Trouble's a' comin'

I’m sure I’m going to read this in 20 years and laugh my ass off at my naivety. In fact, I pray that I do, because if that is the case, then I will have been proven wrong, and society did not experience a multitude of big, nasty changes and possible total breakdowns in the next few years.

Right now, though, I just can’t see any way around it. We are spending ourselves into a hole so big that it can never be overcome, and we are completely unwilling to make the tough choices necessary to fix the problem.

Here is what I mean. Our national debt is 14 trillion, when last I checked. Our budget deficit is 1.5 trillion, also when last I checked.

The toughest, most extensive and most heavily criticized (for being too much, not the other way around, surprisingly) budget reduction program submitted to date by House Republicans calls for 64 billion in cuts to the budget. I want to emphasize that this will never pass, because almost everyone, including the great Harry Reid (un sarcasm) is saying that it is far too “ambitious” and cuts way too many “necessary programs” with no concept of the fact that it doesn’t matter how “necessary” something is when you cannot fucking afford it! When ordinary Americans cannot afford something, no matter how much they think it is necessary, they go without. The government, on the other hand, thinks it just gets to tax those same Americans more so it can continue to fund its $500 dollar toilet seat addiction.

Here is a graph that shows the national debt, the budget deficit, and the almost universally lamented, far too “ambitious” proposed cuts to the current budget.



Can you see the cuts? Look closely, it appears to be just a thickening in the X-Axis line over the words “Proposed Cuts.” Pretty “ambitious”, huh?

Have I made my point? Not yet? Okay, try this on for size:

You live in a family that has an income of $50,000 per year. If you sported numbers like the Federal Government, this would be your story:

You would owe $308,370 in debt.

You would spend $84,361 per year, despite only taking in $50,000 per year, which means that you would be putting the difference of $34,361 on your credit cards every year, adding to your deficit next year as you struggle to make payments and interest on the existing debt.

And you would be telling everybody that tries to help you that a suggested cut of $1,400 (a bit over $100 a month) out of your $84,361 budget is far too ambitious and simply not attainable.

Can you see why I think we are in trouble?

Even the most ambitious, most aggressive, and largest cut that has been proposed does not even show up on a graph compared to the total budget and debt. Even the bravest of our representatives in government are only willing to suggest that we cut $1,400 out of an $84,000 budget when we are already spending $34,000 more than we already have. If this is all the further we can go, and it appears that we can’t even get this far, then why even bother? A $64 billion dollar cut will change nothing, so why even care?

The entire house of cards appears to be collapsing around us as we speak, and our representatives are arguing over $1,400 out of a $34,000 deficit. They don’t see it. They don’t get it. They are preparing to crash this ship of state into the rocks, and are quibbling over whether the decks have been swabbed enough – it won’t matter when she sits at the bottom of the ocean, I can assure you.

Like I said, I hope that I am wrong. I hope I look back at my archives in 20 years and laugh at myself. I hope that we continue to live free and with a high standard of living, for the sake of my newborn daughter and her children. But I don’t think we will.

Forwarding the Narrative‏ - Project Gunwalker

Remember the talk about the “Iron River” where the BATFE was claiming that there was a veritable “river” of guns being bought in the US and smuggled into Mexico in order to be used in the gang violence down there?



The BATFE posted this picture of a bunch of the guns seized from the “iron river.” Notice anything about these guns?



Yeah, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen grenades, an M203 machine gun, a LAW rocket launcher, or C-4 plastic explosive for sale at my local gun store. But that’s just me.

The BATFE is under orders from Janet Nepolitano to forward the agenda of gun control for nation security purposes. This, more than anything, has led to the “iron river” myth being created. Proof that this “iron river” does not exist is the fact that the BATFE has been walking guns across the border themselves, effectively becoming smugglers, in order to bolster the numbers of smuggled guns seized and therefore “prove” that it exists, and then use that “proof” to enact gun control laws here in the US.

Your government, hard at work, protecting you from gang violence by… errr… smuggling guns across the border to give them to the gangs…

…because that will make us all safer and forward the cause of freedom… …somehow…

…or something.

Heads must roll. To the top of the organization. Heads. Must. Roll. I am so flabbergasted by this blatant crisis manufacturing that I can hardly speak, and I am almost immune to surprise when it comes to things the government has done.

The Place of Gubmint

Because these are people that no sane person would willingly wish into their lives, we must demand that they effect our lives as little as possible. As I’ve said before and I will say again – the valid functions of Federal Government include:

1. Regulating commerce between the states and foreign interests. Not dictating. Regulating. As in, settling disputes and laying the ground rules on fair trade. This means commerce, as in, monetary transactions where goods and services change hands. Not the commonly-used definition, which is “anything that effects commerce at all” which is to more clearly say “everything”.


2. Maintaining a military for common defense.


3. Building the Interstate Highway system (the “Post roads” described specifically in the Constitution).


4. Coining money.


5. Ensuring that all states provide a republican form of governance (no, I don’t mean the Republican Party, you ninny, get an education).


6. Collecting taxes from the various states, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL, to pay for the above.

The valid functions of State government are:

1. Regulating commerce within the boundaries of the State. Not dictating. Regulating. Basically, setting up the UCC.


2. Building and maintaining state roads and highways.


3. Protecting the commons within each state from exploitation in whichever way is deemed most expedient.


4. Collecting taxes from the individual, including those taxes that will be passed on to the feds. This allows the state to act as an intermediary between the feds and the people to check federal power.


5. Setting about laws and codes, sticking to malum in se as much as possible, and malum prohibitum as sparingly as possible, to regulate the actions of those citizens who would not self-regulate without rule of law, and to punish those who choose to not abide by these rules.


6. Provide a state-wide police force, restricted in power to only assist local police forces with technical needs when requested, investigate local police action if needed, and with no direct police powers over the people, themselves, except for over the local police.


7. Protect private property rights and defend the individual citizen from all violations of his rights.


8. Setting educational standards to be met by schools.

The valid functions of local (county, city) governments are:

1. local codes and ordinances, including zoning, land use, and so forth, but heavily restricted to only the most basic, common sense rules. No factories in residential zones, and so forth.


2. Provide a police force that is the only force that has direct power to police the individual, whose power is checked by the state police, and who’s mission statement, to serve and protect, not to discover and punish, is drilled into their heads every single dy, and fire anyone who does not fall into lockstep with this creed.


3. Providing schools by whichever means is most practicable, with the caveat that vouchers for taxes paid for public schools shall be issued to whomever wishes to opt out of public schooling and use private schools, instead.


4. Provide for local roads and maintenance.


5. provide for utilities, water, sewer, etc by whichever means is most expedient.


6. Lay taxes on the people to pay for all of the above.

On the USAPA

On the conservative blogs on which I routinely commented prior to the creation of this little crap blog, and prior to the election of Barack Obama, I was constantly taking flak for being staunchly against almost every provision in the US PATRIOT Act. I told them that the Department of Homeland Security would become the Department of Homeland Tyranny, with no hyperbole intended. I told them that getting the Federal Government involved in airport security would not increase security, only offenses against innocent travelers and additional hassles (seriously, watch the whole thing. PLEASE!) and bureaucracy. I told them that the wiretapping provisions in the act would only be restricted to terrorist uses as long as the definition of “terrorist” remained inside the realm of reason, which it did, for about three months after passage. I warned them that all manners of violations of rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights could begin, unrestricted by any oversight whatsoever, as soon as they branded you a “terrorist.” I was right.

Of course, they told me I was an idiot for assuming that George Bush would ever see me as a terrorist. I asked them if they thought George Bush was going to be the president forever. They shut up quickly.

Now, we have Janet Napolitano using the PATRIOT Act against “right-wing terrorists” who the DHS defines as people with right-wing bumper stickers on their 4-wheel drive trucks, and returning veterans. It is being used to wiretap baby food smugglers in Maine (note that they said he had terrorist connections, but never backed that up. Convenient, right?). It is being used to deny US Citizens their due process and their constitutional rights simply because they are decided to be terrorists. It is being used to justify warrantless searches and seizures of property, in direct violation of the 4th amendment, simply because a person has been branded a “terrorist” by the loosest interpretation of the term possible.

If there is some chance that someone, somewhere might fear you, then you are a terrorist. I cannot find the link to the old news story about the drug dealer in Oklahom who was denied his rights under the 4th and 5th amendements because his neighbors were scared of him. I can guarantee that there are people in San Franscisco that would fear me and my beliefs, so I am a terrorist. Imagine that. I was right all along.

The Wisconsin Madness

First, I would like to open with a quote.

“What you wish for is irrelevant. What you have chosen is at hand.” Spock from Star Trek.

You can whine and complain and cry and bitch and moan all you want that the State is cutting into your pension, and reducing your benefits, and hurting you in ways we cannot describe, but the facts are very plain – Wisconsin does not have the money to continue providing gold-plated benefits packages and pensions-in-perpetuity, all things that workers in private industry (read, PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY PRODUCE SOMETHING) don’t get. The money does not exist. No amount of bitching and whining can fix that. You either take the cuts, or you expect a pink slip. Those are your options.

Skipping out of work on false pretenses, refusing to do your job, spouting vicious, violent rhetoric, subverting the democratic process by leaving the state and refusing to vote, creating signs that equate a man who was voted into office who is making tough decisions with Adolf Hitler, and actually being violent, are not helping your cause – it is just exposing you for what you really are – bloodsucking leeches attached directly to the throats of every hard-working taxpayer in the State of Wisconsin. It is far past time that government workers everywhere get knocked down a peg and actually start getting compensated for more along the lines of what they are producing for society.

A perfect example of someone getting paid far more than they are contributing is the average teacher in Wisconsin, who is costing the State $100,000 per year, getting the best health insurance money can buy, and a guaranteed pension for the remainder of their lives (instead of doing like the rest of us and getting back only what we put in) and then only working 7 hours a day and 9 months a year*. Yeah, you can go bitch about that on the streets of Madison, if you’d like. Can I trade you jobs?

Finally, I’d like to close with a quote:

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted to the public service“ – Franklin Delano (Hitler McUnionbuster) Roosevelt. Even he understood that public sector workers do not need collective bargaining, and that it would be ultimately detrimental to the nation, as a whole, if they got it.

*Yeah, I had a hard time writing that last part because my Mom is a teacher, but I have to post what I believe, and what I believe is that it is remarkably unfair for you to be working for people who do not get guaranteed pensions, who work at minimum 40 hours a week (but mostly more), who have health insurance that they have to help pay for that does not provide total coverage (copays, deductables, and so forth), and who work 52 weeks per year with the average being one week of paid vacation per year; all while you DO have a guaranteed pension, work less than 40 hours per week, have gold-plated health plans, and work only 9 out of 12 months (but continue receiving paychecks in the 3 months off), and on average, get paid more than the people paying your salary! Sorry Mom. I really am, but I promised myself that when I started this blog I was going to be honest, and this just ain’t right.

It isn’t that I don’t respect teachers – I do. It is just that I would expect a teacher to be paid more in line with their contribution. A typical skilled thought worker in America makes about 45,000 per year. Burdened with 401K costs and health benefits, the cost will go up north of 75 to 85 K for 2080 hours per year of work. That works out to $21.63 per hour take-home before taxes, and $40.86 burdened rate per hour.

A teacher at the same base salary (which is fair) would be north of 95,000 burdened, and over only 1,560 hours per year. That is $28.84 per hour take home and $60.89 burdened.

"Shocker" in the Desert

A book celebrating suicide bombers has been found in the Arizona desert just north of the U.S.- Mexican border, authorities tell Fox News.
The book, "In Memory of Our Martyrs," was spotted Tuesday by a U.S. Border Patrol agent out of the Casa Grande substation who was patrolling a route known for smuggling illegal immigrants and drugs.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/27/iranian-book-celebrating-suicide-bombers-arizona-desert/

In a political climate where the desire to take a flight from Spokane to Seattle is considered “probable cause” to subject me to a stripsearch and a rifling through of my effects, we are still allowing our borders to be porous and are essentially giving tacit permission for anyone who wants to come in to do so by our inaction – without search, without background check, without review – hell, we don’t even know that they are here in the first place. All of this is happening because to try and stop our border from resembling a pasta strainer would be considered racist. I don’t necessarily understand why that is racist, but since I’ve been called a racist for suggesting that we need to secure our borders, I’m guessing that is the reason that our politicians haven’t done anything about it.

But back to the original point…

We are at war with a people who specialize in asymmetrical warfare and terror attacks. In such a situation, it concerns me that the general gist of this article is that they were “surprised” to find this book, as opposed to the reaction I would like to have seen from the people that I am paying to secure my borders, which is “we were totally expecting this.”
Surprise, to me, means that they were not expecting our enemy, who fights assymetrically through terrorist attacks, to want to cross over our porous, unsecured border to attack us in our heartland. They were surprised by this. I am not in law enforcment, or in politics, but I could see this coming for years and am completely unsurprised at all that terrorists are crossing our borders and obtaining access to our country through our ineptitude. If the terrorist threat is so great that my pregnant wife must either submit to a massive does of radiation in a virtual strip search, or be felt up by a government lackey before she takes a commuter flight across the State, then why are we allowing anyone and everyone to cross the border that wants to?

Patterico's "Most Offensive Line in the SOTU"

Patterico found the “Most Offensive Line in the SOTU Address” yesterday, and I am flabbergasted.

http://patterico.com/2011/01/25/the-most-offensive-line-in-the-state-of-the-union/

The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don’t agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it – in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes

Catch that? Did you really? Read it again. This is your president calling tax breaks “spending.” Thereby indirectly positing that the government is “spending” money by not taking it from you; that the money – ALL MONEY – belongs to the Government and you are only allowed to keep it if the Government spends it by giving it “back” to you by not taking it in the first place.

These little syntax errors in his speaking – these little Freudian flubs that he throws out from time to time – shed more light on what Mr. Obama thinks about us, as citizens, than a thousand hours of tele-prompted political speak ever possibly could. He wants to “spread the wealth around” (remember that one?) and wants to remind you that whether you think you do or not you work for him and he owns you and if you are allowed to keep any of the fruits of your labor at all it is because the government allowed it, bitch! You should be thanking him!

Debt Ceiling

I love how every time they increase the debt ceiling, it is always under the auspices of an emergency, to “keep things going for now, until we can get our arms around a solution.” The spendtrhifts in washington never see an increase in the debt ceiling as a reason to cut back, however. Suddenly, they have more money to “spend” and they spend it, crossing their fingers that in 5 years when they have maxed out the country’s credit cards yet again, and they have to raise the debt ceiling one more time, that we’ll have either forgotten the last “emegency” or we won’t be paying attention.
Since when is it good fiscal policy to fix deficit problems by raising your credit card maximum? How does that compute to a group of people that are advertised as being our superiors, and emminently smarter than us flyover idiots?

Keep Me From Being... The One The Wolves Pull Down

I hate busybodies. I despise the very concept of a person that would dictate to others how they should live because they think that they’ve found some better way of doing things. Notice I said “dictate” not “suggest.” Suggestions for improvement, or opinions, are one thing – God only knows, I’ve got enough of both. It is when the person chooses to use the force and violence of government to impose their will on another that makes my blood boil.

My most recent experience with this is fraught with misconception, laced with idealism, and completely ignorant of reality, and it has to do with wolves.

Yeah, like howling-at-the-moon wild canines.

First, a bit of history. Men and wolves have a strange relationship. We either love to live with each other, or hate each other’s guts. Case in point, we took wolves into our villages and domesticated them as dogs, and yet, those wolves that decided to stay wild have been a competitor and the bane of our existence since the dawn of civilization. They are stiff competition to natural resources; they kill massive amounts of prey that would otherwise be in the forest for humans to eat. Often times, wolves kill just for the sake of killing, further driving up the competition for resources that have, historically, been much better and more thoroughly used by man. Wolves also kill livestock. Lots of them, and again, often times just for fun.

For these reasons, men and wolves have developed a very contentious relationship, leading to bounties on wolves placed by ranchers who’s livelihoods were being destroyed by thrill-killing predators. Current elite city folk like to pretend that the bounties placed on wolves back in the day were the result of misunderstandings, and prejudices, ignorance, dim-wits, and fear of stories about the “big bad wolf.” This is wrong. The men back then understood fully what they were doing, why they were doing it, and fear and prejudice had nothing to do with it; rather, it was brute survival. The wolves were killing these men’s stock, and destroying their ability to sustain themselves – it was kill or be starved. People and wolves do not coexist well. They never have.

That being said, I do not agree with the idea of extirpating them, as is what occurred. There was the ability back then, as there is now, to reasonably manage the wolf population so that they would not run the wild stocks so low that they had to resort to much more risky livestock killing. Instead, they killed them all, and I think that this was a crime against nature.

That being said, when the concept came about back in the 1990’s to reintroduce wolves into Idaho, where they had be extirpated 70 years earlier, I was not against it. I will admit to some concern at the concept, though, and my concern appeared to be well-founded.

They made several mistakes long the way. I’ll start from the tippy-top.

First, they didn’t reintroduce native, Idaho wolves. They went north, to the Tundra, and caught some timber wolves, and reintroduced those. The problem here is that what used to be a population of small, 65 to 80 pound wolves, is now a population of 130 pound super-predators (Note the weight - 127 pounds !!!)*. There is a reason that big, Canadian timber wolves never lived in Idaho, and it is because Idaho’s ecosystem wasn’t designed to have them there. The big timber wolves of the north are designed for very cold climates where they are pulling down very large prey like moose and caribou. The smaller, Idaho wolves were designed to hunt deer and young elk, but it was conjected (and backed up with some historical data) that they rarely preyed on mature elk, the way the current lot of wolves is doing.

Second, they reintroduced them, and then kept an eye on their numbers with the attitude that every additional wolf was a good thing, without any concern for the capacity of the ecosystem and the current herds of elk, moose, and deer in Idaho. Wolves remained federally protected (and still are) throughout the process, so there was no method by which they could control overpopulation in an ecosystem that had gotten used to them not being around. What this means is that over the 75 years that no wolves roamed Idaho, the elk and deer herds stayed about the same size, but concentrated into smaller areas as more land got developed and lost to elk and deer, and the animals, themselves, felt much less pressure to move and range away from wolf packs. They also got complacent, because they were only being hunted for 2 months out of the year by humans, and for the remainder of the year by absolutely nothing at all besides the occasional single cougar. So, you have thick population density of animals not used to worrying about wolves being around, and what resulted was a slaughter. Wolf populations soared as gluts of easy-pickings resources were taken, and elk and deer populations suffered horribly. The only method for population control was to live trap and relocate these superpredators, but the problem then became that they eventually ran out of places to relocate. The whole of Idaho is now overpopulated with wolves, and Idaho very seriously needs to do something about it. (Note, Washington isn't far behind. We are starting to have our own problems with wolves and also relocated problem Grizzly bears, also federally protected by people in Washington, DC)

And here is where we get into the busybodies. You see, they have followed the wolf saga from day one, and throughout the whole thing, they have been orgasmic with the concept of fixing that which we screwed up in the first place. In the process, however, they’ve screwed things up even worse than they were to begin with, but are not willing to accept that. Every day, we here in Idaho have to live with livestock losses, the decimation of our elk and deer herds, and the constant depredation of property and beloved family pets brought about by wolves, while they get to live in their ivory towers, 2000 miles away from the action with the smug feeling of satisfaction that they get by thinking that they’ve undone a horrible wrong, when in fact, all they’ve done is create another.

And this is where the elite part comes in, because, from 2,000 miles away, not having experienced on the ground what we are experiencing, and not having to deal with the wolves, themselves, they are calling us ignorant hillbillies that believe in the big bad wolf stories from our childhood that don’t know what we are talking about and that the wolves won’t cause problems. Again, they speak in theory (communism is a great thing!) while we, here in the trenches, speak in reality and actual experience (communism has killed more people than all other forms of evil combined, and makes even Hitler look like a piker in total body count). They ARE causing problems. There is no theory remaining, just actual experience. Idaho has actually created a wolf hunting season, and has released quite a few tags for a tiny harvest of the total wolf population, and the feds have sued to stop it. A legally issued tag by the state can become a liability to anyone that shoots a wolf, because even though Idaho says it is legal, a shooter still risks federal prosecution if they shoot a wolf. Idaho has told the Federal Government that they created a huge problem when they released wolves (against Idaho’s wishes, by the way) and now are saddling Idaho with the burden of handling the problem and not helping. The Feds have basically ignored every complaint.

And so, we are left with a choice. We have a sustainable, population control harvest of wolves, or, we allow things to continue until all livestock, deer, and elk have been killed in the state, and then the wolves starve to death, leaving nothing in their wake. Our Federal government has chosen option 2.

It boggles the mind.

*Take some time to read the website "Wolf Clash." Especially if you are from New York, or back east somewhere and you think the "re-introduction" of these non-native super-predators was a great, noble thing. Then, shut the hell up.

I am TJIC

If you haven’t read the flop about TJIC, a fellow blogger (and the guy who inspired me, indirectly, to start a blog that deals with personal and food-related topics as well as politics and goings-on) who has found himself in a bit of hot water over some pretty crass statements that he made on his blog, then I suggest you link over to Borepatch, who has a done a better job than I of summing up the issue. Also, of note, is Mark Alger’s nice post over at Eternity Road and BabyTrollBlog . Go. Read. I’ll wait.

Done? Okay…

First things first:

1.) I disagreed with TJIC in his comments section over making the comment that he made. It was rude, crass, and if I were Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, I think I’d be looking to punchisize* his face.

2.) I do not think that TJIC broke any laws with the statement. But beyond that, this was a tasteless joke, as TJIC made very clear in a subsequent posting where he stated that he did not support the shooting of congresspeople in 2011, and that it was intended to be a “What do you call 100 lawyers congresspeople at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!” type off-color, tasteless joke. TJIC even made a good argument for his crassness on his blog (which has been taken down so I can’t link) that was basically “They spend their lives dictating my life, infringing on my freedom, and pretending that they are my superiors, which I think is pretty crass, so you’ll forgive me if I, also, am a bit crass.” I can’t disagree with that statement, although I’m not sure I could be that crass when the lives of real people have been so horribly shattered as in Tucson.

3.) The police department told TJIC that if he surrendered his guns, they would not revoke his LTC. He did, and they suspended it, anyway. So, I believe that this was a case of illegal confiscation through deceit, even though TJIC willingly surrendered his guns.

4.) This is proof of what I’ve been saying all along – registration inevitably leads to confiscation. I’ve never heard any hoplophobe** explain to me what the purpose of registering guns is if it isn’t the eventual confiscation of said guns. There is no purpose to registration other than to let the authorities know where the guns are, so they know which doors to knock on the instant they get their first totalitarian impulse.

*Punchisize - I like to make up words - sue me.

**Hoplophobe - I didn't make this word up. I promise. Look it up. I like the word hoplophobe. It works much better than “anti-gunner” or “person who is against 2nd Amendment rights”, or any other convoluted method of naming them. The word means “one who fears weapons” and is broken down as such. “Hoplo” is from Greek origins. It has come to mean “weapon” but started from the root word “hoplon” which was the term used to describe the shield used by Greek heavy infantry starting in about the 6th century, BC. A Greek soldier was then known as a “Hoplite”. “Phobe” is of obvious origins. I hope I don’t need to explain that to you.

Hard at Work - For... THE NARRATIVE!

…forwarding the narrative. Notice how this horrible thing with Dr. Kermit is on every front page of every newspaper in America? No?

How is that possible?

Well, let’s review…

1.) The government failed miserably at oversight. This does not forward the leftist narrative that government is better at everything and should, therefore, be in control of everything. Better sweep that one under the rug.

2.) A black abortionist is taking advantage of minority women and making a mint off of it – especially considering that he is performing illegal, late-term abortions where he stabs viable, born human infants in the neck with scissors and then tosses them down the garbage disposal. This does not forward the leftist narrative that only white guys can take advantage of minorities. In fact, I’d bet you even odds that if Dr. Kermit was white, this would be headline news, only spun in such a manner to show an evil white man hurting poor minority women.

3.) Women died there getting abortions. This does not forward the leftist notion that a legal abortion is a safe abortion. Better sweep it under the rug, too.

In all actuality, this is a feather in the old libertarian cap, this one. When the topic is discussed of “what would happen if the government wasn’t regulating these things?” with “these things” being doctors, mechanics, food quality, and so forth. Here is a perfect example of what happens when the government DOES regulate these things - so you tell me…
Do we really need them? Isn’t the fact that it has been proven that pennsylvania’s regulatory body when it comes to medical clinics is totally incompetent, and yet, clinics throughout pennsylvania seem to be doing fine, and only this one seems to have gone south…
well, isn’t that proof that government regulation is pretty much a waste of time, effort, and money? Isn’t this proof that rational men will do a good job without the nanny peeringover their shoulder, and that the nanny is incapable of finding the irrational, anyway?
Ooops, that is contrary to the Leftist narrative, too… better shut up now, because SHUT UP, that’s why!

Posse Mommitatus‏

An interesting question posed in this Snopes article: “Do you really have to give up your car if a police officer demands it’s use?”

http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/posse.asp

An interesting “what would you do?” question. I always love to take scenarios posed in movies and apply them to real life with the question “what would a normal, rational person do?” It is rarely what the person in the movies does, I assure you. Rational, normal, reasonable decisions do not a good movie make. So, what would you do? A police officer demands that you surrender your vehicle, and states that he is in hot pursuit of a suspect. What do you do?

Me? I don’t really care much what the law says. I’d tell him to go talk a long walk off a short pier – the state does not have the right to confiscate property from private citizens without due process, and this is not due process. If the officer was in dire need of assistance (ie, he was in real trouble and needed help) then I would gladly destroy my truck, and even risk my life to help him out, as I would for any person who needed my help, police officer or not. But I would as soon loan him my truck to chase down a suspect as I would loan my truck to anyone else (just to clue you in, it ain’t gonna happen). This is double true considering the fact that the chances are really good that he is trying to track down a guy for doing something tht I do not consider to be a crime.

ignorance is a horrible thing - especially when it is state-sponsored ignorance‏

As we hone in on what is causing the AIDs epidemic, we begin to see things like this.

Yes, this is a government that is recommending that its people prevent AIDs not through abstinence, or using condoms, or by getting screened routinely, or anything else. Nope, this government says “Just wash it down with tap water – you know… after.

And we wonder why the entire African nation is dying of AIDs. Africa is just another, more evident, more glaring example of why government sucks.