Conservative Donnybrook

thanks to immigration advocates or libertarians like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and, sad to say, Ron Paul.

Our country was yet again grievously wounded because of “free trade,” “tolerance,” and interventionism.

Would that the myriad soldiers — in Texas, of all places — had availed themselves of the duty to protect themselves and their comrades and loved ones by carrying concealed weapons, this comatose piece of excrement would have been dead after the first shot was fired.

I weep for the country that used to be the United States of America but which is now the United State of Aetna, indivisible, with tyranny, oppression, and “free” “healthcare” for all.

Ordinarily, I would take a good deal of time to point out that many here at the site have repeatedly pointed out the nakedness of the emperor. I would rehash the times Patriot-Act statists in conservative wool have been called on their leftism, secularism, and big-government authoritarianism. I would also bewail the unmitigated gall of such a character having the chutzpah to call his critics allies of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Nancy Pelosi.  I would loudly and often decry the shameless and unguarded honesty of those who reduce their philosophy to “kill” to the exclusion of sound economic policy, the sanctity of life, the sovereignty of our country, and a host of other issues. Normally. Not this time. This time I’ll let the argument you presented dismantle itself and show the readership of this blog how one-note, indefensible, and breathtakingly destructive your side is.

The article to which you linked, when read through the lenses of one conversant with history (which one would expect a self-described historian to do), demonstrated far better than I could of the bankruptcy of your side. Kagan starts out by mentioning the Great Depression. He failed to note any of the actual causes of that depression. He failed to take into consideration the “adventurism,” to borrow one of your words from a recent comment, of the United States leading up to that crisis. The economic decisions in the midst and wake of the Civil War (National banking acts of 1863 and 1864 which consolidated currency to fund the Union’s war; Federal Reserve creation in 1913; Aldrich-Vreeland in 1908, etc.) and the domestic and foreign policy decisions in the wake of the war (Reconstruction; almost immediate attempts at imperialism in Santo Domingo, Cuba, and Liberia – all of which came about due to slavery and its end; westward expansion, Indian wars, Alaskan purchase; Roosevelt’s splitting of the Republicans, his appointments to the Supreme Court, etc.; financial, monetary, and fiscal management and mismanagement), not to mention World War I, all contributed directly to the spreading thin of the American military and building resentment throughout the world.

Kagan goes on to insinuate that, because the United States seemed to somehow ignore foreign policy, Japan militarized and Germany fell under Hitler’s sway. This is howlingly funny. What we are required to do if we are to accept Kagan’s hypothesis is to absolutely and unequivocally deny that black is black, that water is wet, or that fire is hot. Aside from the fact that it was American “adventurism” (e.g., with the Great White Fleet, which further fueled a zealous desire to militarize in newly-nationalist Japan) which thrust Japan on its path toward imperialism (read about Perry’s Black Ships and the cracking of isolationist Japan, the Meiji Restoration, the Manchurian, Korean, and Russian campaigns of Japan), we can hardly be faulted for “ignoring” Germany: we had shipped thousands of American boys there to fight, bleed, die, and kill, and had established a new world-political body to deal with the German problem only 20 years before the 1933 Nazification. One could be excused for refusing to read any of the rest of Kagan’s ludicrous bombast after realizing this, but, intrepid soul that I am, I trudged on.

Kagan engaged in your least-favorite pasttime. He had the balls to criticize Ronald Reagan (gasp! the horror!) in practically the same breath as he criticized Jimmy Carter. Calling Reagan’s policy decisions about Lebanon “failed” and asserting that these policies led to the bombing of the Marine barracks is hardly what one would expect to hear you lauding. Implicit in this is the recognition that we should not have been there to get bombed. Reagan quickly and wisely realized this and did exactly the right thing: he got out and left Israel to what it was perfectly, demonstrably capable of doing: defending itself and letting Beirut and the Lebanese tend to their own damned affairs. No more Marines were killed there after that. No Al-Aqsa,  ”Quds Force,” or Hezbollah started trouble by killing Americans there. What a concept.  What were “Reagan’s failed policies” in Lebanon? Assisting a “multinational force” along with French troops and others to “keep the peace” in a sectarian civil war. What spawned the Muslim hatred and subsequent suicide bombings? Perceived American preference for Maronite Catholics and the shelling of Druze areas which inadvertantly killed civilians.

Kagan touches tangentially and seemingly accidentally upon one truth: things now are probably more dangerous for the U.S., but because of our huge overseas presence and constant “spreading of democracy” or “war on terror” or “search for WNDs” (we really do need to find those nasty World Net Dailies) or whatever they’re calling it these days, not because we are letting our guard down.

People are growing weary of the wars, growing weary of the constant misequation of the United States of America with Israel by the radical Zionists, and people are growing weary of the stubborn economic hardships put upon them by constant imperialism. Bring Americans home to defend America. Root out radical Islam here and deport it. If the resistance starts here, put it down swiftly and with no remorse. But there is no way we need to be defending South Korea from a tinpot near-dead in charge of a run-down non-entity. There is no justification for making all those “security guarantees” to states in the Russian sphere of influence. There is no way you could possibly believe that Kagan essay if you know and understand history. There is no way you can continue to call yourself a conservative and defend such Wilsonianism. It is definitionally schizophrenic, or alternatively simply mendacious, to claim to be conservative and yet espouse this baseless, historically-illiterate, radical Ledeenishness while at the same time believing it makes us safer. Your apologists split their time between appealing to how much safer we are and how dangerous it’s getting. Your side constantly purports to support “democracy” and “freedom” while working overtime - often in cahoots with outright radical socialist would-be totalitarians – to quash them through Patriot Acts, occupations of foreign countries, propped-up banking cartels and outdated unionized auto companies (remember which President started those great things?). Your side is trying to cling desperately to relevance, which is understandable. But for whom are you striving?

Police Authorities the nation over have been dogged with accusations of excessive force.  Many times these accusations are, well, less than true.  However, a disturbing trend is developing where the authorities over step their bounds and kill with little to no provocation.

Take, for example, the shooting death of Oscar Grant on a BART platform in Oakland, California. Video shows the handcuffed Grant laying face down on the BART platform.  In the next instant, a police officer draws and fires his weapon, killing the clearly restrained man.  The officer, it is assumed, will claim that he meant to taser the suspect rather than shoot him.  I have handled both a taser and a 9mm.  The weight alone is sufficiently different, not to mention the feel, as to make this explanation unlikely.

Another, less tragic example is from my own backyard where two Santa Paula police officers shot and killed a mountain lion cub weighing no more than 15 pounds. The animal was killed after officers cornered it and advanced on its position.  While deference should be given to the officers, it is hard to imagine a scenario where one would have to shoot a 15 pound cub rather than back off, and wait until Fish and Game officers arrive.  The cub, after all, was not threatening anyone until the clever cops backed it into a corner.

A third example is the retired assistant fire chief in Riverside, California that beat a young dog to death with a rock.  He claims self-defense (as the other officers do) but this is refuted by witnesses.  Neighbors said the pup was calm when the retired fireman beat it, broke its jaw and mortally wounded it.

My point is that we give these people armed authority to regulate society and they do tend to abuse it on occasion.  Yet any abuse should be considered grave.  I am sure you can think of several recent examples from your own area where the police authorities have killed or maimed without sufficient cause.  These sort of events tend to be the exception and not the rule.  You should, therefore, thank the good and trustworthy authorities in your area.  Nevertheless, be it error or angst, situations where excessive use of force occur should not go on without serious repercussions.  Nor should the public sit back while their local police force acts as revenue agents (think red light and speed cameras).  Please, be involved and hold your local authorities accountable.

CORRECTION: Glynn Johnson (the assistant fire chief that beat a small dog) is not retired but is now on paid (of course) administrative leave.

UPDATE (04/23/09): An investigation by an outside agency comprised of members of the Burbank Police determined that the killing of the tiny mountain lion cub by trigger-happy Santa Paula police officers was “an unjustified use of deadly force.” Disciplinary action may be taken.

On the way home from work this evening, I tuned into Neal Boortz’s radio program (funny no one else seems to be reporting this) and a caller asked Neal if he’d heard that six different state legislatures had proposed resolutions declaring their understanding that the federal government is limited by the Tenth Amendment. I have found one such resolution under consideration in New Hampshire: House Concurrent Resolution 6. The full text is as follows:

HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION

09-0274

09/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

09-0274

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: Continue Reading »

As a service to the hordes of readers of Conservative Donnybrook, I have read the House version of Obama’s $825 billion economic stimulus package so you don’t have to.

General Attributes of the Plan

As mentioned above the current overall price tag (before amendments and the inevitable earmark add-ons) is $825 billion. That is split into two general categories of spending.

The first category is $275 billion in “economic recovery tax cuts.” Presumably this is the “tax cuts for 95% of Americans” that Obama continuously talked about on the campaign trail. If there are 305 million Americans and they split the tax cut evenly, each would enjoy a lessened tax burden of $949.09 each. I’ll take it gladly; indeed, they owe us more of our own money back. Unfortunately, this will almost certainly be offset by the sun-setting of the Bush tax cuts, which there is little doubt Congress and the President will allow to expire.

The second category is $550 billion in “targeted priority investments.” According to the summary from the Committee on Appropriations, “[t]his package is the crucial first step in a concerted effort to create and save 3 to 4 million jobs, jumpstart our economy, and being the process of transforming it for the 21^st century.” The committee summary goes on to state that, “with the passage of this package, unemployment rates are expected to rise to between eight and nine percent this year. Without this package, we are warned that unemployment could explode to near twelve percent.” As such, assuming these numbers are correct and this package would prevent the unemployment rate from experiencing an additional 3% rise, the package will prevent the loss of 3.93 million jobs* through new unemployment claims. This means that by their own numbers, this package will not create any new jobs, as Obama has been touting, but rather would prevent the anticipated loss of 4 million jobs.

* In case anyone is interested, I came up with this number by looking at the increase in unemployment as reported on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/ces/) for the December report. That report said unemployment rose from 6.8% to 7.2% or by +0.4%. That increase corresponded with a decrease in the number of jobs of 524,000. If 0.4% is equivalent to 524,000 jobs, then 4% would equal 3.93 million jobs.

The summary acknowledges that the plan will result in “a large deficit for years to come.” But, justifies its passage by playing on the fears of not passing it: “Without it, those deficits will be devastating [as though the deficits we invite will not be] and we will face the risk of economic chaos.”

Since 2001, as worker productivity went up, 96% of the income growth in this country went to the wealthiest 10% of society [I assume they are not referring to the government]. While they were benefiting from record high worker productivity, the remaining 90% of Americans were struggling to sustain their standard [sic] of living. They sustained it by borrowing…and borrowing…and borrowing, and when they couldn’t borrow anymore, the bottom fell out. This plan will strengthen the middle class, not just Wall Street CEOs and special interests in Washington [who have already received government welfare in the form of bailouts which took priority over taxpayer relief].

Finally, before getting into the specifics of the “targeted priority investments,” it should be noted that “[t]here are no earmarks in this package.” I guess I don’t really know what an earmark, because I thought it was an appropriation that was targeted to a particular project, or “priority investment,” if you prefer. Oh well. Orwell lives.

One last note before we dive into an examination of the specific spending proposals. We should probably keep in mind that, according to most of the economists I’ve heard speak about the crisis, the overriding problem is that credit is unavailable to consumers and businesses. It is probably helpful to hold this in the forefront of one’s thoughts as he approaches each of these broad spending categories. A thoughtful person would probably ask, “Does this spending help to free up credit to consumers and businesses?” Continue Reading »

The Grinch has stolen Chrysler and all the good little boys and girls who hoped to find PT Cruisers stuffing their stockings on Christmas morning will no doubt be left to MOPARound (sorry).

It appears that rather than enter Chapter 11 reorganization, Chrysler has opted to wait out its share of the hoped-for taxpayer largesse. It will be shuttering operations beginning on Friday and, theoretically, will resume operations on January 19. Presumably by then Congress will have caved and ponied up the money so that they could resume squandering it at an alarming rate.

Last night the representatives the states rejected the House’s plan to bail out the Big Three automakers. The disagreement lay in the House’s refusal to force the unions to accept pay concessions. Last night Nancy Pelosi called upon the White House to circumvent the will of the States and impose a bailout by shunting monies already allocated for the financial crisis to the car companies and their unions.

Not surprisingly, President Bush is considering Pelosi’s demands. However, before acceding to the demands of Pelosi, Levin, and Gettelfinger, Bush should consider the long-term costs to the economy of allowing the carmakers to escape their poor management and the union’s rapaciousness. It is acknowledged that this is to be only a bridge “loan” meaning that everyone fully expects to be back in this same position at a later date when the carmakers blow through the money. Bush should also consider whether caving in to the Democrats will make Michigan any redder, whether the Unions will switch allegiances or if, politically, it will only serve to save the bacon of a number of Democrat representatives.

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it seems that diverting funds that Congress approved for the finincial markets and repurposing them to bail out the automakers may be impermissible under the Constitution’s clear rule that only Congress has the authority to spend. Congress last night rejected further spending for the purpose of bailing out Detroit. It would be violation of the separation of powers for the executive branch to conduct an end run around that inconvenient fact. Another breach of contract seems to be in the offing.

The topic of the Civil War and some of the issues surrounding that conflict have arisen on this website on a couple different occasions, but I don’t believe we’ve ever hashed out whether the states possess the right to secede.

I think it can be surmised from my earlier argument (the breach of contract discussion) that I believe that state’s do possess the right to secede. It is inherent in the nature of contract that, the parties may withdraw from the compact upon a showing of breach or by mutual consent. The text of the Declaration of Independence argues strongly in favor of the idea that states possess the right to withdraw from their voluntary compacts with the federal government.

Of course, my argument was that the South did not have cause to withdraw and that it was, in fact, the South that breached its obligations under the contract. However, had the federal government breached, I believe a state would be jusitified in unilaterally declaring rescission as the remedy.  Loss of an election in itself would not provide cause. But, as we have seen from the Declaration and subsequent Revolution, if one party to the contract fundamentally changes the terms, that can provide cause. The lesson, of course, is that it is incumbent upon the national government to act with restraint and within the confines of the Constitution in order to preserve the Union. Acting beyond the sanction of the Constitution would provide a state with a claim of breach and would provide cause for separation.

Some might argue that the moment for restraint has long passed and that the contract on which this Union is premised has been irredeemibly breached. I think there is still an opportunity for reform so long as the parties remain in parity. But, that only makes the call for reform all the more urgent. I have argued that it appears that the necessary reform can only come from the formation of a third party. Neither of the current major parties appear to have the ability to exercise restraint, to honor individual freedom, or to respect the sovereignty of the states.

Yesterday, the Diocese of Charleston, South Carolina, issued a repudiation of Father Newman’s statements regarding the culpability of voters who cooperate in furthering the ongoing holocaust of innocent babies. The full statement, delivered by Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin reads as follows:

CHARLESTON, S.C. (November 14, 2008) – This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.

We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston.

Unfortunately, Monsignor Laughlin’s repudiation confuses a moral issue for a political one. Abortion is not a political issue. It is a moral issue, which has been politicized because of the nature of our country and government. Throughout history, God has used worldly governments to rule over his people. Figures such as Pharoah, Moses, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Cyrus, and Caesar have been used by God to either chastise or deliver His people.

The United States is unique in history because of the phrase “We, the People.” Abraham Lincoln referred to the United States as a “government of the people, for the people, by the people.” In this sense, we are the authority which God has set over us. As such, we are culpable for our actions as rulers of God’s people. To that end, every time we resort to the polling place, each of us is engaged in a moral act which has ramifications for our salvation.

During the latest election, we were given the choice between two men whose views were remarkably similar. More than one person argued with me that there was not a hair’s breadth worth of difference between the two candidates. In many ways, they were correct. The difference between the candidates was mostly in degree, but not in intent. Universal health care? One proposed to socialize medicine, while the other provided health care through the tax code. Immigration? I’m not really sure that there was any difference, frankly. The economy? The candidates disagreed only to the extent that the government should nationalize industry. Social Security? Was there a difference? The environment? One wanted massive tax increases through the imposition of cap and trade. The other wanted massive tax increases through cap and trade. Indeed, the only real difference was on the issue of abortion. I argued that this was the determinative factor and the reason conservatives should swallow their pride and vote for McCain – because there was a chance that McCain would nominate justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, whereas his opponent would expand the destruction of innocent life.

Viewed in this light, each voter’s prudential decision to which Monsignor Laughlin refers was between a candidate who supports the destruction of innocent life whenever convenient and one who does not. The other issues – the ones which the Monsignor implies a person might have been justified in basing his decision – were more or less the same except in their degree. Given that choice, it is clear that Father Newman’s original statement was more in keeping with the Church’s teachings.

Even if there were social justice issues that a Catholic could look to and find Obama preferable, I am at a loss to find even one that trumps the wholesale murder of millions of innocent babies. Welfare? Jobs? Education? Health care? None of them do a person any good if he is killed in the womb. Life is more important than any other social justice issue, because without the basic right to be born, there is no justice.

In that sense, the elimination of abortion is the predicate to all social justice. There is not a larger moral issue than our complicity in the killing of millions of babies. So long as we continue to engage in this barbarity, we can scarcely call ourselves a moral nation. No matter the level of congeniality we achieve racially, socio-economically, ethnically, or between the sexes, we will still merit damnation as a nation while we are killing our babies. Furthermore, Monsignor Laughlin’s comments about the well formed conscience beg the question. Can a person with a well-formed conscience vote for a candidate who will expand abortion? Because abortion is, above all else, a moral issue, the Church is singularly competent to address it. They should be forceful in their condemnation of the act. Attaching repercussions to one’s status within the community of the Church for material support of this evil is appropriate. The Diocese of Charleston should reconsider its position.

UPDATE: While Fr. Newman has taken the original letter off the parish website, as we know nothing ever truly is deleted on the Internet. Here is the cached Google page containing the original letter.

It is speculated that former governor, now Attorney General, Jerry Brown will once again run for California’s highest office.  Great, just what we need, another Brown in office.  Take it Jello….

Rest assured, I will cover this in more depth when (if?) he makes his official announcement.

Earlier today I noted that the asinine commentators on CNBC were discussing the question of whether the energy bull market had run its course. This after two consecutive days of oil prices falling. TWO DAYS! Granted, oil dropped 7% over the past two days, but are you kidding? Two days marks an enduring trend? Ironically, today was the first day that it cost me more than $50 to fill up my 12-gallon tank ($4.15/gallon this morning). What a rude shock that was.

President Bush’s lifting of the executive order banning offshore drilling was and is a good thing. Although, it should be seen in context with a wider energy policy which seeks to develop and exploit new technologies, expands domestic onshore oil production, and diversifies our energy portfolio by bringing online more options like nuclear energy. This clearly should be coupled with conservation, even if the president will not command Americans to conserve.

In the last few months, there have been stories that indicate that the late oil price boom has not been driven solely by supply and demand, but rather by speculation in the futures market. These stories have noted that as oil prices soared, non-OPEC nations have dramatically increased production and more than met the demand. In short, supply has been outstripping demand. Simple economics confirms that this is probably true. If the commodities market, taking into account the future price of oil bets that oil prices will increase, more investors will enter the market and drive the current price up. In return, producers will increase production. At the same time, because oil consumption is extremely inelastic demand will decrease only marginally. The result is that there will be a surplus in production, which nonetheless will demand a price higher than the equilibrium point would dictate. Granted, demand is booming as previously second and third world nations modernize (India and China, conspicuously), the global demand for oil increases. But, growing demand does not tell the whole story.

The point, of course, is that effect prices at the pump today, one must craft a policy which will have an effect on the futures market. One way to do that is to commit to greatly increasing future supply. This is what the president has allowed oil companies to do. The big question in my mind is whether the oil companies will take advantage of the increased availability of drilling opportunities. Time will tell. If it appears that the United States is poised to enter the world oil market on a large scale in five to ten years, that should suffice to drive futures prices down and the price at the pump will follow. How much is anyone’s guess. Right now, I would be happy if it just stopped going up.

Now, if Pelosi and company will lift the Congressional ban, we might see some relief at the gas pump.

With a cloud of labor disputes starting to grow over the NFL the league’s Commissioner, Roger Goodell, is not afraid to make his position known on controversial labor matters. Speaking earlier today, Commissioner Goodell called the NFL’s current rookie pay scale “ridiculous.” For those of you who are not familiar with this scale, it guarantees rookies who have just been drafted more money than individuals drafted in their same spot the year before. In the end this means that top rookies are getting paid over $50 million, most of which is guaranteed, despite the fact they have never played a down in the league. The fact that Commissioner Goodell acknowledges this problem and is actively seeking to remedy it, warms my heart. I know that the NFL is in good hands for the years to come. Now I only wish the NHL had found a Commissioner with half the ability of Commissioner Goodell.

My new hometown in Northwestern Illinois is right on the Mississippi River. With the amount of rain we have been getting the river has risen up and drowned almost all riverfront property. Fortunately, there is a steep incline from the river into town and no further flooding has occurred yet. The good people of Ceder Rapids, Iowa have not been so fortunate. Thank goodness no one has died since the residents had the good sense to evacuate when told to do so. I wonder though, when will the Federal government start being blamed for property damage and not stepping in sooner to stop the flooding?

A story in today’s Los Angeles Times online edition carries the title: “California chief justice says same-sex marriage ruling was one of his toughest.” It’s not surprising considering the fact that it wasn’t based on any law (or more to the point, was contrary to existing precedent and the unambiguous will of the people). It is always difficult to fabricate new rights from thin air with no support in the law. In a 121 page decision filed on Friday, the “moderate Republican” chief justice of the Supreme Court of California wrote that:

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.”

The problem that the chief justice wrestled with stemmed from the fact that California already provides “domestic partnerships” for gay couples replete with all of the rights and privileges that married heterosexual couples enjoy. The only real difference between the two is terminology. In fact, because of California’s Domestic Partnership Act, Proposition 22 merely reserved to traditional marriage the label “marriage.”

Nonetheless, this minimal disparity in terminology was seized upon by the supreme court of California as an occasion for judicial activism. The plaintiffs claimed that the difference in terminology placed a stigma on their relationships, relegating them to the status of “second class citizens.” Domestic partnerships were insufficient for the radical gay activists who demanded that traditional marriage be dispensed with and redefined so as to include their particular sexual perversions.

Continue Reading »

I saw this story on one of the news channels the other day and thought of LTG. We have had a number of sparring bouts over the role of parents versus the role the of the State. This story is interesting because the State is recognizing the rights of the parent (and every right carries with it a corresponding duty) to provide for his child’s education. Unfortunately for Mr. Gegner, he was found in dereliction of his duty to educate his daughter when she failed the mathematics section of her General Education Development exam. Mr. Gegner was charged with “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” after the court had ordered him to see that his daughter passed the exam. She had a previous history of truancy.

If, as LTG likes to point out, a child’s education is entirely within the purview of the parents, isn’t this an appropriate ruling? With the right, comes the responsibility. Of course, the flipside is: If the onus were on the State to educate the child, would then the delinquency of this minor fall upon her public school teachers? As tempting as it is for me to endorse that outcome, I find both results absurd. After all, the world needs ditch diggers too.

The old saying is: “Yeah, but what does that have to do with the price of bananas?”

Well, when it comes to oil, a lot. OPEC’s president says oil could hit $200 per barrel. The problem, of course, is that the price of everything which is shipped (which is pretty much everything other than online services) is affected by the price of oil. I recently reported on a trucker revolt in downtown Indy. Those revolts have been spreading throughout the country. When trucking companies are hit with high oil prices, does anyone think they absorb the cost? Of course, they don’t. That cost gets priced into the goods we buy.

Last year, we hit $100 per barrel for oil and, at that time, the price of unleaded gasoline was nearly $3 per gallon. When (note I did not say if) the price of oil hits $200 per barrel, gas prices will likely be $6 per gallon. I drive a fuel efficient import (made in Marysville, Ohio before anyone gets all kooky and talking about how they bought a Ford, which was built in either Canada or Mexico, tells how I should support American cars) and the other day my 12 gallon tank cost me over $40 to fill up, with $50 bills not far off. Those sorts of bills used to be reserved for the SUV driving populace. Forty dollars used to be my entire budget for gasoline for an entire month. Consider this: semi trucks typically have 300 (some have 325) gallon tanks.  At $4.16 for a gallon of diesel, which is a decent price right now, it would cost the average trucker nearly $1,250.00 to fill ‘er up.

I used to work at the fuel desk at a truck stop (third shift – drank tons of coffee), and it was a gigantic sale when someone spent $300 to fuel their truck. Now that would get them about two truck stops down the road. I understand their angst and realize that if nothing is done, we’ll soon feel their pain.

Diverting grain to be used to create fuel is not the answer. First, it is extremely expensive to accomplish – more than to drill for oil, or buy from the Middle East. And, second, it drives up the cost of almost every food item, which of course impacts poor people, who spend more as a percentage of their income on food, disproportionately.

Surprisingly, Barack Obama, who seems to be clueless whenever he begins to talk about actual policies as opposed to grand ideas like change, is somehow opposed to relieving the consumer from the burden of government taxes on fuel. Hillary, at least, gets it. McCain has been out front on this issue. But even McCain’s plan is a stopgap measure. First, a hiatus on the gas tax would eventually impact our roads, which the tragedy in Minneapolis teaches us are in a deplorable state. But, second, that sort of relief, while welcome, is temporary. The real problem is that demand has far outstripped supply and OPEC refuses to pump more oil.

Continue Reading »

No I’m not talking about Iraq.  Since the morning of Saturday April 19 (yesterday), thirty two people have been shot, six of whom have passed on.  This has been the most violent weekend the City of Chicago has seen in some time.  The Chicago Police attribute most if not all of this violence to gang warfare.  In a pressure cooker that was already ready to explode after the shootings at Northern Illinois University, this violence will only go to further fan the flames of increased gun control in Illinois.

As recently as last week Chicago public school students as well as gun control advocates decended on Springfield to plead with state lawmakers to pass stricter gun laws.  With Democrats in control of the executive and legislative branches here I have no doubt that their crys will be heard.  This is the kind of knee-jerk, some might say reactionary, answer that all liberals have come up with in the face of gun violence.  Limit the ability of individuals to purchase firearms legally.  They ignore one huge problem with their proposed solution, it will have no effect on the violence.  I find it hard to believe that the gang members who have been terrorizing the Southwest Side of Chicago went to a gun shop, presented a vailed FOID card (firearm owners identification card), waited the designated waiting period, and purchased their gun.  Instead, I would think they bought in on the street sans a serial number.  Enacting stricter gun laws will have no effect on the bad guys getting guns.  Bad guys will find bad ways to get guns.

If anything the state should permit concealed weapon permits to be issued in Illinois.  Citizens could then legally possess weapons and the bad guys will never know what hit them.

Incidentaly, since yesterday morning Chicago has been by far more deadly than Iraq.

Maybe they should bring back Ahmadinejad and ask him about this.

The modern reality of telecommunications is that a phone call which originates in Poland and terminates in Indonesia may very well pass through switches in the United States. The special intelligence court which is in charge of authorizing domestic wiretaps ruled last year that communications which were routed through these U.S. switches were domestic communications and subject to the warrant requirements set out in FISA regardless of where they originated or terminated. In response, Congress quickly authorized the attorney general to initiate wiretaps where the government reasonably believed that at least one of the parties was outside of the United States and that the target of the wiretap was not the domestic party. This was called the Protect America Act and it expired on February 17, 2008. Congress has failed to renew this act.

George W. Bush has been stamping his feet, blustering and pleading for Congress to renew the act and threatening to veto anything less than a permanent reauthorization of the act. The question though is whether the act is truly necessary. Victor Comras frames the question pretty well in his post on the counterterrorism blog:

Few pieces of legislation before Congress carry such gravity and importance when it comes to the twin goals of protecting our national security and preserving our civil liberties. Such matters should be considered with gravity and thorough deliberation. And there is much in this act which deserves further deliberation. Many of its current provisions were adopted previously under an atmosphere of high tension and great pressure from the White House. The only pressure now is that President Bush threatens to veto any further temporary extension of the current act. A temporary extension would certainly have kept in place sufficient authority to keep tabs on the potential terrorists within our midst as Congress worked through the act thoroughly.

Why is it troublesome to obtain a warrant if the government wants to listen to somebody’s phone calls? If they are foreigners, such a warrant will be only a matter of asking. If the person is within the United States, there must be probable cause to believe they are involved in terrorist activity. But, this standard is appropriate. Persons in the United States are by right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effect to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

To allow the government to tap a person’s phone simply because he is making an international call would be to amend the Constitution by legislation or by executive fiat. If he is calling a person who is suspected of terrorist activities, it is no hardship for the government to have obtained a warrant allowing calls to this person (including the call originating in the U.S.) to be monitored. Likewise, if the person in the United States is a suspected terrorist, a warrant is obtainable. If neither are suspected of any wrongdoing, then the government has no business eavesdropping on their conversation.

My short answer is: If the special intelligence court is relatively lenient in its standard for suspicion, there is no need to renew the Protect America Act.

With the coldest winter many places have seen in years, the global warming thing doesn’t seem to be working out. Maybe you can lead the charge against the mini ice age that’s rolling in?