Alison Grimes versus Mitch McConnell in Kentucky
Mitch isn’t the most popular Republican in 2014 — even among Republicans and conservatives. This should be an easy win for Democrats.
What does Alison believe on the issues? Consider her stands (from her web site)
I strongly oppose President Obama’s attack on Kentucky’s energy industry — sounds like Republican red-meat.
We must secure America’s energy independence and reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Standard boiler-plate politicians have been using since … well, Jimmy Carter.
I am running to protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security. Political boiler-plate.
We must cut red tape and allow businesses to grow and create new jobs. More Republican red-meat.
We must target burdensome federal regulation of Kentucky’s energy sector, allowing our state to create new middle-class jobs across the state. Yep, more Republican red-meat.
The Federal deficit is out of control and it threatens the long-term strength of our nation. Rand Paul would be proud, Alison.
Nearly 680 renewable energy initiatives across 23 federal agencies and their 130 sub-agencies costing taxpayers $15 billion is certainly not an efficient use of taxpayer dollars. I also believe that we can make our Medicare and Medicaid programs more efficient without slashing coverage. Medicare spending is unsustainable. Is this Rand Paul’s web site?
Do you really think Pelosi/Reid would agree with her views — cutting red-tape, opposing Obama on energy, reducing regulations, and the deficit threatening stability of the country?
Washington has fallen short of honoring our commitment to our veterans. More boiler-plate.
So far, looks like a Republican, or … a Libertarian! What Democrat issues does she take?
INCREASING MINIMUM WAGE: In order to grow our middle class, we must raise the minimum wage to help hardworking Americans achieve a basic standard of living. That’s about the only thing on her “issues” page which strongly identifies with Democrats. The rest is Republican or (gasp!) Libertarian.
Go read her “issues” page and be honest — if no party affiliation came with it, would you rate the majority of views Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, conservative, or liberal?
What Alison Grimes Believes isn’t the issue
Frankly, for a libertarian-conservative, there’s a lot to like about her, in preference over McConnell.
That’s not the problem. The problem is the “D” after her name.
Who you really vote for
The way politics works today is you don’t really vote for the person — what Alison Grimes does or does not support doesn’t really matter. When she arrives in Washington, she’ll be forced to tow the leadership line — those leaders are Pelosi/Reid/Obama.
- She won’t be allowed to challenge Obama’s stance on energy.
- She won’t be allowed to support reducing regulations.
- She won’t be allowed to cut pet “green” energy spending waste.
The only time she could do those things is when it won’t matter — i.e. when the leadership already knows her vote won’t matter.
She won’t really be allowed to support what she says she does.
The problem Washington has today is bills aren’t written by committee, brought up for debate, voted on, reconciled, and then passed to the President.
No, bills are written in back-room deals, then thrown on the floor telling members they can’t change them because then the deal will fall apart.
Then D’s and R’s brow-beat their side to support or not support it in its entirety.
What an individual congress critter believes has become irrelevant. Only party affiliation matters, and what the party leaders support.
Political Reality in 2014 and Beyond
What your candidate believes is irrelevant. Sorry, that’s the way it is.
If you vote for a “D,” you get Pelosi/Reid values.
If you vote for an “R,” you get McConnell/Boehner.
You don’t vote for a candidate, but party leadership.
The question for Kentucky voters isn’t Alison Grimes herself vs Mitch McConnell, but do the voters of Kentucky agree more with Pelosi/Reid or not?
… and you know those Democratic leaders don’t agree with much on Alison’s web site, they just hope nobody notices until after the election.
Obama, Gun Control, and Abortion
Gun Control is in the media a lot recently as Obama and liberals promote their goals of restricting availability of guns. Proponents state they’re not taking rights away, only making “reasonable” controls and restrictions, the idea constitutional rights are not absolute (can you yell “fire” in a movie theater, for example).
But compare a constitutional right (2nd amendment) with a non-constitutional idea (abortion).
Those pushing restrictions, taxes, or a 7 to 14 day wait to exercise your Constitutional 2nd amendments rights as “reasonable” complain when an abortion might require a 24 hour wait before terminating a baby.
“Reasonable” is all in the eyes of the beholder, and as usual, varies with the political goals desired.
Abortion and gun control, while not on the same constitutional level, expose hypocrisy and inconsistency of the groups promoting one while trying to deny the other.
Of course, they hope nobody notices.
AIG Bonuses – Who Got AIG Lobbyist Money?
Both Chris Dodd (D-Conn) and Democrat President Obama have voiced righteous indignation about the AIG bonus payouts. But when you look a bit deeper, you wonder why both men are complaining — after all, they each had a major part in allowing the payouts to go forward. First, the President, in a press conference, stating they knew where AIG spent all the money (that would include the bonus).
From White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ briefing two weeks ago, when $30 billion in additional funds were announced for AIG. AIG had at this point designated $165 million in retention bonuses for officers of the Financial Products subsidiary, as well as an additional $121.5 million in executive bonuses.
TAPPER: AIG, is the administration confident that it, that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars previously given to AIG?
GIBBS: Is it confident — I’m sorry?
TAPPER: That they know — that you guys know what happened to the previous billions before you hand over this next $30 billion.
GIBBS: Yes — yes, the — I mean, I don’t think it’s a — well, obviously, you’ve got a huge insurance company that is losing money, not the least of which because of its sheer size and sheer size and decrease in the growth in our economy. It experiences a far bigger drop, largely because of its size. But, again, the steps that — that Treasury and — and others took were to ensure a larger systemic problem wasn’t one that we had to deal with here today in letting something just die.
TAPPER: But in terms of specifically the — I guess it’s like $150 billion before, you guys are confident…
So the President says he knew where the money went — and that includes the bonus money. Gee, wonder why he never complained about it until now? We’ll see why after examining Chris Dodd’s role.
While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.
So why is Chris Dodd (D-Conn) upset? He added law exempting bonuses to the stimulus bill. And now he feigns indignation?
So what do Mr. Obama and Mr. Dodd have in common, besides both men knowing those bonuses were to be paid out from the bailout money (one stated he knew where the money was spent, the other specifically exempted bonuses). They’re both number 1-2 in political contributions from AIG, Mr Dodd first at $103,000 and Mr. Obama second at $101,000 (third place was less than $60,000, and then fourth place on drops to $35,000 and less – so Obama/Dodd fed the most at the lobbyist trough. Data from Opensecrets.org).
Citigroup and AIG were top contributors to Dodd, while Goldman Sachs was a top contributor to Obama.
And that’s how they can both encourage and know those bonuses would be paid, and then (for political reasons) feign being upset about it, when they knew it all along. Same old politics in play — do one thing behind closed doors for lobbyist $$$, do another for the public.
That’s change we can’t believe in, just more of the same old-school Washington garbage.
Those who Don’t Know History …
… are doomed to repeat it.
Recall when the Patriot act passed Congress, and the Democrats complained it was rammed through Congress so fast nobody could read it (and we know how well that worked out)? It’s Deja Vu, all over again, only this time, it’s Democrats ramming a spendulous political payback bill thorough Congress so fast nobody can read it (with special “stimulus” spending for Reid’s and Pelosi’s districts — like train lines and mice). What happened to transparency? What happened to 48 hours of public notice? What happened to debate? Just like PAYGO, Democrats abandoned all their campaign promises — after all, they don’t need votes (right now), so why bother with those pesky little promises? Doesn’t everyone know those only applied to campaign season?
The bill just came out of conference committee, and at over 1,000 pages, it must be voted on today? Why the rush? Why no debate? Why can’t they even (gasp!) read the bill — is it too much to ask for Congress to actually read what they’re voting on? (Hint: It’s reported Pelosi wants to jet out of town today — maybe true or not, but even if true, it’s no excuse for a rush on spending trillions).
Would you put your name on a contract without reading it? If not, you’re smarter than the entire Congress, who can’t be bothered to actually read the bill — after all, they’ve got pork to distribute!
Unfortunately, they’re not putting their name on the credit card — it’s ours.
Botched Abortion, Murder or something else?
The following story caused quite an uproar, which the media calls a “botched abortion”, but is it really?
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
The woman involved will of course sue, but for what? Abortion is designed to eliminate the baby, and the clinic did exactly that, in a similar manner had the “doctor” arrived on time. What legal case exists — services performed as expected resulting in the death of a baby?
Of course, it also must be noted Obama’s stance in these matters matches exactly what the clinic did — refuse medical care to babies born alive and allow them to die. So the clinic rendered the service they were supposed to do (terminate the baby), and with the President supporting the policy of denying medical care to new babies.
With all this in mind, our question remains why the uproar? How can anyone be surprised by these events?
Suppose the “doctor” arrived on time, what would the sequence of events have been? Depending on the exact abortion procedure, he’d kill the baby — perhaps by crushing the skull and vacuuming out the brain, or by dismembering it in the womb. He’d then re-assemble the pieces on the table to be sure he got them all, then pack them in a biohazard bag and throw it out.
Is that much different than what actually happened?
So the question remains, why the concern? For the pro-life crowd, it happens every day across the country — why is this case so different? For the pro-abortion crowd, the “doctor” would do almost exactly what the owner did — so why does it matter? And the President supports denying newborn babies medical care, resulting in their death, so the actions have the support of the President.
Why does this case matter?
What’s 200 Million among Friends?
Senator Charles Schumer (D) on the “stimulus” (read: pork spending) bill:
“Why quibble over $200 million?” he asked during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” …
Why? Because it’s not your money Senator. You’re spending my money, my children’s money, my grand-children’s money, and my great-grand-children’s money. Have you no decency and fiscal responsibility Senator?
Congress once again descends to new lows in fiscal responsibility as they’re mortgaging our future to return political campaign favors to ACORN, National Endowment for the arts, unions, and others. In spite of citizen’s desire to not waste money on stimulus that isn’t, Congress thumbs their noses at mere citizens and does it anyway.
Remember when President Bush was in office and the deficit was bad, and his spending disgraceful? Now Mr. Obama takes control (as part of Team RePO), who cares how much Congress spends? It’s a free for all! Everyone on board! No need to rush, plenty of pork to pass around! There’s so much pork, Senator Schumer doesn’t want to quibble over pocket change … like $200 million.
After all, there’s room at the trough for everyone.
Fear used by President to pass Pork Stimulus
“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.”
— President Obama, Feb. 4.
Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared “we have chosen hope over fear.” Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.
Why the rush to pass a bill which won’t have any stimulus for years? Because it’s filled with billions for ACORN and other non-stimulus pork. That’s why it has to be pased NOW NOW NOW. If you don’t give in to the pork, the world will end, or so says Mr. hope-n-change. Besides, if you really find out what’s in it, nobody will want it.
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
Best ammendment offered so far: $2 billion to encourage low-income housing. Gee, isn’t subprime mortgages how we got in this mess to begin with? So let’s do more!
The more people find out about the “stimulus”, the more resistance will come. That’s why Mr. hope-n-change switched tactics to fear-fear-fear the-sky-will-fall without all the pork! He knows if you really know where your taxes will end up, nobody will want this pork-fest.
So tell me, how will the country pay back the trillions going to special interest groups? Is that the legacy hope-n-change leaves to the next generation – trillions for special interest groups? After all, following the example of his own cabinet, nobody will bother paying taxes anyway.
The Inconveinent Truth
With all the “stimulus” (read political paybacks) floating around few talk of the incredible inflation these policies will create. And yet Obama wants to add yet trillions more in “stimulus”? The only result of the pork-filled stimulus package will be …. massive inflation.
From the St. Louis Federal Reserve:
You can’t create trillions of dollars without causing inflation and devaluing the currency. What’s worse, the “stimulus” won’t accomplish anything positive for the economy, it’s only goal is to spend pork — most of the spending doesn’t even happen this year. So why rush it? Only so the political operatives can pay back campaign people quickly.
Thanks to Glenn Beck for finding this chart.
Stimulus Pork – Amtrak, NEA, TV, and Subsidies
The WSJ examined the stimulus bill and what did they find? Mostly pork spending, with very little of what could optimistically called “stimulus”. We’re shocked — it’s no wonder Obama wants Congress to pass this quick so nobody can read it. The more you read, the more pork you find crammed in.
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”
So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic “stimulus,” but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm’s point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
We’ve looked it over, and even we can’t quite believe it. There’s $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There’s even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.
In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make “dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy.” Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There’s another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.
The National Endowment for the arts qualifies as stimulus? Digital TV? Is that what you had in mind? Oink Oink as everyone in Washington either rushes in to feed at the trough, or uses the bill to payoff political favors. Either way, the little guy gets stuck with a bill while the “stimulus” accomplishes nothing — except saddle the country with yet more debt (and payback political favors).
Of course, that’s one promise Obama will keep — running trillion dollar deficits for his entire term — and he’s off on a good start on that one.
Keeping in mind what the CBO has already stated —- most of the “stimulus” comes after two years — why the rush to pass this pork-fest? Even if it’s needed for economic relief, since the benefits come after two years no rush exists to pass it. Why not send the time and do it right? Perhaps could it be Team RePO (Reid/Pelosi/Obama) know what’s in the bill, and know if the citizens find out it’s not really stimulus but pork and returned political favors, the phones in Washington will melt down?
Nah, hope-n-change promised transparent accountability, so nobody’s trying to pull a fast one, right?
Obama launches recovery.gov
In an attempt to get people to support the biggest pork giveaway ever, Obama launched recovery.org, which will show where (some) of the money disappears to. If enough people support parts of the pork, the rest of the pork slides through and all the political favors incurred during the campaign can begin to be repaid in one massive spending bill.
But with a name like recovery.gov, we thought of the following (but don’t expect to see it):
- We admitted we were powerless over government spending pork – that the federal budget has become unmanageable pork-fests.
- Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity (the Free Market).
- Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of free enterprise.
- Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
- Admitted to God, to ourselves and to the country the exact nature of our pork spending.
- Were entirely ready to have free enterprise remove all these defects of character.
- Humbly asked to remove our budget pork.
- Became willing to make amends to the entire country for our excessive and wanton spending.
- Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
- Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
- Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with the free market, praying only for knowledge of economics and the power to carry responsible budgeting without pork spending.
- Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, to carry this message to Congress, the Presidency, and the states, and to practice these principles in all budgets.
Notice the bill is now called “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” — since the “Community Reinvestment Act” caused the meltdown, why not do it again? Deficit spending and credit expansion caused the problem, surely more deficit spending and credit expansion will solve it.
Stimulus Arrives too late According to the CBO
The trillion dollar pork-fest is being sold to citizens as important to get the economy going, but according to the CBO, the pork spending comes too late to do any good.
Less than half the money dedicated to highways, school construction and other infrastructure projects in a massive economic stimulus package unveiled by House Democrats is likely to be spent within the next two years, according to congressional budget analysts, meaning most of the spending would come too late to lift the nation out of recession.
A report by the Congressional Budget Office found that only about $136 billion of the $355 billion that House leaders want to allocate to infrastructure and other so-called discretionary programs would be spent by Oct. 1, 2010. The rest would come in future years, long after the CBO and other economists predict the recession will have ended.
The “stimulus” will be the greatest pork-fest of all time, as each member of Congress (and the President) attempts to return political favors (Acorn, Planned Parenthood, etc), and little of it will actually help. And it’s not to go to “high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers”.
The trillion dollar stimulus arrives too late if the goal is the economy. Since the people pushing trillion dollar stimulus packages must surely already know this, what alternative reasons do they have to push the pork-fest, while publicly telling citizens it’s to stimulate the economy? Why are they hiding their real motives for this pork-fest?
The Stimulus will be the greatest pork-fest since TARP — and we all know how well that worked out, as the Rebublicrats fumbled the ball.
Where is presidential leadership on this? Where is change? The new boss is the same as the old boss — different people may sit in different chairs in Washington, but nothing changed — perhaps the greatest hoax of all time (after Piltdown Man) has been the “change” theme.
Sarah Palin Launches SarahPAC
Just as detractors hoped she’d go away, Sarah Pac is online.
Because 2012 is closer than you think.
More Stimulus Pork – Abortion Clinics Count as Stimulus
The Stimulus will be a pork-fest — only Washington Elites believe otherwise. As more proof, consider Pelosi on “This Week” as she said abortion counts as “stimulus”:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies …
Remember, “family planning” is code for planned parenthood, whose business is abortion. In Pelosi’s alternate universe, abortion is good for the economy.
In Pelosi’s world, less mouths to feed equals less money states will have to spend. Show me one economist that says that we are in an economic crisis because of a birth control shortage, or one that says more contraception (aka: population control) will get us out of it faster. What’s next? Federally funded euthanasia?
Republicans aren’t the only ones shaking their heads in disbelief at Pelosi’s latest perplexing policy push. She will likely make many Democrats horribly uncomfortable. It’s one thing to be pro-Choice; it’s another to spend tax payer money on abortions at home — and abroad — in the middle of a financial crisis.
Even Pro-Choice Feminists understand this has nothing to do with economic recovery.
As a pro-choice feminist I am sickened by this obscene argument explaining why there are hundreds of millions of dollars for “family planning” services in the so-called stimulus bill. What does Nancy say? “It” (the reduction of children as opposed to the reduction of politicians and bureaucrats) will reduce costs the states have for children’s education, health care, etc. Instead of arguing that families should start paying for their children instead of the state and federal governments, Obama (via Pelosi) argues the number of children are the problem, not the fact that government has simply gotten so massive it is now advocating eliminating those who are a ‘drain’ on “costs.” This argument is a hallmark in socialist-fascist states, and now it’s here.
Don’t forget, Obama already talked of being “punished with a baby” in supporting his stance on abortion, so the attitude of the President and Speaker of the House think children are a burden and a problem.
The Stimulus will be 95% pork, and 5% for working people, and Madam Speaker defends it. When you’re thinking of helping the economy, be honest, did funding abortion (oops, “family planning”) clinics ever enter into your mind? We thought not. Instead, Pelosi and her cohorts on Team RePO (Reid/Pelosi/Obama) will attempt to use the “Stimulus” as the greatest far-left social program in the country’s history.
How can funding contraception and abortion be considered in any way funding economic recovery? Pelosi can’t be serious, so what’s her real motive?
Pork in Washington? We’re shocked — no change there, and all the flowery rhetoric can’t change reality.
TARP Pork for Barney Frank
Everyone (well, everyone not in Washington) knew TARP I would turn out to be a pork-fest. And Congress just gave $350 billion more in pork for TARP II. But for those who thought Bush was the problem, and hope-n-change will be completely accountable and transparent, consider what the Wall Street Journal just discovered about the criteria for TARP funds — lobbying Congress and the Democratic majority.
Troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston didn’t look much like a candidate for aid from the Treasury Department’s bank bailout fund last fall.
The Treasury had said it would give money only to healthy banks, to jump-start lending. But OneUnited had seen most of its capital evaporate. Moreover, it was under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives’ use.
Nonetheless, in December OneUnited got a $12 million injection from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. One apparent factor: the intercession of Rep. Barney Frank, the powerful head of the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Frank, by his own account, wrote into the TARP bill a provision specifically aimed at helping this particular home-state bank. And later, he acknowledges, he spoke to regulators urging that OneUnited be considered for a cash injection.
Barney Frank … you know, the same one who was supposed to regulate Fannie and Freddie, took their lobbying money, told you how safe and sound they were …. right up until they collapsed.
THAT Barney Frank.
So how will hope-n-change monitor those of his own party? He won’t (and can’t even if he tried). TARP II (and the soon-to-come stimulus, also known as the Generational Theft Act of 2009) is and will be pork-fests for Congress as they seek to return favors and institute social policy. If you’re connected, you can get bailout/TARP/Stimulus money so you can keep driving your Porsche — courtesy of Barney Frank and majority members of Congress — while everyone else (well, the 50% left of the country paying income taxes) pays for it.
Thanks guys — this is yet another demonstration of why gridlock in Congress is good — the less these guys do the better it’s for everyone.
The country has a hangover from the drunken spending spree of Congress. And like any hangover, it won’t go away with any magic cures — you’ve just got to suffer through it and come out the other side (and hopefully learn your previous binges don’t produce good results). The country got into this mess by Congress deficit spending and expansion of easy credit (sub-prime mortgages given to people who everyone knew couldn’t pay via NINJA loans [no income, no job] and the Community Reinvestment Act).
And how do the Washington elites plan to get the country out of this mess? Deficit spending and credit expansion.
As Roe v. Wade is celebrated again, one part of the issue doesn’t seem to be discussed — what about the rights of the father? Simple answer — he has none.
But why? If the issue is “reproductive rights”, why can’t the father control his? If the woman wants an abortion, he can’t stop it. If she wants to keep the baby and force him to pay, he can do nothing but pay. Why deny men reproductive rights? Is there not an equal protection argument here? Attorney Tommy De Seno notes the problem.
A father can’t stop an abortion if he wants his child, nor can he insist upon an abortion if he doesn’t want his child.
This situation should trouble everyone, not from a religious point of view, not from a personal choice point of view, but rather from an Equal Rights point of view.
Two weeks ago I tried an experiment in anticipation of writing this column. I wrote a column about gun control and posited that only men should vote on the issue of guns. The logic (rather illogic) used by me was that men buy guns the most, men are called upon to use them most (when a burglar enters our home) and we get shot the most. Why shouldn’t men have the only voice on the issue?
I wanted to gauge people’s reactions to the thought that in America we would ever give more weight to one person’s view than another’s because that person can show the issue affects him more.
As I walked around my city during these past two weeks, I was accosted by people who wanted to take me to task for suggesting that women lose their right to vote on an issue just because they may be affected by it less than men. Some pointed out, quite rightly, that even if there was an issue that didn’t affect women at all, as equal members of society, they should still have a voice in all decisions America makes.
An interesting perspective, and demonstrates just how bizarre the abortion issue has become. So extreme Obama voted to deny care to babies surviving a botched abortion, and a recent Texas court ruled a woman can’t be charged with murder if she wants to kill her baby. And now, an attorney notes current abortion case law creates an equal protection contradiction.
Where are the rational arguments? Abortion is (and will always remain) a major controversy for two reasons:
- The courts “found” a right in the Constitution which never existed, creating law instead of Congress. If Congress legislated instead of the courts, perhaps some of the nastiness would go away. As it stands, every time a judge needs to be confirmed, the question pops up “how will they judge on abortion” as a litmus test for or against otherwise qualified candidates. If Congress actually legislated, the problem disappears
- No compromise can be found. One side wants to terminate babies, the other doesn’t. What compromise can be found? Only half-terminate? Abortion simply can’t have a compromise — it’s a binary operation — either a baby lives or doesn’t.
Thus the abortion issue will forever remain unsolved, but for the time being, what about a father’s rights? Here’s a novel proposal.
I propose a “father’s abortion.” Let a father petition the Court to terminate his own parental rights to his child before or after the child’s birth. He would be rid of his obligations to that child in favor of his mental health and finances, the same as a woman does when she aborts.
As Justice Ginsburg said in the quote that appears at the top of this FOX Forum post, the emphasis is not abortion, rather an individual’s right to control his own reproduction. If we protect such a right for women, can we constitutionally deny it to men?
I propose this not because it would be in any way good. I propose it because constitutional Equal Protection demands it, and to show the danger created when judges destroy democracy by making up laws that don’t exist.
This of course has no chance of actually happening, because abortion has nothing to do with “reproductive rights” (and may or may not actually be a good idea, but that’s beside the point — what about equal protection?). But the equal protection problem adds more bizarre legal contradictions created by abortion, where by it’s nature abortion attempts to justify something society generally frowns upon — terminating a life.
Should men have reproductive rights? Or just women? We’re sure the idea generates strong feelings on both sides, but since the abortion question itself fails to have a compromise, perhaps other areas of abortion law could at least be discussed.
Why TARP, Bailout 2.0, and Stimulus is Doomed to Failure
As hope rides into Washington on a white horse, what chance does hope-n-change have for success? Consider the words from long ago:
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulged, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess, what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action : but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? (James Madison, The Federalist, page 350)
As Obama, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, et al, complain they had no idea the first TARP funds would be wasted, did they not take the time to read the bill they voted for? By their reactions, apparently not, as TARP was (is) a pork-fest of staggering proportions, and accomplished nothing.
As a revenue bill starting in the Senate (unconstitutional), switched to the auto companies against the language in the bill (in what way are they “financial” institutions), and then spent on pork (golf courses for UAW) — how does Obama/Frank/Pelosi dare feign indignation at it? They wrote it and voted for it. Oh well, we’re sure with the next $350 billion of taxpayer money they’ll do better.
And now Mr. Obama wants to up the ante — not just $750 billion for TARP, but trillions for “stimulus” to “save or create” 3 million jobs (note the weasel word “save” — a completely unquantifiable statistic. If the economy tanks, they’ll still claim to have “saved” 3 million jobs). Absurd.
The only stimulus coming is pork — as has been seen with TARP, Congress has no idea what they pass, and then are shocked — shocked! — when it works exactly like they wrote. As Michelle Malkin says, call it what it is, The Generational Theft Act of 2009 as Congress spends trillions on pork to be paid back in the future — how high will taxes go to pay for this pork-fest?
The economy has a hangover from the drunken spending of Congress; nothing can be done except to suffer through it. Think about it — what got the economy into this mess? Deficit spending and the forcing of (by Congress) easy credit given to people who they knew couldn’t pay. And how do our fearless leaders expect to save us from doom? Deficit spending and easy credit.
TARP was a pork-fest with no accountability — Congress wrote it that way, it worked that way. And Team RePO wants to double down with another trillion dollars (or more) of taxpayer money?
Yeah, great idea guys. Maybe this time read it before you vote for it.
Obama to Double Federal Deficit
Obama states he’ll run trillion dollar Federal deficits for years to come. To put that in perspective, President Bush is perhaps the most fiscally irresponsible spender in history — running up deficits of over $470 billion. But incoming President Obama takes fiscal responsibility to new lows — going from irresponsible to reckless in doubling the Federal deficit.
Change you can believe in? No, change will be all that is left as sooner or later massive inflation arrives reducing everything to pocket change. You can not borrow your way out of debt — a “stimulus package” is simply borrowing against future production — it must be paid sooner or later (hopefully for Mr. Obama if the bill comes after he leaves office).
There’s simply no way to continue to spend and spend and spend massive deficits without paying the piper. Our prediction: Obama’s administration will not only double the deficit, he’ll double the debt (by adding over $10 trillion in deficit spending during his administration), hoping the bill waits for his successor. But kicking the can down the road is not viable fiscal policy (for all those Bush-haters saying Obama has to “clean up the mess” left by Bush, repeat again You can not borrow your way out of debt — there’s no excuse to continue irresponsible fiscal policy which makes the situation worse).
The rapid increase of the deficit under Obama will make the ponzi scheme of Madoff look minuscule by comparison. Obama is in a bad situation — he promised massive new spending, free healthcare, social programs, welfare (disguised as refundable tax credits), and so on, but with a bad economy he can’t pay for it. But no problem, just crank up the printing presses and presto!
The debt passed to children and grandchildren is massive. Of course that’s nothing new, as politicians have been doing it forever. But the kick-the-can scale Obama proposes, and the complacent attitude of Congressional leaders (and Obama disciples) is astonishing. If President Bush was bad for massive spending (true), how can many times more deficit spending by Obama be our savior (it’s not)?
We hope Mr. Obama changes course (that would be change we could believe in), but with a liberal Democratic Congress passing massive deficit spending a liberal Democratic President wants, how can this train wreck be averted?
From the we-can’t-make-this-up Department
Look who’s at the bailout trough:
As the 2009 AVN Adult Expo opens in Las Vegas this week, Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis and Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt are petitioning the newly convened 111th Congress to provide a financial bailout for the adult entertainment industry along the lines of what is being sought by the Big Three automakers, a spokesperson for Francis announced today.
Adult industry leaders Flynt and Francis sent a joint request to Congress asking for $5 billion in federal assistance, “Just to see us through hard times,” Francis said.
And of course, the taxpayer foots the bill. First UAW golf courses, now $5 billion for the adult industry. And the taxpayer pays, and pays, and pays — once the bailout begins, everyone wants a part of it. As usual, “bailouts” turn to pork-fests as everyone wants a spot in line at the trough.
It’s only $5 billion, right?
Oregon Leads in Stupidity – Again (This Time on Gas Taxes)
Governor Kulongoski proposes installing GPS units in all cars, dropping the per-gallon gas tax, and replacing it with a per-mile tax, with each vehicle tracked by GPS. Why would he do something so obviously wrong? We’ll see in a minute, but first, the reasons against such a proposal.
- It decreases conservation at a time gas conservation should be encouraged. They’ve actually said the per-mile GPS idea needs to exist because people drive too many fuel-efficient vehicles. Imagine that — Oregon government wants to penalize saving gas. Visualize the adds — help the state of Oregon — drive a Hummer!
- Massive new state bureaucracy. Since none of the infrastructure exists to collect the GPS data, the state will spend millions installing equipment and new employees to handle it.
- Increase price of new cars for unneeded new equipment. As the auto industry stumbles, Oregon wants to make it harder on them to sell new cars. Great!
- The tracking data will be abused as the state monitors every citizen’s movements. Stalkers, divorce conflicts — the possibility for abuse is limitless.
- GPS use fades in mountains, tunnels, in cities or any number of other situations. It’s not reliable for the proposed usage. And suppose your GPS says you drove hundreds of miles in a cross-town commute due to a GPS flaw. Is the guy who fills up your tank going to arbitrate the dispute between you and the state while he fills the tank?
And so on. If people drive more fuel-saving cars, isn’t that a good thing? Why create a massive new bureaucracy which actually encourages people to drive Hummers to pay less tax? Insane. To see the obvious absurdity of the idea, consider the proposed $0.012/mile tax verses the current $0.24/gallon tax. A car which gets 20 MPG is the break-even point. Any vehicle getting above 20MPG pays more in taxes, while gas-guzzlers pay less (obviously, if you play with the numbers a bit, the break-even point moves, but the problem of penalizing fuel-efficiency remains). And you thought Oregon was a green state? Nope, they’ll penalize you if you conserve gas or use alternate fuel vehicles.
Two simple solutions. First, just raise the gas tax. Simple and easy. No new bureaucracy required. Or use the revolutionary new technology called an odometer — when the cars registration is renewed, take a look at the odometer, and pay accordingly. Simple, quick, and easy. No tracking of citizens, no new bureaucracy, no new expenses.
With all the negatives (and no positives) for this crazy idea, why propose it? Only one reason — the state of Oregon feels the need to monitor all it’s citizens movements — when, where, and how much.
That’s not tinfoil paranoia, but reality. Why else propose such a ridiculous idea with so many negatives, costs, and new bureaucracy, while passing on simple solutions? Why the Oregon governor feels the need to monitor his citizens movements is unknown, but if that’s not the primary motivation we’d like to know what is. It can’t be additional road fees, as much simpler ways exist to solve the problem.
Pay-to-Play, UAW Style
The UAW states its members have sacrificed enough, and urges taxpayer bailout money. But they’re not telling you it’s so they can keep a special UAW golf course.
Owned and operated by the United Auto Workers union, Black Lake is a public course that provides UAW members and retirees substantial discounts from the regular greens fees.
Auto workers pay UAW dues, which subsidizes golf facilities for UAW members. When the UAW asks for more money, they’re not really telling you it’s so they can keep their golf facility open.
Taxpayer money — to fund UAW golf courses. Is this what you had in mind when bailout talk began — funding a UAW golf facility?
While other (non UAW) workers have reductions in pay, layoffs and other problems, UAW leadership wants your taxpayer money to fund their golf course.
UAW Sinks Auto Bailout – TARP Limited to Financial Institutions
The UAW torpedoed the auto bailout by refusing to make reasonable concessions and reduce labor costs (and having the chutzpah to ask taxpayers to subsidize their benefits). If the big three pay 40% more in labor costs than other auto companies, how will they *ever* become competitive again? They can’t.
The UAW *must* accept a package comparable with Toyota and Honda, or one of two things will happen:
- The big three go bankrupt – not reorganization, liquidation. Kaput. No more jobs.
- Taxpayers forever subsidize UAW workers with bailout 2.0, 3.0 and so on forever.
Naturally, the UAW favors option #2, but they may get #1 instead. They’re counting on President Bush to do what he said he wouldn’t do – bailout the auto companies. Where the money will come from is unknown, but it can’t be from the $700 billion TARP fund, as that fund is for financial institutions only – auto companies don’t quality for TARP funds (at least legally under the TARP law).
By refusing a congressional gift, the UAW may just disappear. At the least, they’re dooming car companies to never be competitive again as they slowly fade into oblivion.
Corker’s amendment demanded concessions from the UAW as tangible evidence that the industry was willing to make fundamental structural reforms before risking taxpayer money on loans to failing businesses. But the UAW refused to accept pay parity with non-union foreign automakers by the end of 2009. That pay scale — among the best hourly wages in America at $26-an-hour plus benefits, totaling $48-an-hour — was not good enough for the coddled union, who demanded that their current $73-an-hour contract package be paid until it expires in 2011.
Why European-Style Healthcare Doesn’t Work
Too many people (Obama included) want healthcare to be more like Europe — you know, where everyone gets healthcare for free. But peel the onion a bit and you’ll find tidbits like this (from the London Telegraph), and ask yourself, do you really want this? This is the future of Obama-care and other socialized solutions:
Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.
Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.
Fertility treatment and “social” abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.
Oops. No abortions either. Nobody will be happy with a system like this. No abortion-on-demand, treatment rationing, and in the end more financial mess which will require another “bailout”.
There is no free lunch.
Senate to Vote on Pork-Laden Earmarked Bailout Package
They just can’t help themselves when it comes to stuffing pork in any and all bills, with both new waste, and renewals of old waste. Is it any wonder these bozos aren’t trusted, and Congress has single-digit approval ratings? The only bipartisan agreement comes on stuffing pork and earmarks at every opportunity — the one thing both parties agree on. Disgusting — and at 451 pages long, what are the odds any of the Senators actually reading the bill?
New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill
- Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
- Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
- 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
- Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
- American Samoa (Sec. 309)
- Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
- Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
- Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
- Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
- Railroads (Sec. 316)
- Auto Racing Tracks (317)
- District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
- Wool Research (Sec. 325)
What does ANY of that have to do with saving the economy? It doesn’t. Of course, this isn’t the final bill, but which is more likely — Congress will do the right thing and strip this pork from the bill, or to guarantee its passage they’ll load it up with even more pork earmarks?
Obama supports pork and earmarks, but here’s a chance for McCain to take a stand and — at the very least — make a speech proclaiming all these earmarks, and who they’re from. It’s unlikely the Senate won’t pass this pork-fest, but at least McCain could be on record.
Let’s hope the House doesn’t pass the pork-fest as well, and the House Republicans don’t knuckle under to pressure and demand the earmarks be removed, as well as protecting taxpayers from paying the $700 billion of the bill. They have the right idea — loans not bailouts. Let’s hope the House remembers it’s backbone and opposes this disaster (which will likely be laden with even more pork by the time the Senate passes it).
VP Debate Moderater is Obama Supporter
Nobody actually denies the media leans left (especially at PBS), so just about any moderator will be pro-Obama. But you have to wonder when a “journalist” doesn’t even attempt credibility and impartiality.
Questions are being raised about PBS anchor Gwen Ifill’s objectivity after news surfaced that she is releasing a new book promoting Barack Obama and other black politicians who have benefited from the civil rights struggle.
Ifill is moderating Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. Her book, “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,” is due to be released about the same time the next president takes the oath of office.
In an imaginary world where liberal journalists are held to the same standards as everyone else, Ifill would be required to make a full disclosure at the start of the debate. She would be required to turn to the cameras and tell the national audience that she has a book coming out on January 20, 2009 — a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States.
The title of Ifill’s book? “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” Nonpartisan my foot.
Yeah, that debate will be fair and impartial.
As has been suggested by others, the first thing Palin should do is congratulate her on her book and ask her to give the title and date of publishing. If the “moderator” won’t disclose her obvious bias and conflict of interest, someone else should.
It’s amazing what passes for “journalism” these days. Imagine the roar if Ann Coulter moderated a debate — yet it would be just as biased. Or perhaps debates should have two moderators, one from each side. At least then the bias would be out in the open.
Obama says He’s to Blame for Bailout Failure
OK, that’s not exactly what he said, so let’s go to the tape…
“Here are the facts: For two weeks I was on the phone everyday with Secretary Paulson and the congressional leaders making sure that the principles that have been ultimately adopted were incorporated in the bill,” Obama said.
Since he was taking credit for shaping the bill — now that it’s failed will he put out a statement saying he’s to blame for not crafting an acceptable solution? Don’t hold your breath.
Willing to take credit, but not accepting responsibility.