don’t have to. We don’t have to. We don’t have to follow a bill that isn’t law. That’s not the American way, and that’s not what we’re going to do.”

After which she told people to go into the woods with Grampa’s Garand and start shooting revenooers?

Well, no.  The Representative was calling people to “resist” at the ballot box and at Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings (assuming we haven’t seen the last of them) and on the phones.

Which is still legal, by Joe Bodell’s leave.

An MPP reader happened to be in the neighborhood of that rally, and noted that there appeared to be many more Wisconsin license plates nearby than one normally sees in St. Paul.

(Huh?  First – does Joe Bodell ever spend time in Saint Paul?  Second – and I repeat; huh?)

Curious. In any case, I’m fairly certain that if Congress passes a bill…and the President signs it (despite those same Republicans playing footsie with the crazies who fervently believe him not to be a natural-born American citizen), the bill. becomes. law.

(And goodness knows one must not play footsie with people with bizarre fringe views, must one?  Because having fringies and other lunatics show up at ones’ party sure destroys ones’ credibility, doesn’t it?)

Anyone care to disagree?

I’d raise my hand here, but I’m afraid Joe Bodell will call the State Patrol or something.

OK, Joe, it’s fairly simple.  If a bill. becomes. law, I get to work to change it, in the Legislature, and/or by changing the legislature.

But if it walks like a duck and talks like a seditionist, at what point do we call the damned thing one thoroughly seditionist waterfowl?

It’s simple, Joe.  You can call it “sedition”.  You can even call together a group – call it the “Minnesota Anti-American Activities Project” hearings, if you’d like – and have them declare it anything you want.  Call it sedition, or witchcraft for that matter. And the rest of us will do what Americans do whenever people do that kind of thing.  Laugh at it, and maybe come up with a snappy term for trying to criminalize dissent.  “Bodellism”, perhaps?

Nah.

It just seems like that invoking a term that was last used as an authoritarian and not-very-constitutional infringement on civil liberty in 1918 is something you do when you don’t have a very good factual argument.

Misplaced Priorities

Friday, March 12th, 2010

The problem with gun control – one of the reasons that it’s finally stiffing with the American people – is that it burdens the law-abiding citizen for the crimes of society’s low-lifes.  It’s one of the reasons America is rejecting gun control; Real Americans can’t abiding punishing those who’ve done no wrong.

Hopefully that same impulse will swallow up this moronic idea:

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill are proposing a new national biometric ID card that would be required of all U.S. workers. WSJ’s Laura Meckler explains the proposal and the objections from privacy advocates.Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.

In other words, force each individual American to validate him/herself, rather than deal with the real problems – open borders, and a socialist neighbor whose economy resembles what ours will

The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/588e8cae-2d48-11df9c5b-00144feabdc0.html

Yet again, a cure that’s much worse than the disease.

Education Supplies

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Back when I wrote my “Secession Diaries” piece a few years ago, I joked about the militarization of the Federal bureaucracy:

The Prime Minister 1092 approved, presented the plan to Parliament, and within the month announced a plan to increase the Peace Force, and other military forces controlled by the Minister of Peace, to 150,000 men and women. Their weaponry was to be augented with stocks of former US Army weapons – tanks, artillery, etc – taken from depots around the USoC.

However, the powerful labor bloc in the Ministry of Labor worried about the concentration of so much power in the hands of the Ministry of Peace. They rammed through a measure allowing Labor to recruit and, if needed, draft 80,000 armed Labor Enforcement Police.

Suspicious of Labor and Peace, the Transport Ministry snuck in a measure allowing it to recruit or draft 75,000 National Highway Patrol, including a squadron of F-16 Tactical Traffic Control fighters.

Not wanting to be left out, the Ministry of Justice created a force of 45,000 Field Marshals. To prevent violence and terrorism in schools, the Ministry of Education was authorized to recruit/draft and train 50,000 Tactical School Patrols. The Customs Department followed suit with 35,000 Customs Patrol Inspectors, the National Endowment for the Humanities with 20,000 Special Museum Guards, the Ministry of Safety added 40,000 armed Emergency Workers, the Ministry of Housing with 20,000 Tactical Housing Inspectors, and even the Ministry of Sensitivity, which brought on 10,000 plainclothes Sensitivity Detectives.

Now, I thought I was exaggerating; I mean, the phenomenon swerved into the ridiculous during the Clinton years, but hyperbole is hyperbole.

Well, no. Hyperbole is reality.  The Department of Education is taking bids on some new equipment:

U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14″ – PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT – XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID – 14″ are designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

The required date of delivery is March 22, 2010.

Interested sources must submit detailed technical capabilities and any other information that demonstrates their ability to meet the requirements above, no later than March 12, 2010 at 12 PM, E.S.T. Any quotes must be submitted electronically to the attention of Holly.Le@ed.gov, Contract Specialist (Contract Operations Group), with a concurrent copy to xxxxxxx.xxxxx@xx.gov, Contracting Officer (Contract Operations Group)

So why does the DoE need riot guns?

Jokes about unruly kids are noted in advance.

 

Acorned

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

“Show me the cases of ACORN being convicted of fraud!”, the lefty demands upon any criticism of the “community organizing” group.

It’d help if the charges were actually investigated:

Milwaukee police officers sat on their hands for months last year instead of investigating possible voter fraud cases from the 2008 general election.

Must be just some hate-clogged “teabagger”, right?

It’s an incredible claim, but it’s coming from a credible source:

Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, the Milwaukee County prosecutor responsible for overseeing campaign and election issues.

“Honestly, the Milwaukee Police Department largely ignored your double voter (and other) referrals received in January 2009 for the first six months of 2009,” Landgraf wrote in an e-mail to a city elections official on Jan. 26.

So ACORN is “innocent”.

In their defense, they’re out on the golf course looking for the real frauds.

Way To Set Your Priorities, DFL

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

From coast to coast – and, very possibly, in the halls of the Supreme Court – the human right of self-defense is pushing the orcs back into their rancid caves.

Which doesn’t stop them from trying to gnaw away at your human rights – to say nothing of your pocketbooks – like sweaty little rats.

In a year when the Legislature has to try to deal with a 5.8 billion dollar deficit of their own making, Rep. Michael Paymer (Orc, Saint Paul) thinks gun control is the kind of thing the Legislature should be wasting its time on:

From Virginia to Arizona, federal and state gun laws are loosening everywhere from national parks to Amtrak trains.

But in St. Paul, a proposal that would send Minnesota in the opposite direction is headed toward its first hearing Friday — a bill requiring background checks on the purchaser of any firearm sold at a gun show.

The proposal pits its DFL sponsor, St. Paul Rep. Michael Paymar, against the mighty arsenal of gun rights advocates and lobbyists who have managed to turn back nearly every effort to tighten Minnesota’s gun laws in the past.

The article – by the often-excellent Mike Kaszuba – is correct, but only if you cut history off at about 1996.  Up until 1974, for example, Minnesota required no permit, training, certificate, background check or anything else for a law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed handgun.  Starting in that year – a nadir in many, many ways for the state of Minnesota as well as the nation – the gun control movement started picking up steam in Minnesota, peaking in the mid-late eighties.  The usurping of our law-abiding citizen’s human right of self-defense didn’t really start to ebb until groups like the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance and Concealed Carry Reform Now started their organizing efforts – to this day, one of the greatest victories of grass-roots politics in Minnesota history.

How fuzzy-headed is Paymar’s timing?  Even Kaczuba points it out:

In a session dominated by pressing financial issues, it’s unclear how much time and energy lawmakers have for an explosive gun control debate. The GOP already is saying no way. But just the attempt is arousing serious passions as all sides take aim at Friday’s hearing.

Paymar knows when to toss out a boogeyman:

“I’m not backing down,” said Paymar, a veteran lawmaker who chairs the House public safety finance division. “I think there’s an undue fear of the [National Rifle Association] here at the Legislature.”

Of course, the NRA has been a relative bit player (albeit important) in the gun control debate in Minnesota.  GCRA and CCRN-MN have done the heavy lifting, and still have a pretty powerful mailing list; the last time the DFL tried to gnaw away at the law-abiding citizens’ human rights (the late ’90s and early ’00’s votes against Shall-Issue), outstate DFLers got spanked, many of them being tossed from office in defeats largely attributable to the state groups’ organizing.

I’m wondering what some of the outstate DFLers are thinking right now; harried by the Tea Party and their party’s association with the tax-guzzling spending-whores of the metro DFL delegation, they’ve gotta be thinking “thanks for nothing, Paymar; you’ve painted a metaphorical, rhetorical, electoral target on my butt”.

How fuzzy-headed is the timing of Paymar’s bill?  Even Kaszuba points it out (emphasis added):

Whatever the outcome, the nation’s pro and anti-gun lobbies are using Paymar’s proposal to make their points. Gun rights groups say the law makes no sense at a time when gun registrations have gone up in Minnesota, yet crime has gone down.

Serious crime decreased in Minnesota during four of the past five years, while permits by individuals to carry weapons in the state have risen by more than 6,000 in the past seven years.

Kaszuba is correct in spirit, but he’s got the numbers wrong; as of today, 71,182 Minnesotans have carry permits (and hundreds more every month) obtained since 2003.

I’ll be watching this.

(Via AAA)

“…like having a serial arsonist organize Fire Prevention Week.”

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Government employment is the only growth sector in the economy right now…Stern (president of the Service Employee International Union [SEIU]) wants to see this trend continue.

Ryan Hands Barack Obama his….well, you know.

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

Did you see this?

Hiding spending does not reduce spending

…it’s everywhere, but you have to see Ryan’s calm but complete takedown of the President and his policies regarding health care reform.

I Hear You America!

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

….but I’m smarter than you.

Enough about about Health Care reform. What do you think about Health Insurance Reform?

Obama reminds me of the guy that says

“Enough talk about me. What do you think about me?”

There are many and several ways America has expressed it’s disapproval of reform of health care reform via an ever-expanding liberal government growth plan.

It’s been three weeks since Massachusetts voters elected Scott Brown to the Senate, in large part because of his opposition to the health care confusion Democrats have sown. It’s been even longer since Americans at tea parties and lawmakers’ town hall meetings plainly told Washington they wanted no part of the health care elixir that Congress was peddling.

Still, our political elites, impressed by their own intellects, insist that the public will get the health care system they want the public to have, not the health care the public wants.

This was confirmed by the president when he told Couric he would not throw out the proposals that are stalled in Congress and start over, even though public opinion (see chart) strongly indicates that he should.

Everyone’s heard the message loud and clear save one man.

Unfortunately he happens to be the President of the United States.

Just in case there’s any confusion out there, let me be clear,” Obama said. “I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform.”

You see what he did there? He smuggled the word insurance into his monologue. Make no mistake, a man of words, and only words, chooses them wisely. Also of note, Jimmy II also threw in his signature and so very very tired “let me be clear,” mantra; a sure sign he intends on being anything but.

America cares about jobs and the economy at the moment and for the time being the majority are satisfied with their health care and are dissatisfied with the size of their government. Obama is increasingly making himself an island on both fronts.

There was immediate skepticism from Mr. Obama’s own party that the forum would break the impasse. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) said he had reached out to Republicans “on several occasions” last year to seek their ideas and feedback. “I was, however, disappointed that these meetings did not result in any serious follow-through to work together in a bipartisan fashion,” he said.

So, it’s the Republicans’ fault that health care reform is pushing up daisies?

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said he welcomed the outreach. “Obviously, I am pleased that the White House finally seems interested in a real, bipartisan conversation on health care,” he said in a statement. “The problem with the Democrats’ health-care bills is not that the American people don’t understand them; the American people do understand them, and they don’t like them.”

At least someone’s listening.

Tangent warning!

Riddle me this: if you could remotely control the President and somehow direct his actions to further derail his Presidency, and really light up Americans who are quickly growing angry at their government’s expansion into issues no one believes in or cares about, what might you do?

This?

Amid the growing fight over the accuracy of climate data, President Obama is seeking to have the federal government put its imprimatur [screeeeeeeeeeeeeeechhhhhhhhhh!-JR]

…that means approval; consent. I had to look it up.

on the science by calling for the creation of a new federal office to study and report on global warming.

Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat: “This service will be a vital part of our growing body of knowledge on climate change, and will be held to the highest standards of scientific integrity and transparency”

Right.

Sir, is that the Nancy Pelosi definition of transparency or the Barack Obama variant?

…oh, and re the “highest standards of scientific integrity”…is that the IPCC definition or the Al Gore version?

I thought so.

Barack, we love ya. You’re making all the right moves…you know…for the one-term-and-out deal.

Sadly, you’ll be a one-term president, and a mediocre one. At best.

Krugman On The Austro-Hungarian Menace At Our Gates

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Paul Krugman doesn’t like Republicans very much. This is not a recent development. However the extent of his loathing often takes him along truly unique rhetorical paths. Such as the notion that Republicans are dooming America into non-existence, just like what happened to Poland a couple of centuries ago.

Lest you think I’m taking his words out of context, here’s how Krugman says it himself:

Instead of fraying under the strain of imperial overstretch, we’re paralyzed by procedure. Instead of re-enacting the decline and fall of Rome, we’re re-enacting the dissolution of 18th-century Poland.

A brief history lesson: In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow!” This made the nation largely ungovernable, and neighboring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. By 1795 Poland had disappeared, not to re-emerge for more than a century.

Today, the U.S. Senate seems determined to make the Sejm look good by comparison.

What this comes down to (surprise, surprise) is that cursed forty-first vote Republicans picked up in the Senate with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts to fill the former “Ted Kennedy seat.” Apparently once this happened Republicans devised a clever new scheme, never attempted before by any other Senatorial minority, to use to their advantage a bizarre and little understood Senatorial procedure called… get ready for this, it’s a pretty obscure one… the “filibuster.”

(more…)

History Floats In A Harbor Of Language

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Remember ten years and two months ago?

The world was waiting for the calendar to flip over to 2000; more importantly, we waited to see if the world’s computers would shut down, with drastic results (most of them didn’t).

And as the rest of us celebrated the new Millennium, always on the periphery of things was a thin little film of nerdy, adenoidal pedants clucking away, their voices like Comic Store Guy in “The Simpsons”; “Er, helLO?  There was no Year Zero; the Millennium doesn’t begin until 2001″.  These people – most of them frustrated wannabe scientists who worked at petty government jobs or as office temps – were largely and justly ignored.

The point?  Keep your technicalities; there’s a larger point here.  We’ celebrated the end of a thousand years of years beginning with “1” (and, for all of us in IT, the end of the biggest crash preventive maintenance job in IT history, so far).

The other point – the one I’m writing about today?  Pedants who huff and phumpher about petty technicalities often miss the forest for the trees.

Such is Jeff Van Wychen at liberal think tank “MN2020”, who recycles the hottest non-story of April 2009 among the lefty clucking classes; he’s T fussing about the purported misuse of history by the “Tea Party” Movement.

An image used by the modern tea party movement shows colonial patriots dressed as American Indians dumping tea off of ships into the Boston harbor in December of 1773.  When it comes to selecting a signature event, today’s “tea partiers” have chosen poorly.  The tax protests of modern tea partiers have nothing to do with the Boston Tea Party of 1773.

Van Wychen – whose organization exists largely to misappropriate facts for partisan ends – certainly has the textbook story of the Boston Tea Party

The impetus behind the Boston Tea Party was the Tea Act of 1773.  In response to colonial outrage, Parliament repealed most of the taxes imposed through the Townshend Act of 1767.  However, the hated tax on tea was left in place as a demonstration of Parliament’s authority to tax the colonies.  Irate colonists would have none of it.  Tea laden ships were not allowed to land in New York and Philadelphia.  In Boston, tea was taken from the ships and dumped overboard.

Which caused the good folks at “MA1820” to post handbills sniffing that they weren’t unrepresented, since His Highness George III was charged by Almighty God to represent them.

Well, no, I’m not being especially facetious.  We’ll come back to that.

The outrage of the colonists was not about the price that they were forced to pay for tea because of tax; in fact, the price of tea declined in the American colonies as a result of the Tea Act because the East India Company was allowed to directly export tea to the colonies rather than having to go through middlemen in London.  The rage of the colonists was not about the amount of the tax; rather, they objected to the principle of any tax imposed upon them by government officials that they had no voice in choosing.

Modern tea partiers can make no such claim of “taxation without representation.”

Maybe, maybe not.

Van Wychen and everyone who chants the “Tea Party is bad history!” meme are wrong for two reasons.

The first:  When I accuse Jeff Van Wychen of being a “Wet Blanket” who “doesn’t have a leg to stand on”, and that my response to his point will “knock his socks off” and “drive him up the wall”?  What do you see?

Someone reading that could, in theory, read that and wonder if Mr. Van Wychen is an amputee made from soggy wool, and that the impact of my rhetoric will literally leave him barefoot and wedged up against the ceiling.  But that someone would have had to have learned English from a 100 year old textbook in the jungles of Burma, because each of those terms has assumed different, non-literal meanings in American English.

So too with “Tea Party”.  The Boston Tea Party was indeed a historical event – but the term Tea Party has had an idiomatic meaning, referring to any group of plucky underdogs taking a symbolic stance against big, distant, uncaring government.  And until the Tea Party Movement made every leftist in America into a pointillistic historical pedant, even they understood it.  And indeed, they do today – but the mission of left-leaning “think” tanks like MN2020 is to try to discredit the opposition.  And so it goes.

But just for laughs, let’s hew to the literal, historical story of the Boston Tea Party.

Van Wychen:

At the federal level and in all 50 states, taxes are imposed by elected representatives.  You might not have voted for the current officeholders, but you still had the opportunity to vote.  Americans and Minnesotans today are taxed with representation.  Thus, there is no connection between modern tax protesters and the patriots who dumped tea into the Boston harbor nearly twelve score years ago.

This is reminiscent of Mr. Van Wychen’s colleague John Fitzgerald’s claim last summer that public schools were more accountable than charter schools, because public schools have elected boards.  I read that claim, and then compared my own kids’ charter school – where the board responds to 200-odd parents, is mostly turned-over every year, and is the launching point for nobody’s political career – with the Saint Paul School Board, which spends half a billion dollars a year, does a terrible job, and can only be gotten onto with the aid of the Teachers’ Union and the DFL and an awful lot of money.  Am I “represented” on the Saint Paul School Board, to which I pay more and more taxes every year?  In theory.   Am I better-represented there than on my charter’s board?  Don’t be an idiot.

Oh, there is an elected Saint Paul School Board.  But as a political minority in a one-party town, the only vote that really mattered in the end was my protest vote – pulling my kids out of the Saint Paul Public Schools, forever.

Now, I’ve spoken at two Tea Parties.  And the Tea Parties are really quite extraordinary events, gathering people from all political parties, and no political party at all, together with one big thought in mind; get government back under control.

And those people feel like an awful lot of fiscal conservatives felt over the past eight years; the same way we Saint Paul conservative parents feel at school board election time; that we may have an elected official out there sent from our districts who passes all sorts of legislation, but we – the people who favor fiscal responsibility – really aren’t represented at all.

And so we exercise our First Amendment right to protest, to try to change that elected government.  And we’re doing it under the banner of an idiom that, let’s be honest, everyone understands.  Just as everyone understood that 2000 was the Millennium that everyone really cared about.

And – mirabile dictu – it’s working, or starting to; Democrats are running scared, Mr. Brown is going to Washington and Mr. Christie has gone to Trenton and pretty soon Messrs Reid and Dorgan will be going back to Reno and Bismarck.

Which prompted the Big Left into a paroxysm of juvenile name-calling, and, today, inveigled Jeff Van Wychen to play history teacher.

Modern tea partiers have constitutionally protected free speech rights.  Indeed, a fact-based debate over taxation is healthy and should be encouraged

By your leave, my liege.  And that is exactly what we are doing!

.  However, those who advocate for low taxes and less public investment should not misappropriate historic events that have nothing to do with the cause they espouse.

Have a beer, Jeff.  The debate is fact-based, and the Tea Party idiom is perfectly well understood; everyone with an IQ above plant life knows it, just as they knew “Remember  Pearl Harbor” meant “shoot Germans and Japanese, build weapons, support the war”, rather than “sit and commemorate”.

Nor should they pretend to be any more patriotic than the rest of us.

I’m not sure if anyone actually has – and I doubt Mr. Van Wychen is, either.  I think that’s just become one of those strawmen liberals throw in to make sure we know they’re victims, too.

Craig Westover also tossed Mr. Van Wychen into the rhetorical harbor which, lest Mr. Van Wychen get upset, I hasten to add that I’ve qualified with the term “rhetorical”; Mr. Van Wychen need neither don a Speedo nor find a beach towel.

Proverbs 26:24-26

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

In Obama’s speeches, one favorite phrase: ‘Let me be clear’

Obama’s declarations of clarity are far more than a little presidential throat-clearing.

In a presidency in which everything is murkier than Obama could have imagined, the “let me be clear” preface has become a signal that what follows will be anything but.

“Now let me be clear — let me be absolutely clear…”If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, a quarter-million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.” Since then, several proposals have muddied that assertion, including the Obama-approved tax on costly health insurance plans.

Let me be absolutely clear about what health reform means for you,” he said in July. “. . . It will keep government out of health-care decisions. It will give you the option to keep your insurance if you’re happy with it.” In fact, the government’s role in health care would increase under the legislation, and the changes would, in all likelihood, result in many people ending up with different coverage through reasons not of their own choosing.

Now, let me be absolutely clear:

Proverbs 26:24-26: “A malicious man disguises himself with his lips, but in his heart he harbors deceit. Though his speech is charming, do not believe him, for seven abominations fill his heart. His malice may be concealed by deception, but his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly.”

Dancing With The One That Brung Ya

Friday, January 15th, 2010

Churchill once said the US and Britain were “two people divided by a common language” .

Sometimes I think American conservatives and liberals are, too.

For example – to a conservative, the idea of responsible government involves carefully limiting what it gets itself involved in, taxing as little as possible, and spending within those means.

To a liberal, it seems to mean that taxation keeps pace with government’s self-assessed needs to accomplish all of the missions, great small and idiotic, that it takes on for itself.

And by that standard, the Obama Administration is doing pretty dang well:

It looks like a happy new year for you — if you’re a public employee.

That’s the takeaway from a recent Rasmussen poll that shows that 46 percent of government employees say the economy is getting better while just 31 percent say it’s getting worse. In contrast, 32 percent of those with private-sector jobs say the economy is getting better, while 49 percent it is getting worse.

Nearly half, 44 percent, of government employees rate their personal finances as good or excellent. Only 33 percent of private-sector employees do.

It sounds like public- and private-sector employees are looking at different Americas. And they are.

Seems most of those “Shovel Ready” jobs went to government shovelers Shovel Operations Technicians I, II and III:

Private-sector employment peaked at 115.8 million in December 2007, when the recession officially began. It was down to 108.5 million last November. That’s a 6 percent decline.

Public-sector employment peaked at 22.6 million in August 2008. It fell a bit in 2009, then has rebounded back to 22.5 million in November. That’s less than a 1 percent decline.

A squib?

This is not an accident; it is the result of deliberate public policy. About one-third of the $787 billion stimulus package passed in February 2009 was directed at state and local governments, which have been facing declining revenues and are, mostly, required to balance their budgets.

The Dems goal, in Washington, was to keep their little buddies in the various state houses all warm and fed.

How ya feeling about your Hope and Change now, private sector?

Katie Goes Undercover

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Katie Kieffer infiltrated Speaker Pelosi’s office, and you just won’t believe what she turned up:

I’m a conservative blogger. My job is to scope out news that liberal media networks send to the shredder. This week, I did some sleuthing inside Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office. You’ll never believe what I found out…

I wore a tie-dye t-shirt and a hippie wig, which worked better than a press pass to get into Pelosi’s chambers. Her aids welcomed me as one of their own granola-crunching comrades. I asked them to show me what the House was working on and they proudly showed me this press release that Pelosi was drafting:

PRESS RELEASE (DRAFT)

TO: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

FROM: REP. NANCY PELOSI

I know, it’s tough out there. You’re hanging onto your job for dear life. You’re stressed. You’re tired. You’re working harder and longer hours than ever before. You need a break. So, you hit the bar. Then, you go home and crash. You get the munchies and raid the fridge. You’ve skipped the gym for the 12th day in a row.

THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL WARNING: You are now living in a no wake zone. Change your lifestyle now or you’ll get the pink slip.

And Madame De Speaker has some big lifestyle changes in mind for you, her subjects. 

Did I say subjects?   Constituents, I mean.  Silly mistake.

Read the whole thing.

Oh, That’s What You Meant.

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

When Barack Obama expressed concern over the deficit, and pledged to cut it in half, I suppose there were some taxpayers that actually thought that implied a reduction in government spending.

Nope. What he meant was he was about to invent another tax and wrap it in fabricated righteousness.

President Barack Obama may propose a fee on financial-services companies as a way to fulfill a vow on cutting the budget deficit in half, administration officials said.

Despite the fact that by some miracle the government is well on it’s way to recovering much of the infusions made last year in the interest of preventing further disaster, Obama wants more. How dare the financial sector recover from a crisis seeded by the government and admittedly germinated by the avarice of a few bad apples and actually start turning a profit again!

Banks repaid the U.S. $165 billion last year, letting the government recoup about two-thirds of its total investment in the banking system through the $700 billion financial rescue, according to a U.S. Treasury Department report released today.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program also collected $12.9 billion in fees, dividends and interest, the Treasury said. So far, the U.S. has made an 8 percent return on its bank investments, a Treasury official told reporters.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said he expects the government to be repaid for the funds put into banks at a profit.

You can’t have it both ways.

A few banks exhibit risky behavior while the government looks the other way. Risk is realized. The government bails the banks out just as the banks expected, thereby rewarding them by mitigating the risk normally realized by this behavior.

No one should be surprised that some banks are picking up where they left off, and the government is just as culpable as the banks.

Public sentiment has turned against last year’s government rescue of the financial-services industry. Almost two-thirds of Americans believe bailing out the banks was a bad idea, a Bloomberg National Poll taken Dec. 3-7 showed.

Just over half of respondents said banks should be subject to stricter regulation and 31 percent would allow troubled banks to fail.

Americans are pissed off – and they should be – but not just at the banks, rather at the bureaucrats that saw fit to reward risky behavior with taxpayer dollars.

…and ironically now seek to create yet another tax to repair the damage caused by the misuse of taxpayer dollars in the first place.

One must never underestimate a liberal’s creativity in finding new ways to confiscate capital and turn something into nothing.

--> Site Meter -->