What a great idea!!

Since the Democrats in Congress are all about requiring us to buy something we may not want to buy, at a price that we may not agree with, what's to prevent them from going whole hog with that approach?

So [h]ere it is: a modest proposal even Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley can agree on. If we're willing to require people to buy health insurance, why not require them to buy guns?

h/t Hotair headlines.

Hey....

Anybody else remember back a year and a half ago when Zero's low-level staffers were being thrown under the bus? Or even when some not-so-low-level staffers were thrown under that same bus (but later, miraculously, recovered from her injuries)?

Point being...Zero has habit of blaming others for things he ought to be standing up for.

Like.....his oft-repeated claim of the benefit we're deriving from his Stimulus-inspired "saved or created jobs".

And now this charade is coming apart too. The numbers he is reporting are outrageously inaccurate. So inaccurate, in fact, as to be claimed from Congressional districts that themselves do not exist. So, who is to blame for the reporting of this inaccurate data? Yeah...you guessed it...

"...Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.

"We report what the recipients submit to us," said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.

Pound told ABC News the board receives declarations from the recipients - state governments, federal agencies and universities - of stimulus money about what program is being funded.

"Some recipients clearly don't know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on jobs numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes," Pound said...."

[emphases, mine]

Yes. You, the dumb public, are to be blamed for the bad data being reported by Zero's administration.

I don't often do this...

....(except for the photos which I snatch at will use freely...and which, if I knew how to host them myself, I would do so willingly), but this very good article from Ace warrants a full viewing. View it here, but his comments are worth your time too, so make some time to view it over at his house.

Ace: "Pelosi: It's Very Fair That We Jail You If You Don't Buy Health Insurance"

Seen on Hot Air, Infidels are Cool has this exchange:

Stone: Do you think it’s fair to send people to jail who don’t buy health insurance?

Pelosi: … The legislation is very fair in this respect.

The left continues pounding the table, insisting that right-wingers are "paranoid" and "extremist" to call Obama a socialist, or to use totalitarian imagery in posters to protest his agenda. Why, it's just so not true! they bleat. You'd have to be a maniac like Sarah Palin to make these delusional claims! Why, it's like bad science-fiction!

Really?

Socialism never attends a party without an escort of coercive state behavior. It is a historic fact -- indeed, an economic fact -- that as the state seeks to regulate and control more and more economic activity, they must, of course, control more and more human activity.

Economic activity is human activity, after all. Economics is not somehow divorced from humanity. Economic choices are not made of their own volition, passive-voice, without an actor. People make economic choices -- and socialism demands an ever-increasing control over those choices, and therefore the people who make those choices. (Or, more accurately: formerly made those choices.)

Furthermore, apart from the basic definitional aspect of socialism that requires a loss of freedom in exchange, supposedly, for economic security: Socialism has almost never worked as intended, but rather creates new problems and new poverties and new ways to exploit the system (black markets, for one); socialism therefore always requires even additional laws against once-unobjectionable and perfectly-legal behavior. In other words, not only does socialism require a small buy-in, in the form of loss of freedom, but it is always accompanied by unplanned-for (?) additional losses of freedom to "correct" for all the systematic irrationalities and distortions it creates.

And then it gets even worse after that, because it always fails, whenever it's been attempted, and the newly-empowered state will fight to survive, as any organism does, and any organism is willing to do an awful lot of violence when its very existence is threatened.

Note that the third part of that is the scariest step in the socialist takeover of the human condition, but even if that is avoided, the first and second stages are plenty objectionable in their own right. Although socialism has had a pronounced tendency to lead to full fascism and totalitarian control over the increasingly miserable citizenry it supposedly "serves," and that is the point of all those Nazi posters, it cannot be emphasized firmly enough that even if Stage Three of socialism is avoided, Stages One and Two are anti-freedom and frankly anti-human as well.

Just less so.

On a personal level, I go 'round and 'round with myself as to whether Nazi imagery is "civil" or helpful, politically: On one side I know for a fact that socialism tends in this direction. Every. Single. Time. Even in socialist states where fascism is avoided -- Britain, say -- it is nevertheless the case that the citizenry there exists under a much-diminished concept of "freedom" than your average American would find tolerable, or even imaginable.

On the other hand, I doubt the effectiveness of such imagery, for the simple fact that few can imagine such things, they seem too speculative and too impossible to contemplate, and so I usually make the case that rather than talk up the farther-off (yet still quite possible, and not quite so far off as some would like to imagine) possibility of Stage Three socialism, we should talk up instead the quite-objectionable-enough and much more immediate and imaginable defects of Stages One and Two.

Back to this leftist insistence that we're all paranoid to even think this way, to even define "freedom" in an antique, right-wing fashion, meaning "stuff you are permitted to do or not do without penalty and coercion from the state:" It is especially risible to me, in gallows-humor way, that the left continues to call us lunatics for fretting about increasing state control and increasing state coercion and increasing state outlawing of previously-legal behavior and freedoms even as, in their very first bill out of the socialist box, they propose jailing Americans for engaging in unobjectionable behavior which no one ever before dreamt of being a crime.

Think about this.

The left says: You are crazy to claim your so-called freedoms are being taken away, and you are a lunatic to scream about an overly powerful state which will use violent coercion (no one goes to jail without the threat of violence if he doesn't, after all) to enforce its notions of the "economic good."

And with the next breath the left says: By the way, you shall either buy health care insurance or we will throw you in prison for two or three years.

I'm paranoid? Really? I am not fretting here about some remote and unlikely possibility. We are not speaking here of "slippery slopes" or in terms of "what comes next?"

We are instead objecting to a black-letter law spelled out for all to see in the very first piece of legislation you're proposing.

Right out of the box. The state here -- Pelosi, Reid, Obama -- are claiming that they can imprison people for behavior that has never before even been hinted as being a crime, on the theory that such behavior constitutes unpatriotic economic behavior which is detrimental to the state's balance sheets.

Think about what a broad, all-encompassing term "economics" is. 80% of our waking hours are spent in economic activity of one sort or another. The state here is asserting the right to imprison people for behavior they consider not actually morally reprehensible or harmful as other crimes are, but instead merely detrimental to the Great Push Forward, the state's master plan of economic health and well-being.

Right out of the box they propose sending people to jail for acting as economic subversives and economic traitors and yet I am, somehow, paranoid if I point out that the first step here is to reduce human freedom and increase state power.

And this is just a down-payment, remember. This is merely the first of many freedoms you previously believed sacrosanct to be lost. This is merely the first freedom they've realized, in advance, will have to be taken away. When their Rube Goldberg system of cross-subsidizations and stealth-rationing produces a slew of irrationalities and evasions they did not anticipate, we will have a welter of new crimes to correct all that human behavior they now find constitutes bad economic hygiene and must be outlawed.

But we're paranoid. We're lunatics. We're "extreme."

Used to be in this county when we proposed making an entire category of human behavior a crime, that was cause for debate. Civil libertarians on the left would join those on the right in wondering what has so changed in the past several years to require an entire new category of criminality, an entire sphere of human activity now removed from the column of "freedom" and moved to the column of "forbiddance."

But not this time. Fascism, as they say, tends to come with a smiling face, and there's hardly a face more surgically stretched into smiles than Nancy Pelosi's, quite chipper and blithe as she proposes that she will begin filling America's prisons with a whole new category of criminal, the economic saboteur.

And there is no argument about it, and no debate. We are creating an entirely new type of "crime" that could end up imprisoning millions (or -- very nearly as bad -- compelling behavior and restricting freedom due to threat of incarceration) and the entire left and the entire media (but I repeat myself) blows it off as no big deal.

It's just What Must Be Done. Omlette, eggs, some breaking required.

But I'm a paranoid and extremist to take notice of the fact that what was once my freedom in 2009 shall become a cause for imprisonment in 2010.

I have a very good friend who is a Federal Marshal. He spends his days running around catching some of the very baddest of the bad guys who are out there. And one of my deepest fears, both for him and for me, is that one day he's going to be asked to grab up one of these future healthcare scofflaws, and that one day I might be one of them.

What will each of us do on that day? I don't really know the answer, and that scares me too.

So.....

I'm starting to wonder: Would a smart investor be investing in one of those private prison companies?




h/t: Captain Ed over at HotAir.

Is it premature to ask if....

....the alternate headline here would be "Dodd Thrown Under A Bus"?

"Oversight panel to subpoena Countrywide info"

"...Oversight Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) issued a statement saying: "It is my goal to work through this matter in a bipartisan fashion and conduct a complete review of the role of mortgage companies in the current financial crisis. As part of this, we need to clarify unanswered questions about Countrywide Financial's VIP program, so I am issuing a subpoena to gather information about how that program worked and whether it provided special benefits to government officials. I am prepared to issue additional subpoenas if other companies fail to respond to our document requests."

Notably, Towns added that "the subpoena to Countrywide covers records that could show special treatment for Members of Congress," and that if such information is produced, the Oversight panel will forward it to the House ethics committee for consideration...." [my emphasis]

And, oh-by-the-way, did you notice that this announcement came on a Friday afternoon? Not that the R's aren't equally good at doing this sort of thing, but Friday afternoon is becoming an important time of the week to be paying attention to what they don't want you paying attention to.

h/t: Riehl World View.

A little late at....

....Getting to this, but Chris Muir nailed things down pretty securely with this one....

[Click image for a better view.]

The Government Can...

Who said white guys can't dance?

h/t Blob.

Some Free Political Advice from a Rank Amateur Firefighter....

On That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, I left the following update to a post in a thread basically all about the Democrat's approach to their Health Care Townhalls....

One More Point: What gives you [my liberal opponent] the right to say that the dissent I might engage in today is not sincere, but masquerading as something else? You and Zero, and SanFranNan and all the rest are on the wrong track here. You are going out of your way to marginalize an entire segment of America. You and ACORN and the SEIU thugs may not believe it, but America, as a whole, is seriously unhappy about the course that Zero has set for us. The dissent we're seeing today is far wider and far deeper than any of the anti-war dissent of the Bush years. Look at any of the youtubes out there and what do you see? Middle-aged and older folks who haven't gotten off the couch in years! Zero had--as in the past tense of "have"--a mandate. Personally, I think he could have kept his agenda even with the horrible results that the Stimulus (sic) has brought. But instead, he had to lay down an offering at the altar of Gaia and push his Cap and Tax bill through the House (unread!), followed by this disastrous Health Care reform (again, unread!). The CBO says that Zero's budget deficits (which I will kindly link to rather than attach, again) are "unsustainable". They also say that his Health Care is similarly under water before it starts. That I will illustrate.....


Source.

The Chinese are at the end of their rope, and are beginning to pull on our leash. This is why Zero's flacks are having to answer the persistent questions of whether he will renege on his pledge of no tax increases for those earning less than $250k. Geez, [My opponent's name]. Chinese students openly laugh at Geithner....to his face. Can you imagine? There are two choices here: With the spending Zero has begun and has plans for, he can tax the crap out of the American taxpayer, or he can devalue the currency. And the Chinese, owning our debt measured in our currency, would much rather see the former than the later.

You know what, [My opponent's name]? Zero doesn't need any of this. He can ram through anything he wants tomorrow, if he likes. Call Nancy and Harry and tell them to give their guys an August vacation in a remote location. No Townhalls; No "tele-meetings"; No "One-on-One meetings"; Nothing. Just close down and when they come back in September, they can do anything. But that's not what he's doing. Rather than work with those who have serious, sincere differences with his views, he and Rahmbo immediately go for the Chicago Way...."If we get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,”.

Yeah, that's a great way to win friends and influence enemies.

Sorry for the length. I meant for this to be just a small update, but "one more point" became five or six. I got on a roll. Sue me.

Ok. With that as background, here is my free political advice.....

Zero and Rahmbo and my opponent share one thing: They are East Coast elites.

Which means that they live in urbanized, or at least much more densely populated areas than we do here in the West.....

Which means that all they know about forest fires is what they watch on TV......

Which means they don't know how to put one out.

The key to putting out a forest fire is to look at a fire and say: "This 100,000 acres is ablaze, but if I ever want to contain this, I need to set some backfires out in front of where the fire is now and let it burn itself out."

Zero's Health Care Reform is ablaze. He doesn't know it yet, but it's done. Gone. Smoke.

Everything he's done so far to put out the blaze only intensifies it. The D's believe that those who oppose their plan are "a mob" who are engaged in a "right-wing assault" and while displaying "swastikas". They try to pack the House with their toadies. They scream at their constituents for asking a question. They let loose their SEIU thugs. Their answer: Shut down the Townhalls. Phone it in. Call it a "Prayer Vigil" (points for originality, though). And all of that has just served to make people angrier.

Its as though he is intentionally behind the fire fanning the flames, rather than doing something to put this thing down.

Am I the only one who thinks that....

...When these guys call me part of "the Mob", that they are offering high praise?

Also, I've gotten out of the habit of reading Peggy Noonan--she's become a bit too squishy for me--but she is spot on with this column. I have a hard time believing that the internal polling operation that I imagine any political party to have, would so miss the pulse of America so badly on a topic like Zero's Health Care Reform (sic). They haven't prepared their Congresscritters at all for what they're facing, and for now, they're making worse.

52% of America thought....

Joe Biden was a smarter VP pick than Sarah Palin. Amazing. They mocked her as "Caribou Barbie".

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

Biden is a certifiable, friggin' idiot. Zero is an even bigger idiot for picking him as his Veep. If they had any honor, the 52% of America that voted for the Zero/Biden ticket ought to be pushing for an impeachment, if for no other reason than to regain their integrity.

Told ya' so.

I'm guessing that...

...The Secretary of the Treasury will create a new
"Bureau of How-Much-You-Ought-to-be-Paid".

How long before this Bureau is not limiting itself to executive compensation? How long before companies find a way around their limitations? How long would it be before we'd see companies' talent pool go John Galt because of these limitiations? How would the Bureau be better than the Boards of Directors, the stockholders--the Market for executive talent--at determining how someone should be paid?

In short: What could possibly go wrong?

h/t OptionArmegeddon

O/T: The NYT link to the SecTreas plan to regulate executive compensation has on its sidebar this story from the "Moral of the Story" column entitled "Give Women Guns". The author, Randy Cohen, we're told has 5 Emmys, one of which he "received [...] as a result of a clerical error, and he kept it." We're also told his Moral of the Story column is one where "he will examine a news story from an ethical perspective." He is also--no kidding--a humorist.

One question: How is it ethical to keep an item gained through a clerical error? Or is that supposed to be humor?

And were I less busy this week, I might try to fisk this thing, but right now I'm overwhelmed.

Oh, Snap....

Closing Guantanamo was "a hasty decision".

Hey. What could possibly go wrong?

Should Obama Control the Internet?

h/t Hotair headlines.

The Debt Star...

Courtesy of The Smallest Minority, one of my favorite 2A and mostly libertarian, and Arizona bloggers (whom I should visit more often).

[And, BTW, the "I have altered the pool" image is one that I once used as my signature image on That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named. That kid still cracks me up.]

Peter Schiff Hedges His Opinion....

....Not.

Schiff: "Stimulus Bill Will Lead to 'Unmitigated Disaster'"

h/t Allahpundit over at Hot Air.

As if we needed further evidence...

...of our impending financial doom.

Financial Times January 28, 2009

"The US financial sector's new political masters began exercising their influence yesterday...."

Folks, there are none who have fewer qualifications to run our financial sector (or the energy sector, or the farming sector, or the manufacturing sector, or any other sector) than a "political master", and especially this current crowd.

Gawd.

You just gotta love Matt Drudge.

"We'll spend our way out of this."

Who knew? Democrats are opposed to Zero's plan!

Yes. That's what is desperately needed here. An "exit strategy".

Drudge also notes that the spokes may be coming off the wheel (to use a favorite term from an internet friend). I can't find it now, but I ran across an article yesterday making the point that the US consumer is tapped out on taking on more debt, and that others in the world (China, primarily) aren't willing to buy any of it.

Trouble approaches. Gotta get the new toy up and running, before The Apocolypse hits.

I guess I need to start an...

..."Incredibly Bad Ideas Generated by Democrats" Label.

My first candidate...

Governor to sign union measure

Gov. Janet Napolitano is prepared to sign an executive order allowing about 25,500 state employees to select union representatives who would have a seat at the table with state officials during talks regarding employee pay, working conditions, disciplinary actions and other personnel issues.

I am reminded of Hillary's "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."

There will no doubt be others to follow. We won't be able to afford those either.