I assume the report is accurate. It certainly captures the spirit of an era.
Here’s what happened: A man found a trash bag in his yard. It had apparently been tossed over his fence from the public street. He opened the bag and found a firearm inside. He took it the police station. He was arrested and convicted for possessing a firearm; a crime which carries a 5-year minimum sentence.
The law is clear: A citizen cannot touch a gun. It’s a zero-tolerance law. There are no allowances for mitigating circumstances. If you see a gun, you call the authorities. If you touch it, you have no legal defense.
The mentality being inculcated in our new proto-fascist societies is that a citizen cannot think or act for himself. We need government oversight, government permission. When in doubt, ask. You see what happens to the man who takes action just because he thinks he’s acting reasonably. You wouldn’t want that to happen to you, would you? [click to continue…]
It’s heartwarming when soldiers return from the field of battle to be reunited with their loved ones. Of course I wouldn’t want to understate the importance of the homecoming with regard to wives and children and the like. But the pièce de résistance is the reunion with the family pooch. Could anyone possibly disagree?
I’ve bumped this old post in light of the Obama administration’s shocking decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in a New York civilian court. Does anyone remember what happened the last time we tried this? Also, see David Horowitz’s editorial, “The Worst Decision by a US President in History”:
The decision to try the jihadists in a civilian court is also a decision which will divulge America’s security secrets to the enemy since civilian courts afford defendants the right of discovery. It is also a propaganda gift to Islamic murderers who will turn the courtroom into a media circus to promote their hatred against the Great Satan — a hatred shared by their apologists at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the pro-Castro Center for Constitutional Rights who have pioneered the campaign against Guantanamo and whose influence in the Obama Administration is pervasive. (BTW, The newly appointed lawyer for the president is the husband of Obama’s recently departed Maoist communications director Anita Dunn.)
Does anybody remember Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman? He was the blind Egyptian cleric who was associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He was plotting numerous additional bomb attacks, which were thankfully prevented by his 1993 arrest and 1995 conviction. So we left him to rot in jail, and that was that.
Not quite. The Sheik was represented by radical lawyer Lynne Stewart, who was always ready to defend the constitutional rights of the scum of the earth. As part of her services, Stewart carried secret communications from the isolated Sheik Abdel-Rahman to his followers between 1997 and 2002. These included instructions to initiate a campaign of terror in Egypt. Last year Stewart, along with two others, were convicted of conspiring to materially assist terrorists. Her sentencing is next month, and she is, of course, claiming hardship due to age and infirmity. And as you can imagine, she is receiving encouragement and support from the usual suspects.
Certain classes of evil people must simply vanish away into a pit, never to be heard from again. Yes, this gives a dangerous degree of power to the government. But when there is danger on every path, we must choose between trusting the American government and trusting the Lynne Stewarts of the world.
When it came out in 1997, Titanic, with a production budget of $200 million, was the most expensive film ever made. Avatar is apparently the new high-cost film. Wikipedia lists a production (as opposed to promotion and distribution) budget of $230 million. Other reports (see this discussion) suggest it cost more like $300 million to make. The number $500 million is also tossed around, although I think that includes promotion and distribution costs.
Anyway, I watched the trailer for the film, and it went something like this: A paralyzed military guy gets patched up by the army and put in control of the body of an alien (an “avatar”, get it?) so he can go to the aliens’ home planet and kill the natives and steal their mineral wealth. But then he meets a scantily-clad girl alien who makes him wonder whether maybe it’s wrong to rape and pillage and murder for the benefit of the military industrial complex and big corporations. What will he do now? Oh, anguish!
The film ends with President Obama withdrawing American forces and apologizing to the space aliens for the shoot-down at Roswell.
Okay, I made that last part up. But the trailer seemed so hackneyed and formulaic and politically sanitized that I was left with zero desire to see the film. The special effects are great, but are the characters more than stereotypes? It doesn’t look like it.
Here’s the trailer. What do you think? I won’t be offended if you disagree; all the facts aren’t in, and there’s no accounting for taste. I’ll be curious how the reviews go when the film comes out on December 18.
By the way, that 2012 movie was going to include a scene in which the Grand Mosque in Mecca is destroyed, but the director backed off out of fear of he’d be killed. Radical Islamists are very sensitive about the idea, even in a fictional context, of stuff getting blown up by anyone other than themselves.
Even though I’m a heartless, selfish conservative, I want to do my part to help alleviate unemployment and lessen the trade deficit. If I’m making a purchase, I’d rather buy American if possible. I feel a particular obligation to seek an American option when buying a gift or luxury item, because these are purchases I could forgo if they’re not pleasing in every way.
Speaking of footwear, I’m usually wearing my New Balance 993’s (available on Amazon and elsewhere). These, and a few other New Balance shoes, are American-made.
Of course, the problems of the deficit and unemployment are not going to be solved by a few of us swimming against the current, and it would be naïve to say otherwise. So this isn’t our salvation, but it’s a way of making a statement that I think the nation needs to hear.
I feel like a broken record, but it’s a vital point. The Constitution is a specific enumeration of what the government is allowed to do. Our modern leadership instead proceeds on the tyrannical assumption that they can do whatever they want.
The linked editorial touches on the legal argument with respect to the mandated purchase of insurance. I can’t fully comprehend the the gory details (I’m not a lawyer), but you see the unprecedented nature of the intrusion. Under what other circumstances do you become a criminal just for existing and failing to purchase a mandated item? By way of example, you’re compelled (by your state) to buy car insurance…but you made the choice to buy a car. Obviously you’re compelled to pay taxes…but then, this isn’t a tax; Obama promised not to tax you, so it can’t be a tax.
I cannot see how the same Court that struck down the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 2000 on Commerce Clause grounds would accept the limitless federal power represented in the individual mandate…
…[The] mandate [to purchase insurance] is absolutely without precedent in our nation. This point has been clearly made by the well-respected and nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service.
And for the reasons I explain elsewhere, this mandate is grossly unconstitutional.
The key here that no one refutes is this: When the Court struck down VAWA in the case U.S. v. Morrison, at least there was an action (a violent act against a woman). And in every case where the Court has upheld a law under the Commerce Clause, it has involved an economic action, even in the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn that set the outermost limit of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
Here, there is no action. The federal government would penalize — and perhaps prosecute — people who are doing nothing at all. Regulating an action is different from coercing an action. If the justices would not allow violent acts against women to be a federal issue, they are not likely to allow people sitting peacefully in their homes to be subject to federal power. It would be a radical expansion of federal law into people’s lives.
My main objection to health control is fear of the life-and-death power that government will ultimately hold over individual citizens, as well as looming national bankruptcy. Our Constitution was designed to protect us from such government overreach and centralization of power.
Here’s the way it works, as I understand it (and this is not my area of expertise, so correct me if I’m wrong). The Speaker has a strategic advantage, in that she can bring a bill up for a vote when she’s ready…that is to say, when she’s got commitments for the necessary votes. So the vote will be delayed until/unless the outcome is known and favorable.
Pressure is brought to bear upon wavering votes. As I’ve noted, the party machine has many ways to bring an erring member into line. You can lose committee status or you can simply lose perks.
On the positive side, you can be promised goodies in exchange for your vote. You’ll get your bridge, your library, whatever. Maybe you’ll even get your name on it. You can go home to your district and claim you brought home the bacon. This is very good for your re-election prospects. The individual Congressmen know how to work the system.
Giving away goodies can get very expensive, of course. It’s impossible to rein in the deficit when Washington is free with commitments. Being frugal makes one unpopular in Washington. Fiscal responsibility may be good for the nation, but it’s bad politics. That’s why fiscal irresponsibility has especially ruled the day when the Dems ran the whole show or when the Reps ran the whole show. A balance of power has the advantage of each faction blocking the other’s stupid boondoggles.
Obama is pulling out all the stops to push this through. This probably means big political debts. So, although there will be pledges of fiscal responsibility to accompany this bill, in fact the budget-busting health control plan will probably result in reduced fiscal restraint on other fronts. Additional political debts will inevitably translate into bigger public debt. We’re accelerating into the train wreck.
“Here’s what our health insurance reform legislation will mean to American families, workers, and the economy. [To heckler:] Thank you, insurance companies of America. [Laughter and applause.]
“This is why this legislation is important: affordability for our middle-class that lowers costs for every patient, reins in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, limits out of pocket costs, and lifts the cap on what insurance companies cover each year. Affordability for the middle-class and security for our seniors. By strengthening Medicare, it secures the financial stability and solvency of Medicare for years to come, provides seniors with better benefits and guaranteed access to their doctors. And in this legislation, we will immediately begin to close the donut hole. [click to continue…]
President Barack Obama said Friday the U.S. will overturn a 22-year-old travel and immigration ban against people with HIV early next year. The order will be finalized on Monday, Obama said, completing a process begun during the Bush administration.
Which diseases should be a basis to bar entry to America, either as a visitor or an immigrant? The major ailments on the current list are HIV, tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, and leprosy. The recent movement has been to remove HIV from the list, on the logic that it’s treatable (although not curable) and not easily transmitted.
On the other hand, there’s certainly a real cost to taxpayers and a real risk to citizens.
Immigration critics say they’re leery of the proposal that could allow an average of 4,275 HIV-infected people into the country annually, with a lifetime medical cost of about $94 million for those admitted during the first year, according to CDC estimates published this month in the Federal Register. [click to continue…]
The size of Bernie Madoff’s theft is astronomical. It makes you wonder how someone could get away with a deception of such monstrous proportions. It also makes you question the efficacy (or perhaps the integrity) of the watchdogs.
If it makes you feel any better, the phenomenon of the silver-tongued deceiver is not a new one. Ivar Kreuger, the “Match King”, set the bar in the first half of the twentieth century. Kreuger built an incredible empire worth more than a hundred billion of today’s dollars.
I recently happened to pick up one of the many books about Kreuger (this one, if you really want to know). It includes an introduction by John Kenneth Galbraith. He notes that the book dramatizes the three great weakness of the financial community. I think his warning bears repeating, in that it is timeless and applies to all walks of life. Reading these words, penned in 1960, I couldn’t help but think of Bernie Madoff and of course of Barack Obama.
Galbraith’s three points:
First of all, there is a tendency to confuse good manners, good tailoring, and, above all, an impressive bearing and speech with integrity and intelligence. Kreuger was an extraordinarily competent actor who had discovered that a quiet forceful manner plus the ability to remember and recite the latest banality about the international economic situation were sufficient to win him the respect of the very best men.
Thus they rope us in.
There is also a troublesome and at times disastrous interdependence. The honest man becomes committed to the crook before he knows there is anything wrong. Then he must protect him to protect himself or, in the more usual case, refuse to believe there is anything wrong. [Kreuger's financial] partners were almost certainly honest men. And while they were unduly impressionable, they were, perhaps, not totally gullible. But after a certain time they could no longer afford to believe that Kreuger was a fraud. Despite repeated indications that there was something rotten to the north of Denmark, they denied the evidence of their eyes and ears.
Once we’re in, we find ourselves psychologically trapped.
Thirdly, there is the dangerous cliché that in the financial world everything depends on confidence. One could better argue the importance of unremitting suspicion. Kreuger made his career by exploiting the men who had confidence; he was brought down by the men who were trained to take nothing for granted. They would have got him earlier and with less damage done if they had not been restrained by those who thought it a betrayal of the canons of financial confidence to ask questions.
At the end, we’ve become just another agent of darkness, working, knowingly or unknowingly, in opposition to the good.
Our wisdom must be our shield against starting down the bad pathway in the first place. Because once started, it’s very hard to go back.
Okay, boys and girls, let’s test your knowledge of basic economics.
Imagine there’s an apple market where everyone goes to buy apples. And then a stranger appears and buys a significant portion of the apples. What happens at the marketplace?
If you answered that the ordinary buyers have to scramble for apples, and they would pay a higher price, then you’re a lot smarter than Congress and the President.
In her search for a cheap, used minivan for her and her husband, Krissy Dieroff has visited seven dealerships across Berks and Schuylkill counties in the last week, but to no avail.
“There’s not much to pick from, and the ones we do find are overpriced,” said Dieroff of Auburn, Schuylkill County, while browsing the lot of a city dealership on Monday.
Dieroff blames the shortage of inexpensive used cars on the federal cash-for-clunkers program, in which almost 700,000 used vehicles were traded in for newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and then scrapped.
Some local used car dealers specializing in vehicles priced $5,000 and under agreed that there are fewer inexpensive vehicles available.
The trend is occurring nationally as well.
The Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index reported that prices reached record highs in September. The consulting firm that publishes the index blamed low inventories.
That’s bad news in Berks, where many shoppers seek inexpensive, used vehicles, especially during difficult economic times, said George Tabakelis, general manager of Perry Auto Service & Sales on Route 61 in Perry Township.
“Customers used to be able to find a good car for their son or daughter to take to college for $2,000 or $3,000, but now that same car may cost $5,000,” Tabakelis said. “It’s sad.”
Bad news for people seeking cheap used cars. Bad news for the national debt. But good news for Japanese automakers. More importantly, good news for some UAW workers and a few new car dealers. And the momentary uptick in auto sales generates a useful headline.
Good news for foreigners and politically connected cronies. Bad news for struggling citizens and taxpayers. There’s your “hope and change”.
Bonus question: What’s your reward for understanding the foregoing?
Answer: The White House and Congressional leadership publicly proclaim you a racist, greedy, illicitly rich, bitter, dangerous, racist, swastika-carrying paid shill for big corporations. Because those are the only possible reasons for anyone to voice objection to the enlightened programs being cooked up in Washington. And did I mention you’re a racist?
I have great respect for the artistic talent of the movie-making Coen brothers. Their latest film, currently in limited theatrical release, is “A Serious Man”.
The film observes an American Jewish community, focusing mainly on the trials and tribulations of one Larry Gopnik. Or then again, maybe it’s a movie about Schrödinger’s cat.
Sounds fascinating, eh? Would it be surprising if I were to report the film is rather mundane? And yet…
“No Country for Old Men” was both deep and accessible (meaning you could watch it and enjoy it without necessarily being a pseudointellectual elitist). Its villain was particularly compelling. There’s something fascinating about evil personified. [click to continue…]
A post by Maynard
