Come for the Politics, Stay for the Pathologies

Monday, November 5, 2012

For the Children

Dear Children,

How quickly the time goes! Here you are, all grown up and of voting age already. I set out to write a brief letter explaining why I believe Romney is a better choice for your future and a better choice for America. I realized immediately that to do that properly would require at least a book; and even at that it would be unlikely I could reverse the lifetime of propaganda and proselytizing most of you have been exposed to via the education system and popular culture.

So I decided to focus on just one key economic concept that  separates the thinking of our progressive Democratic President  and his conservative Republican opponent. That concept is the notion of  how to carve up the economic pie that progressives think of as a fixed size but conservatives believe has an ever growing radius.

This fundamentally different view is the basis of the class warfare that spawned the OWS movement, the vilifying of the rich and the President’s mantra that the “1%”  can “afford to pay a little bit more” to take care of the deficit and, by proxy, the other 99%.

Put aside the fact that the math on the 1% rule doesn’t work:


At the rate we’re racking up the federal deficit (in part to ostensibly “help the 99%”) you could confiscate 100% of the 1%’s income and never come close to breakeven. But the entire argument is based on a false premise. The unspoken assumption in the progressives’ pie game is that the economy is made up of a fixed sized pie that has to be “spread around.” If  you get a larger slice of the pie, someone else must correspondingly get a smaller slice.

That’s nonsense. The entire concept of democratic capitalism is that we can continue to grow the pie. Indeed, America has demonstrated that to be the case for over 230 years. That’s how America became the greatest economic engine the world has ever known. But now the Left wishes to change the rules of the pie game. They feel that the meritocracy of the marketplace leaves too many people behind, so their progressive agenda is pushing us towards the democratic socialist model of Europe which, in case you haven’t noticed, is on the verge of bankruptcy – morally as well as fiscally. Ah yes, they still have wonderful art,

liberty leading the people delecroixLiberty leading the People, Eugene Delacroix

fine pastries and charming bistros, but they are broke and broken. The piper will be calling in his chits pretty soon because they didn’t heed the Iron Lady’s warning about socialism.

greeceGreece: it’s what happens when you run out of other people’s money.

Newsweek.were all greeks nowjpg

But back to our pie: we do not have to rob Peter to pay Paul. It is not, repeat, not a fixed size.  If it were, instead of watching the election returns on our big screen TVs we would all be sitting around arguing  over who was going to inherit our ancestors’ plowshares (if you don’t know what they are, you  can look it up on the innertubz; just be sure to H/T Bill Gates and Steve Jobs  - two guy’s who made our pie much, much bigger).

The ability to expand the size of the pie is, in a nutshell, the brilliance and utility of capitalism:


It’s the product of that formula – innovation - that creates the bigger pie. Innovation creates jobs and additional wealth. It is that simple. All it requires is capital - and a lot of work. Which is why President Obama was wrong when he told business owners that “you didn’t built that yourself.”


So once we have a bigger pie does everybody get an equal size slice? No. If everybody got the same size regardless of their contribution, that would be communism (or “social justice” as it’s known in some circles). Is that fair? Sometimes, but not always. Life isn’t fair, didn’t your mom teach you that?  It isn’t government’s job to make life fair. If you don’t believe me read the constitution.

And since we’re speaking of the constitution, let me take this opportunity to remind you that democratic capitalism is the cornerstone of our constitution: democracy entails economic rights of individuals separate from the state that cannot be infringed. It is an elegant political system encompassing economics, philosophy, morality, ideology and institutional forces. You can’t tinker with it without dire consequences to the body politic. And yet the progressive philosophy of the Democratic party wishes to turn it into a “living document” and in fact has already begun to do so.

Why is that a bad idea? Here are the words of a real constitutional scholar (as opposed to one who played one for several semesters while teaching “Current Issues in Racism and the Law”):

“If the Constitution’s meaning can be erased or rewritten, and the Framers’ intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it.” (Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny)

I realize it is unpopular to deal in absolutes in our 50 shades of grey culture, but the constitution is a contract –  the original “contract with America” if you will – that is by design absolute. It cannot be easily broken or revised; nor should it. Finding “nuanced” ways to skirt the intent of the constitution’s statutes is dangerous business for our freedoms and way of life.


I’m old. I have nowhere near as much “skin in the game” as you youngsters. Yet I want you, your children, and your children’s children, to grow up in the kind of America that I did. The kind that cherishes liberty and freedom above “fairness.”

While “liberty” and “freedom” are terms defined by the constitution, fairness is not. It is an undefined, relative state that progressives wish to have you believe is an absolute. That means that one day it will come to be defined by some government bureaucracy, at which point it will be neither fair nor absolute. By then you may have been complicit in the demise of your own liberty by not paying adequate attention to the type of people you allowed to govern this great country.

So this is my last appeal: please remember that this election is about far larger issues than contraceptives, Big Bird and “equal pay for women” – red herrings, all. As the President himself said, “If you don't have a record to run on…you make a big election about small things.”

So even if the economy doesn’t concern you,


If even the ever burgeoning national debt required to make life “fair” for the 99%  doesn’t worry you, at least be frightened for your future by the continual drip, drip, dripping away of your liberties that once gone will be gone forever.

Don’t vote against Obama because I say so,  vote for Romney for a smaller, more responsible government, for sound economic policies and for a commitment to our constitutional principles. Don’t do it for me: do it for the children; the ones you have or the ones you hope to have. 


Vote to keep the America our founders envisioned, not the transformed America of the progressive Left. If you believe the environment is worth protecting and preserving, please believe that our constitution is at least equally important for our  survival.

I leave you with this oft-quoted line from Ronald Reagan, in case you haven’t heard it, or have simply forgotten:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

romney ryandeweyNow get out there and win one for the Gipper

Cross-Posted on Red State and Michelle Obama’s Mirror 

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, and Annie Laurie on twitter, and Anne Lynch on facebook and BlogsLucianneLoves, and NOBO2012 on Free Republic, Thanks!

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Remember: It’s For the Children

Although I’ve put myself on sabbatical for the past few months I thought you might enjoy this feel-good story that explains succinctly why unions have outlived their usefulness by at least 40 years.

In Bay City, Michigan the teachers contract expired in June, and is currently under re-negotiation. Check out some of the terms that have been included in every teachers contract since 1997:

Forget zero tolerance. Bay City Public School teachers for years could be caught repeatedly under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol without being fired.

Teachers in possession or under the influence of illegal drugs could be caught three times before they lost their job, and they got five strikes if they were drunk on school grounds before being fired.

Because, let’s face it, nothing says “it’s all about the children” like showing up stoned. And nobody, other than the “United Federation of Teachers, a Union of Professionals,” would be able to guarantee your right to do so.

"They must have had been high to approve that contract because no sober person would agree to that kind of policy," said Leon Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance. (snip)

"That is an absolute disgrace," he said.

And since we’re talking about absolute disgraces, be sure to check the  sidebar item on the Mackinac Centers CapCon site that shows how much money the SEIU has sucked out of homecare givers since Jennifer Granholm’s (yes, that Jennifer) administration passed this disgusting piece of legislation in 2005 that forced home health care givers to join the SEIU:

jenniferBeing “Governor” was just an 8 year audition for a permanent slot with the State Run Media

jennifer.5jpgLooks like Ms.NBC material to me


The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) "organized” Michigan's self-employed Home Help Program providers for the purpose of skimming dues from their ailing and disabled clients' Medicaid subsidy checks. The majority of these providers are relatives or friends taking care of loved ones. It’s been estimates that less than 25 percent of the providers are hired in an employment setting.

Also note that, despite the fact that the Michigan legislature passed a law overturning this arrangement last April, the SEIU continues to collect their dues to this day because U.S. District Court Judge Nancy G. Edmunds – in a case of tortured logic - ordered the State of Michigan to continue deducting dues from Medicaid checks.  I’m not making any accusations, but I do wonder if any unions have contributed to her campaign.

But let’s get back to the teachers, shall we? 

"The role models are held to a lower standard than the students. That just sends a horrible message. If anything is indicative of how far school boards are willing to bend to kiss the rings of union leaders, this is it."

And if anything is more indicative of how far down the ladder of mediocrity teachers are willing to go to protect their precious wages and benefits, it would be the inclusion of these absurd substance abuse rights.

Disgraceful. And they call themselves “professionals.”

Monday, July 30, 2012

Foxes Guarding the Chicken Coop


Last week the Middle East continued an inexorable march toward a holocaust involving nuclear weapons (that Iran doesn’t have) and weapons of mass destruction (that Saddam Hussein didn’t have and didn’t move to Syria).

Also last week, the US economy continued to grind to a slow halt as we continued to double down on our Faustian bargain with European socialism (with money that we don’t have).  Businesses continued to shutter their doors at “unprecedented” rates, unemployment continued unabated, already anemic GDP “growth” slowed to a near halt, and the forecast for the annual budget deficit hit $1.2 trillion – which means we will bump up against the incomprehensible $16.3 trillion debt ceiling by the end of December.

You’re probably wondering what, in the midst of all this turmoil, are our elected leaders doing to address these grave issues?  Is Congress working feverishly on a responsible budget to slash public expenditures?  Rationally trying to find a way to begin the process of unwinding the unsustainable level of public spending while simultaneously reducing the overall tax burden on the dwindling number of individuals and businesses who are paying “their fair share?”

Are they working round the clock to figure out how to eliminate the red tape that hogties businesses both large and small? Are they trying to unwind the internecine tangle of bureaucratic governmental agencies, departments, regulatory bodies and laws?

Some are at least concerned about the red tape

Or perhaps they are first going to direct their attention to simplifying the tax code; finding a way to ease the burden on ordinary citizens and business owners who are out there trying to “pay their fair share?”

The answer to all of the above is of course  “No.”  Maybe because our Supreme Leader has already declared victory on the economic front: “Just like we’ve tried [the Republicans'] plan, we’ve tried our plan, and it worked. That’s the difference.”


As they say, “some critics” disagree:

“Forty-one straight months of unemployment above 8 percent,  8.2 million people working part-time who want full-time work, a record 88 million Americans not in the labor force, 1.9 percent GDP growth in the past quarter, more bad GDP numbers expected tomorrow, a stagnant housing market, $5 trillion in new debt, the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating,  38 percent of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, 45 million Americans on food stamps, food prices continuing to increase dramatically, the poverty level likely to rise to the highest level in nearly fifty years…”

Not that the President holds much stock in what his critics think. You can tell by his tone in the video that he is dismissive, at times derisive, of people who disagree with him.

But since the economy is obviously on track in Obama’s mind, that frees up our local and national leaders to get all wee-weed up about other important issues during these dog days of summer. Here are just a few of the things our elected “betters” are concerned with right now:

“Senator” Feinstein introduced legislation last week that would establish a federal standard for the minimum amount of space required per chicken on egg farms. That’s right, mandated chicken coop sizes; we’re making America safe for egg laying chickens!

chicken egg

And speaking of chickens, several of our large cities plagued by drugs, crime and unemployment have redirected their efforts to chickens too. The mayors of Boston, Chicago, Washington D.C. and San Francisco have all targeted a new enemy - Chick-fil-A. They have said the restaurant doesn’t represent the values of their cities and have made it clear that the chicken sandwich shop is not welcome to open new outlets in their town. So chalk one up for “marriage equality” – whatever that is - and strike one for the First Amendment. At least we now know for sure what “Chicago values” are.

Not to be left out of the big city mayoral initiatives, New York Mayor Bloomberg - who knows  what’s good for you better than your own mother – has added another initiative to his long list of bans on salt, fat and sugar: baby formula. Like the others, this ban is intended to improve the health of the hive at the expense of individual rights. A small price to pay to live in the Big Apple. Anyway, he’s decided  not to wait for Obamacare to mandate that new mothers breast feed their infants and to start the ban on infant formula himself.

In something called the “Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative” (sponsored by the World Health Organization and funded in part by federal grants) hospitals in New York are participating in the program that educates mothers on the proper care and feeding of infants (i.e. propaganda):

“The benefits of breast feeding to infants, mothers and society are well established . . . Specifically, infants exclusively breast fed for at least six months have a 22 percent reduction in risk for childhood obesity,” the Health Department said in its proposal to hospitals.

First Lady Michelle Obama also recommends increasing breast feeding rates as part of her “Let’s Move” campaign to reduce obesity.


babiesLectures if you want to  feed your baby formula, but not if you want to abort it. That would be intrusive.

Apparently the initiative includes a lock down on formula and requires mothers who wish to bottle feed their baby to sit through a lecture by the Lactation Police before they are allowed to administer formula to their babies.

The New York City health department will monitor the number of formula bottles being given out and demand a medical reason for each one.

So let me recap the hive’s summer priorities: bigger chicken coops, fewer chicken sandwiches, and more chicks breast feeding.

We’ll get back to work on world peace, fiscal responsibility and job growth right after we’ve implemented the rest of our social justice agenda, or after the election. Which ever comes first. Until them, you are all free to get back to the socialist dream of sucking at the teat of  government .


Time-Magazine t&A guaranteed circulation booster

Had enough yet? Yeah, me too.


Guest post by MOTUS

Cross-Posted at RedState

Linked By: MOTUS, and BlogsLucianneLoves, and NOBO2012 on Free Republic, Thanks!

Friday, July 13, 2012

A brief, sad reminder about humanity



All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing                                   

Edmund Burke

How many times do we have to relearn this?

Speak your mind. Vote your conscience.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Independence Day in America 2012


How many Independence Days does America have left to celebrate? That appears to be up to us.

I’m reposting these thoughts, originally marking Independence Day, 2009 because the concerns I noted then have not only not been addressed, they grow more egregious with each passing week. Consider this a call to arms. All boots on the ground my fellow Americans, evening is closing in on us fast:


Independence. Not Just a Day.

Patrick Henry passionately appealed to his fellow colonists in 1775 to fight against Britain’s tyranny. He chastised his compatriots who believed the colonies too weak to win a war against the King’s army:

They tell us, sir, that we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by laying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

When Henry made this speech, the American colonies were  stronger than their infantry would have indicated, and much stronger than many people thought. That strength came not from a standing army, but from a firm belief in the honorable principles for which they fought: freedom, liberty, the end of tyranny. Today we have reversed the equation: our military is second to none, but we waver in our belief of the principles on which the republic was founded. This lack of conviction to our founding precepts makes us weaker than we appear – and already we appear weak.

We are afraid to show our strength, let alone use it, for fear that it will anger and offend others. North Korea fires missiles and we do…nothing? Or request another harsh letter from the UN? Iran taunts the Israelis and we stand by silently? We worry more about what the world thinks of us than we do about protecting our own country and freedoms, and those of our allies. This is not the America of our forefathers.

Progressive sentiment today seems to have it that we are too powerful; that the world hates us because we are too strong, too dominant. That what we need to do is to show the rogue nations “an open hand instead of a closed fist.” We need to stop flaunting our power, stop being so arrogant. They would have us be weak so that others may be made strong. They would have us stop believing in American exceptionalism because we are no better than any other culture, any other nation. This is what multiculturalism has bought us; a wasteland of  politically correct nihilism.

But nations and cultures are not all equal. Those that oppress their people either through government fiat(North Korea) or cultural edict (Saudi Arabia) or both (Iran) are not as good as free nations. We should not be embarrassed to say that those who deny their citizens the inalienable rights that America was founded on over 200 years ago are wrong, their ruling principles inferior and their governments evil. And yet we tacitly condone these rouges “by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope until our enemies have bound us hand and foot,” in the false belief that if we play nice with them they’ll see the error of their ways. It will never happen.

America, we are not evil because we are so strong. We are strong because we are free. And our enemies do not hate us simply because we are so strong; they hate us because we are  free. They fear us because we’re strong. Let’s not confuse the issue.

Patrick Henry chided his fellow colonialists to push through their fear and trepidation because the alternative was untenable: subjugation and tyranny.

Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Indeed, why do we stand here idle? What is it that we wish?

On this Fourth of July let us be mindful of Ronald Reagan's warning that the chains of tyranny are never more than one generation away. Our brave troops stand ready to protect us from external tyranny. We are all that stands guard against the tyranny from within. Remember that come November 6.

Abraham Lincoln on liberty:


“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one.  Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty”

CrossPosted at RedState

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, and NOBO2012 on Free Republic, Thanks!

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Clark Anter: Patriot

Clark Anter, proprieter of Lott Anter Tailoring & Cleaning, continues a tradition begun by his Grandfather in 1919: repairing and cleaning American flags for free.

Just a little story from a corner of a down but not quite yet out town in the middle of the Progressives America.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Hey Detroit - don’t worry; we are on correct path comrades!

On Powerline, Steven Hayward reports on the President’s much vaunted career as a constitutional professor: Barack Obama, Constitutional Ignoramus, explaining just exactly how narrow his  academic scope was: 

His course on constitutional law, one of several constitutional law courses on the U of C curriculum, dealt exclusively with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment—the favorite, all-purpose clause for liberal jurists to use to right wrongs and make us more equal by judicial fiat.  There is no evidence that Obama ever taught courses that considered other aspects of constitutionalism, such as executive power, the separation of powers, the Commerce Clause, or judicial review itself.

He claims to have a copy of one of Obama’s final exam questions from his U of C class on constitutional law:

I have a copy of one of his final exams.  It is a long hypothetical involving civil rights, which begins thus:

“In part, Hardsville’s racial isolation is the result of white flight and the limited economic means at the disposal of the black community.  It is also well documented, however, that Hardsville’s racial isolation arose in part due to decisions by a white-controlled city government prior to the seventies that were purposely discriminatory.”

As MOTUS has pointed out:

“You would have to be an ignoramus not to be able to figure out what the wright right answer to this question from Professor Obama is.”

Let’s hope the press corpse is at least as smart as his constitutional law students were.

Oh, and just for the record: Detroit got 100% on that test, butt still hasn’t figured out the right answer.

detroit ruinDetroit: I give it an A-

Pay attention America, as Detroit slogs through the only conceivable end of 40 years of complete and abject dereliction of fiduciary duty on the part of its stewards, there is lesson to be learned. This is what happens when you govern with only one side of the ledger.


Don’t worry: we are on correct path comrades!

Linked By NOBO2012 on Free Republic, Thanks!

Saturday, March 24, 2012

WTF Theatre Episode 7: #ILikeObamacare

Did you get your flash-email from David Axelrod yesterday announcing the new #ILikeObamacare?

MOTUS has the full story in case you didn’t get your own copy.

Cody and Skyler got the email, and like the good Seattle-based liberals they are, they’re all over it:


I especially liked the post script to David’s email announcing the #ILikeObamacare” (his hashtag, not mine):

P.S. -- Side note: Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?

My initial reactions: 1. Who, exactly, are “these guys?” 2. neither Social Security nor Medicare was as universally disliked by members of both parties as Obamacare now is. 3. By “long view” does he mean the point at which these plans become unsustainable due to underfunding and/or confiscation of the monies that were supposed to be set aside in order to fund them? If so, with Obamacare that would be immediately. And lastly, 4. If he’s complaining about the use of the term “Obamacare,” why didn’t be choose #ILiketheAffordableCareAct? I doubt that hashtag was already taken.

But again, I ask questions assuming this Administration has any recognition of or appreciation for consistency.

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, Thanks!

Monday, March 5, 2012

Political Theatre and the Fluke Files

Is there anyone who hasn’t heard Sandra Fluke’s soulful pseudo-Congressional testimony on the need for universities to provide women stew-dents with “free” contraceptives?

The Left’s newest not-ready-for-prime-time Spokes-mouth: not a fluke

If I understand her argument correctly as to why someone else should foot the bill , it’s because contraceptive rights are part of a larger body of “women’s rights” related to “reproductive rights.” 

I must admit, I don’t know what “reproductive rights” are; if it weren’t  for the specific reference to contraceptives I would have guessed it was a new, neutralized term for abortion. But no; although related to the body of abortion rights and women’s rights to “decide” this appears to be a newly identified “right.” One that nobody is really arguing with other than it being defined as a  “right” that somehow requires someone else to pay for. Ironically –at least in the context of the abortion debate - this “right” is perceived by the rest of the sentient world as a free “choice” not a right. But we find ourselves immersed in these straw men controversies precisely because words no longer mean anything in the political milieu.

Straw men are critical players when you need a good controversy to whip your base into outrage and frenzy. And nothing gets the boots on the ground to show up at the box office like a good controversy in the theater of the absurd. Church vs. Women’s Rights vs State: that’s a formula for guaranteed heavy turnout.

The demand for new hits in the Left’s political theatre is precisely why we’ve seen the sudden demand for religious organizations to recognize and fund this new  “fundamental right.” It’s also why we were entertained by the Fluke/Pelosi  circus performance.

Let’s  review the situation:  Ms. Fluke is a 3rd year law student at Georgetown, attending on a Public Interest scholarship (i.e. she wants to be just like Barack Hussein Obama when she grows up, which technically, at age 31, she has). She advertises herself as a “reproductive rights activist.” Where, one wonders, does a person find employment in that productive - no pun intended - field?  And what, pray-tell, does a reproductive rights activist activate?

Fluke also notes that she is past president of Law School Reproductive Justice (LSRJ). I don’t know if it’s just me, but when I hear the word “justice’ thrown out by the Left in any context I reflexively reach for my wallet, as in true postmodern fashion they’ve redefined justice to mean redistribution.

Seriously, I don’t know how anyone other than a political hack like Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her ragtag Democrat Steering and Policy Committee  could listen to Fluke’s “testimony” and  not laugh out loud: it defines the overused word “ludicrous.” In fact, I don’t know how anyone could watch and not want to slap this smug, self-righteous collectivist across the face.  She is an embarrassment to her sex.

Okay, I get it; coeds have a lot more sex now than they did even back in the good old days of  the sexual revolution. And I also get that they don’t want to be “punished” with a baby. But here’s the inconvenient truth for the Democrats: abortion seems to be losing some of it’s Facebook friends. While it was once – at least in feminist camps – the go-to solution for a pregnant young coed who wasn’t ready to be a mother, it has become less appealing over time. Apparently the now readily available early term ultrasounds that clearly show developing life in the womb are giving some women pause. It’s always harder to make moral decisions when reality intrudes with facts.

So while I’m still at a loss as to what reproductive justice is, I am certain of its political intent: the establishment of a new secular sacrament around which the Left can rally the brethren. While people may argue how best to interpret the results of the most recent Gallup Poll on abortion, it will be hard to argue that it doesn’t indicate a shift away from the enthusiastic embrace of abortion that it has enjoyed over recent decades. In short, abortion is no longer the annuity payout at the polling booth that it once was, and the Left is scrambling to find it’s sequel.

Enter “reproductive rights” and say “hello” to contraception – the new answer to women’s rights campaign issues. First introduced to the debate, literally, by Democratic Party hack and MSM mouthpiece George Stephanopoulos. Brilliant! While everyone was blowing off contraception as a dumb question for a presidential debate, the Libs were busy prepping Sandra Fluke for her debut “testimony” on the political stage and Obama was busy mandating contraceptive coverage for ALL women by their employer, regardless of conscientious objector status .

So, forgive me, but Sandra Fluke is not a fluke. She’s part of the Left’s new strategy. Frankly I’m shocked by the outpouring of support and agreement with this stupid new strategy, and even more shocked by the defense of Fluke and her harebrained argument for this being a basic human right warranting government funding.

Proving once again that you should never underestimate the moronic depths that the Left will plumb in search of the moronic response it seeks to elicit from it’s moronic base.

The Left’s political theatre of the absurd  will continue. To combat it, just remember to ask yourself:

What Would Brietbart Do?



IMPORTANT CLOSING NOTE: BigFurHat, of iOwnTheWorld, created this graphic along with several others. He has negotiated a deal with the owner of Anthem Studios (a personal friend of Breitbart) to produce and sell “Breitbart Is Here” t-shirts and bumper stickers, with all profits going to the Breitbart family.

BigFurHat has offered to send you a free high resolution jpg of this graphic (for personal, non-commercial use only) if you email him at Go here to see BigFurHat’s collection and then go here to buy a “Breitbart Is Here” t-shirt.  I put a link to the “BIH” store in my side bar over there on the RIGHT. Use it to help Breitbart continue to take care of his family. If you’re a blogger, you can help by snagging a copy of the “BIH” graphic and link and posting it on your blog.

We Are All Breitbart Now

“So Long, Frank Lloyd Wright”: Simon & Garfunkel

NOTE: posted by She-Dewey, so enough with the misogynist allegations.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

We’ve Lost a Great Warrior

andrew breitbart

Andrew Breitbart 1969-2012

R.I.P. Andrew. We will miss you.

The war will resume later today.

UPDATE: WEASEL ZIPPERS documents the ever-classy left’s disgusting reaction. What is wrong with these people?

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Enfant Terrible, or Why are American Parents Inferior?

Article originally posted at American Thinker, February 18, 2012



When it comes to parenting, I find myself siding with the French. Quelle surprise!

Allow me to turn your attention to an article in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal: "Why French Parents are Superior." It's a catchy title, but a more accurate one would be "Why American Parents are Inferior," because it appears that the French are simply doing what one might expect of anyone in the role.

We join author Pamela Druckerman after a harrowing vacation weekend in a French coastal city with her husband and toddler, where we immediately get a hint at the nature of the problem.

[W]ithin a few minutes she was spilling salt shakers and tearing apart sugar packets. Then she demanded to be sprung from her high chair so she could dash around the restaurant and bolt dangerously toward the docks.

When ineffectual parents cave in to a toddler's unreasonable and dangerous "demands," you've already lost the war, ma chouette. Let the record reflect, however, that the parental units did the best they could:

Our strategy was to finish the meal quickly. We ordered while being seated, then begged the server to rush out some bread and bring us our appetizers and main courses at the same time. While my husband took a few bites of fish, I made sure that Bean didn't get kicked by a waiter or lost at sea. Then we switched. We left enormous, apologetic tips to compensate for the arc of torn napkins and calamari around our table.

Unfortunately, no compensation was left for the other patrons of the brasserie, who were no doubt as entertained as the staff were by these hapless parents' offspring's performance art.

Then, a glint of light in the darkness:

... I started noticing that the French families around us didn't look like they were sharing our mealtime agony. ... French toddlers were sitting contentedly in their high chairs, waiting for their food, or eating fish and even vegetables. There was no shrieking or whining. And there was no debris around their tables.

I myself have observed this apparently now-unusual family dinnertime dynamic with Japanese families in restaurants around Detroit.  I've also seen it in other flyover outposts -- Iowa, Nebraska, Utah. Think of it: whole families of bitter clingers acting civilized.

It gets better (or worse):

I realized it wasn't just mealtime that was different. ... Why was it, for example, that in the hundreds of hours I'd clocked at French playgrounds, I'd never seen a child (except my own) throw a temper tantrum? Why didn't my French friends ever need to rush off the phone because their kids were demanding something? Why hadn't their living rooms been taken over by teepees and toy kitchens, the way ours had?

Let's try to noodle this out on our own, as it's a little early in the game to buy a clue.

When American families visited our home, the parents usually spent much of the visit refereeing their kids' spats, helping their toddlers do laps around the kitchen island, or getting down on the floor to build Lego villages. When French friends visited, by contrast, the grownups had coffee and the children played happily by themselves.

Nope; still no clue. Unable to crack this perplexing mystery, Druckerman dedicated five years of research to get to the bottom of this conundrum and write a book. Here's what she discovered:

Middle-class French parents ... have values that look familiar to me. They are zealous about talking to their kids, showing them nature and reading them lots of books. They take them to tennis lessons, painting classes and interactive science museums.

Yet the French have managed to be involved with their families without becoming obsessive.

Sooo...children are not the center of the entire universe? Both they and you might benefit from a more balanced approach?  Who knew? Apparently almost everybody:

This problem has been painstakingly diagnosed, critiqued and named: overparenting, hyperparenting, helicopter parenting, and my personal favorite, the kindergarchy. Nobody seems to like the relentless, unhappy pace of American parenting, least of all parents themselves.

They say recognizing the problem is the first step. Here's a bit of unsolicited advice that may advance the beleaguered author to step two: "If it hurts your head to hit it against the wall, maybe you should stop doing that."

Our intrepid parent soldiers on. Recognizing that French children seem to be better-behaved than her own brats, she conducts some investigative reporting and asks French parents how they discipline their children. It turns out that they don't "discipline" them, as the author understands the term, in the sense of imposing punishment.  Rather, they "educate" their children on how to behave. We "old ones" might call that "training," which implicitly involves some form of "discipline" if the "training" doesn't result in the desired behavior. But I understand that that conjures up uncomfortable comparisons to housebreaking a puppy. Developing a properly socialized human being is much more complicated, so "educate" it is.

Here are some of the French tricks of proper "education" that Druckerman uncovered:

One of the keys to this education is the simple act of learning how to wait. It is why the French babies I meet mostly sleep through the night from two or three months old. Their parents don't pick them up the second they start crying, allowing the babies to learn how to fall back asleep.

Ah yes, the age-old dilemma: to Dr. Spock or not to Dr. Spock.

[Learning to wait] is also why French toddlers will sit happily at a restaurant. Rather than snacking all day like American children, they mostly have to wait until mealtime to eat. (French kids consistently have three meals a day and one snack around 4 p.m.)

Three meals and an after-school snack? What a concept! Maybe if more American parents adopted that pattern, Michelle Obama wouldn't have to be carping constantly about our kids' fat behinds.

It turns out that a proper French childhood "education" includes learning the fine discipline -- if I may use that word -- of delayed gratification. Additionally, French children are also "educated" in the equally fine art of amusing themselves sans constant parental interaction. Imagine that! Independence! That sounds very...well, American. Or at least it used to.

Ms. Druckerman discovered that researchers have determined that children who learn how to control their urges by delaying gratification also develop other helpful coping skills:

[T]he good delayers were better at concentrating and reasoning, and didn't "tend to go to pieces under stress[.]"

Could properly "educating" children to be patient, as it used to be known, actually have other beneficial effects? she wonders incredulously:

Could it be that teaching children how to delay gratification -- as middle-class French parents do -- actually makes them calmer and more resilient? Might this partly explain why middle-class American kids, who are in general more used to getting what they want right away, so often fall apart under stress?

Well, it's not as if Americans don't want their children to be patient:

But patience isn't a skill that we hone quite as assiduously as French parents do. We tend to view whether kids are good at waiting as a matter of temperament. In our view, parents either luck out and get a child who waits well or they don't.

Right.  Just like with those puppies. You either luck out and get a good one who knows he's supposed to pee only outdoors, or you get a bad one who needs a more thorough "education."

While American parents in general and our author in particular seem to struggle with getting their children to behave, the French have deftly identified for these poor people the (obvious) source of the problem: allowing the children to be in charge. The consequences of this unnatural order of things elude the French's American counterparts.

After a while, it struck me that most French descriptions of American kids include this phrase "n'importe quoi," meaning "whatever" or "anything they like." It suggests that the American kids don't have firm boundaries, that their parents lack authority, and that anything goes. It's the antithesis of the French ideal of the cadre, or frame, that French parents often talk about. Cadre means that kids have very firm limits about certain things -- that's the frame -- and that the parents strictly enforce these. But inside the cadre, French parents entrust their kids with quite a lot of freedom and autonomy.

Wow!  This is almost like rocket science or something! Maybe the French really are better than we are! Wait, there's more.

Authority is one of the most impressive parts of French parenting -- and perhaps the toughest one to master. Many French parents I meet have an easy, calm authority with their children that I can only envy.

Ah, there’s the rub: authority. For a large segment of American parents, authority is anathema: associated with mental rigidity and the exertion of illegitimate power and control. Why this distorted view? Thank our twelve to eighteen year public liberal emersion education system. Those who fall sway to this indoctrination program emerge as liberal adults fully invested in liberalism’s first principles: equality, fairness and non-judgmentalism.

Liberal parents attempt to raise their offspring according to these guiding principles. (Unlike their conservative peers who managed to escape with their critical thinking skills intact and raise their kids, well, more like the French.) For liberals, the highest moral standard is fairness and there is no sin greater than being judgmental.

As parents they find themselves in constant conflict with their key values. Exercising parental authority to exert control over their child requires inequality of treatment on occasion and near constant judmentalism. No wonder liberal parents are always stressed. And no wonder the author envies the French who, au contraire, are genetically judgmental and have no problem whatsoever with authority.

Their kids actually listen to them. French children aren't constantly dashing off, talking back, or engaging in prolonged negotiations.

So what exactly is it about French parenting that is superior? This is what I gather: they are not uncomfortable treating their children like untrained puppies until such time as the children have learned to stop peeing in the house. Which is to say: French parents assume the role of alpha dog with their children rather than the other way around.

Seriously, how hard is this? If you feel you need coaching but can’t afford to live in France for a year, get in touch with one of your conservative friends with kids and spend a few weekends observing them.

Monday, February 13, 2012

Through a Portal Darkly

Gates_of_Hell_Rodin"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"

When a constitutional republic enacts a law that provides a portal to tyranny, the citizens ought not be surprised when someone throws the door wide open and strolls through.

I speak of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); the tyrant, of course, is President Obama.

The APA was enacted in 1946 after nearly 10 years of fierce debate over how to manage and control all the new federal agencies created as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s  legislative plan (New Deal) to deliver the country from the grasp of social and economic hardships stemming from the Great Depression. (sound familiar?) FDR was the first Democratic President to not let a good crisis go to waste.

As Congress became increasingly concerned with the expanding powers that these federal agencies possessed they moved to enact the APA. It’s purpose was to regulate and control agencies by imposing administrative procedures on rule making.  It’s passage was contentious, as its opponents had serious concerns with the entire framework of federal agencies – fearing they could grow too large, too powerful and end up as de facto legislative entities.

They argued that unelected, unaccountable agencies making administrative law presented grave threats to our republic. Some were even had concerns over the constitutionality of agencies with such broad powers: arguing that they violated the intent of  separation of powers. We really should  pay more attention to the naysayers and Cassandras in our midst. 

The major issue the APA’s opponents (mostly Republicans and southern Democrats) had with the bill was that it codified a system that provided a blueprint for creating an ever expanding federal government. But in the end a compromise bill was struck that ostensibly expressed "the nation's decision to permit extensive government, but to avoid dictatorship and central planning." (1)

Well, that was the theory. We definitely got the extensive government. Thus far we’ve avoided dictatorship but with the latest intrusions by the Obama Administration into the State’s business, it appears we have embraced a federal form of central planning and may even have one step on the ladder of dictatorship.

There were 425 federal agencies created between 1946 and 1996, some that started out small and grew large, and some that started out large and grew huge. That was 16 years ago. The number for all three branches of the federal government  has now grown to about 1300. If you have time you can count them yourself , but it’s clearly well north of 425.

Does this begin to suggest the nature and scope of the problem? 1300 fiefdoms with the power to adjudicate, legislate, and enforce laws within their specific areas of delegated power. They "legislate" through  the power of rulemaking bestowed under the auspices of the APA.

The rulemaking and regulatory power of Federal administrative agencies has been abused for decades by bureaucratic despots large and small. It was only a matter of time before a president stepped in to avail himself of this most useful mechanism in advancing his own agenda when faced with a recalcitrant Congress.  That time has arrived. That president is Obama.

When President Obama says “We Can’t Wait” it is not simply campaign rhetoric. He means he won’t wait. He’s lawyered up with the best Chicago-rules style legal beagles money and power can buy.  Squeaking legality out of the dark reaches of the law is their specialty. They are so sharp they make Clinton’s parsing seems parsimonious by comparison.

Exhibit A, from the Presidential mouthpiece last October:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said President Barack Obama will “continue” to act “independently” without congressional authorization to “benefit the American people” as part of the White House’s “We Can’t Wait” campaign.

“He [Obama] fully understands that the kinds of things that are contained within the American Jobs Act require congressional action, require laws being passed, and that’s why he’s pressing for Congress to take action legislatively,” Carney told reporters on Monday at the White House.

“But he can also act independently or, rather, administratively, and exercise his executive authority to benefit the American people in other ways. And he will continue to do that.”

Carney dismissed House Speaker John Boehner’s disapproval of the president acting unilaterally.

“I was asked about this concern, which I would just suggest is misplaced, because the president is acting well within his authority, well within his constitutional authority,” Carney said

So here’s the takeaway: Obama knows his plans require legislative action, but he doesn’t care. He’ll find a workaround.

He’s told us as much before. Before he decided to base his campaign strategy on running against a do-nothing Congress, allowing him to blame Congress for not passing his comprehensive immigration reform, he told a La Raza group that "some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own" -- a prospect Obama said he found "very tempting." before quickly adding "that's not how our system works." Good to know.

He reiterated this sentiment again later last year when speaking to another gathering of Hispanics, saying 'when it comes to the issue of immigration, ‘I'd like to work my way around Congress.'" But noted “The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce.”  Although he did locate  a “loophole” (which he generally dislikes) that allowed him to enforce them  discriminately; he unilaterally changed immigration law enforcement last summer by announcing that the government will no longer initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants unless they have committed serious crimes. No doubt he’ll find other ways to “work around Congress” on immigration as the election grows close. Executive orders are always a good bet.

The President has also found ways to “work around Congress” with respect to his clean energy agenda. Since they failed to pass his Cut and Cap bill he’s used the Department of Energy to provide loans to alternative energy companies like Solyndra, the Department of Transportation to set stringent fuel standards that dictate auto manufacturing standards, and the EPA to implement his green energy policy.

As of last summer the EPA flexed it’s regulatory power by announcing a policy that will close down 20% of the nation’s coal plants in 2012 under their Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (at a cost of $130 billion – there’s a real economic stimulus rabbit hole). And they are off to a good start: 3  plants in West Virginia, 4 in Ohio and 25 elsewhere. Another campaign promise kept: (“If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”).

Together the actions of these administrative agencies – an abuse of regulatory power – are implementing provisions of the Cut and Cap legislation rejected by Congress. In the process, they are making us dangerously more dependent on foreign oil…or on solar panels, windmills and batteries if you’re a  Kool-Aid drinker.

Here are several additional examples of how Obama’s regulatory agencies have advanced his green agenda by “working around” the do-nothing Congress (which, foolishly, continues to fund these out-of-control agencies):

  1. Environmental (EPA) concerns were cited as the reason Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline (the oil will now be going to China, the world’s #1 polluter).
  2.  The administration has turned the Gulf of Mexico into a “no drill” zone, ignoring court orders and using the permit process to halt development.
  3. Shell oil  having spent $4 billion trying to develop tracts, already leased and paid for, north of Alaska, gave up when the EPA denied permits to begin exploratory drilling.

Arguably, all of the above actions are unconstitutional. But they pale in comparison to federal rules being established as law by the three federal departments ( Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services) granted oversight (by Congress) and hence rulemaking authority for the “Affordable Care Act.” Although we needn’t worry because our Constitution provides for a separation of powers that won’t permit them to run amok right?

The mandate that’s raised so many shackles was actually placed into Federal Law as of last Friday. It requires insurers provide  mandatory coverage of contraception, abortifacients and sterilization, despite the providers beliefs, “conscience thing” or wishes. As we discussed earlier, this is precisely what Nancy Pelosi meant in her infamous “ we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it" comment. And what we found out was that every woman has a “right” to “free” contraceptives and abortions. (I hope you feel like a complete idiot now, former Representative Stupak). Now may be a good time to point out that dictators can grant and, more importantly, retract rights at will - as long as they are allowed to go unchecked. But we needn’t worry, because our Constitution provides for checks and balances, right? Right?

Regarding the unconstitutional mandate regarding contraceptive coverage, the “accommodation” announced by Obama last week has done nothing to calm the fury. Not that he really cares. What precisely does it take for the people of this country to wake up and realize their liberties are being washed down the drain one deathly drip, drip, drip at a time?

Here is one thing that is wrong with our body politic: you cannot delegate the type of power Congress has relegated to unelected, unaccountable agencies. Our founders knew this. They thought they had provided against it through the enumeration and separation of powers.

Since the 1940’s, Congress has grown increasingly comfortable with basking in the glory of giving a thumbs up or thumbs down to a legal abstraction, and letting the hard work of actually governing to the concepts fall on the backs of  nameless, faceless bureaucrats and functionaries. Federal Agencies are neither elected nor accountable to any constituents. Indeed, as Obama continues to circumvent Congress by making “recess” appointments, they’re not even accountable to Congress. 

So here’s the problem: Obama can trammel all over the Constitution (e.g. non-recess recess appointments, auto bailouts that blatantly circumvented the rule of law, illegal deep-water drilling ban) as long as no one stands up to stop him. It should be Congress’ responsibility to stop this outrage. It should be them launching investigations, holding hearings discussing impeachment. It should be Congress that moves to defund every single agency, department or bureau that continues to write autocratic administrative law that recklessly disregards the provisions of the Constitution. It should be Congress that takes back the responsibility for implementing the bills they write.

But if Congress refuses to hold the Executive branch accountable, take the responsibility back from unaccountable bureaucrats, cut off funds to despotic federal agencies, put us back on a path to Constitutional government than it is up to us: we the people. Do not send any member of Congress back to Washington who is lazy, moronic, corrupt or all of the above. That should pretty much give us a clean slate.

Make WTF 2012 count.


(1)Shepard, George. Fierce Compromise: The Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from New Deal Politics. 90 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1557 (1996)

Saturday, February 11, 2012

If God wanted me to use a computer, he wouldn’t have invented books.

Thanks to   “Guest” over on MOTUS, we have access to rare footage of the world’s first documented tech support guy, performing his nerd magic for another hapless “user.”

Still clueless after all these years.

Drip, drip, drip…the sound of our liberty leaking away

When Nancy Pelosi said “ But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." she didn’t mean because Congress was too lazy to read the thousands of pages carefully crafted by the minions of legislative aides with law degrees hired to incorporate the provisions specified by key lobbyists. Although they are – too lazy, that is.

No, what Pelosi meant was that the real work doesn’t get started until after a bill is passed by our duly elected representatives and signed into law by the President. Then the bill gets handed off to the administrators in a myriad of  agencies, commissions and subcommittees within any one of  15 Executive Departments in the Executive Branch to give it the teeth that make it enforceable. This bureaucratic labyrinth of advocates, functionaries, and mini-despots uses every bit of power vested in them – and it’s quite a lot – to advance the agenda of whoever brought them to the dance. To paraphrase Stalin, “those who legislate decide nothing. Those who regulate decide everything ...”

Obama’s recent constitutional snafu involving mandated contraception in conjunction with the implementation of the  “Affordable Care Act”  illustrates precisely what Nancy Pelosi meant: Congress doesn’t decide how these laws are  going to work in the real world, the people who write the administrative rules do. And this isn’t the first rodeo for those folks. They know how to rope and tie those doggies.

The beauty of this arrangement -  for Congress members - is that  handing off the rule making to some  nameless “agency” to write  “administrative rules”  provides them with wide and deep coverage. If their constituents become upset by the law’s impact, the Senator/Congressman can claim that wasn’t the way it was intended to work. It’s very much like Obama’s  “Don’t blame me, it’s the Do-nothing Congress” gambit, only in reverse.

By off-loading  the rather important detail of actually implementing legislation, Congress is freed up to focus on their other very important job of spreading the wealth around, often ensuring it stops with them. This division of labor is also what allows states the luxury of electing to Congress such luminaries as Maxine Waters, Shirley Jackson Lee, and Frederica Wilson ( Don’t worry about the racial profile: these 3 are truly the worst. There are many non-black, non-female members who are likewise functional morons, but this trio, despite whatever degrees they hold from whatever fine institutions, are an embarrassment to themselves, their constituents and the electoral process.)

To be sure, the job doesn’t demand much brain power anymore. Which explains why so many members of Congress forget to pay their taxes, misappropriate campaign funds and have time to Tweet pictures of their private parts.

Maybe we should consider a return to the time when Congress focused on actually enacting the legislation they passed, instead of figuring out how to maximize their personal wealth by practicing legal (for them) insider trading.  In fact, one might question the constitutionality of  the Legislative Branch delegating key responsibilities back to the Executive Branch. It does rather upset the concept of separation of powers. Come back tomorrow for a more thorough discussion of the unconstitutionality of this decades long abdication of responsibility.

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, Thanks!