Monday, February 26, 2007

2006 Republican "Disaster" - again...

As I read different commentators around the internet bemoaning all the voters who didn't vote Republican in the last election, but either withheld their vote or voted 3rd party and calling them idiots and blaming them for the disaster, let me lay this quote on you:
"I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me!"
-Ronald Reagan
That, dear reader, is what happened this past election. The Republicans left those of us who have faithfully voted for them since 1980. They turned their backs on us, took us for granted, and got their lunches handed to them for it.

And have they learned anything from their disaster? Let me put it to you this way: Giuliani. McCain. Romney. These are the Republican front runners today. All three are either partly or fully against the issues that are important to real conservatives (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to use the Founders words - which the neo-cons seem not to understand.)

Giuliani: This liberal Republican and esrstwhile cross-dresser thinks the 2nd amendment only applies to hunters. Is also pro-abortion and pro-gay "rights". But he's a "leader".

McCain: Once called religious conservatives "agents of intolerance", and thinks that restricting free-speech is what it takes to clean up political campaigns (see "McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform") now is sucking up to those same "agents of intolerance" because they vote.

Romney: You just don't know where he stands on anything. Is spending most of his time these days backpedaling from earlier positions he took on fireams ownership, gay marriage, and other topics that would typically cause conservatives to look for someone else to support. Obviously being a supposed conservative in Massachusetts you have to do some things to be a successful politician, but to me that just makes it worse. If you have convictions then stand by them even in the face of opposition and criticism. I can respect a man like that even if I don't agree with them.

Honestly, the only one with any backbone is Giuliani - at least he tells you where he stands and sticks with it. But none of them are palatable to conservatives. The only conservative that is being mentioned is Newt Gingrich and he hasn't even announced yet.

Gingrich is interesting to me, but he is such an academic that he loses people when he gets to talking on minutia and they tune him out. Plus, he has some character issues, which is why he was ousted from the House. If he came in with a simple message that resonates with everyone like he did with the "Contract with America" he could win it all.

The problem with Gingrich is that he is not a "Liberty" candidate, as he has supported and defended the "Patriot" act, one of the greatest usurpations of Liberty ever created. For that reason alone I could not vote for him.

Honestly, I would love to vote for Ron Paul, but I don't know if he will make it to the first primary, let alone be a player in the race.

So, Republicans. Here is a great sea of votes waiting for someone who is worthy of them. Will you learn from 2006 and put forward good candidates, or will you continue in your losing ways and give us the likes of Giuliani, McCain, and Romney?

We'll see.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Trolley Square

Since the Brady Bunch is once again sharing their incredible ability to deny reality with the rest of the world, I'll do my part to counteract it.

  1. Taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens (that is, those whose right to keep and bear them is confirmed [not bestowed!] by the Constitution of the United States) only creates more victims. It does NOT create safety for anyone but the criminal, who need not fear being shot by his apparent victim.
  2. This attack was stopped by a person carrying a concealed weapon. The gunman was not stopped by oratory, he was stopped by a bullet.
  3. An off-duty police officer out of his jurisdiction is the equivalent of a CCW holder. More people would have been slaughtered (yes, that is precisely the word for it) if this officer had not intervened. With his GUN!
  4. The fact that the Brady Bunch denies these common-sense facts in no way makes them less true.
  5. The attack was not stopped by the "No Weapons" sign on the door.
  6. Bravo to Officer Hammond!
Folks, here it is: firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens REDUCES crime. The mature adult accepts facts and understands the truth rather than trying to deny it. The truth is, the world is a dangerous place and the wise person understands his times and prepares to deal with them rather than living in some spaced-out world of denial.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Question of the Day

As the Socialist Administration of Michigan Governess Granholm continues to look for ways to solve the deepening budget crisis, it didn't take long for her to put tax increases on the table. She is proposing a 2% increase in the income tax, a 1% decrease in the sales tax, and an expansion of sales tax to services. So now you would pay an extra 5% for your haircut, car wash, legal fees, lawn care, snow removal, car repairs, day care, and all sorts of other services.

Kudos (sort of) to Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, who is indicating that there must be budget cuts and service cuts before even thinking about tax increases.

Which brings me to the question of the day: What is it about politicians that allows them to think that just because government exists, it must expand? That every idea they have must be codified into law and have money spent from the public treasury on it? And if there isn't enough money for their new idea, then we need a tax increase to pay for it!

At what point will these elected ones say "Our goal for this session is to not pass any new laws. We think we have enough laws and our people are regulated enough."? Now there's a novel idea! Ronald Reagan said it best: "Government isn't the solution to our problems, Government is the problem!"

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Border Patrol is looking increasingly stupid

I have been following the story the trial and conviction of Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in Texas. They have been convicted of shooting an unarmed man in the back. Oh, by the way, the shootee was transporting 700 pounds of marijuana when he was stopped by the Border Patrol agents.

Now I wasn't there, I don't know what happened, I didn't see what happened. These guys may be guilty as sin for all I know. But DHS and the Border patrol and the US Attorney are looking increasingly like they are either fools or petty tyrants.

Today's news on this story says that two agents who were there at the scene during the incident have been fired because they gave different testimony during the trial than they did to the Border Patrol investigators. These two were also given immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean. There are also chain of evidence problems with the bullet taken from the smuggler, as well as inconclusive evidence that the bullet was even fired from the pistol of the agent that hit the smuggler.

All in all, it would seem that these two agents should get a new trial, or have the conviction overturned entirely.

We'll see. The US Attorney doesn't seem to have any problem with these two being in jail.

This is just a sample of the carelessness and disregard for the truth that the investigation seems to have been conducted with.

I encourage you to go to to read the entire series of articles.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

The Governess Speaks

As is my wont, I was listening to The Paul W. Smith Show on WJR radio as I got ready for work this morning. I had to be particularly careful shaving today, because Paul was talking to Governess Granholm as I was performing that little ritual, and I tend to have forceful reactions when she is talking.

I didn't hear the entire interview, but the snippet I heard was enough to encapsulate the entire "State of the State" message last night (which I didn't listen to either, as I already know what a democrat will say: "raise taxes, more government". It never fails.).

Paul W asked a terriffic question, to the effect of "if the State is in such dire fiscal shape, why should anyone expect to, for example, have the State pay for their college tuition? Shouldn't people have to pay for that themselves?". It was a more detailed and expansive question than that, but I was never so proud of Paul W than in that moment.

The Governess' response can be summarized this way: "We're investing in our people".

What utter hogwash. Pure unmitigated socialist fantasy. Poppycock!

Voters of the State of Michigan, you did yourselves no favors when you elected and re-elected this woman. All she knows is to grab more power, steal more money, expand the nanny-state. And wrap it all up in compassionate-sounding phraseology so the doofuses will swallow it more easily.

Government invests in nothing. Government takes, by force of arms, the rewards of the labor of one person and transfers them to another who has not worked for them. Government has never created a productive job (thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats are not productive jobs), government has never produced a single product, and government has never expanded anyone's productivity. Politicians always use government to expand their influence and control over the lives of the citizens, and will do whatever they have to do to maintain themselves in that position for as long as possible.

Madam Governess - if you want investment, then cut taxes, cut the size and scope of government, and give people the opportunity to fend for themselves. They will do a much better job of it than any government program ever could.

But of course her ideology will not allow her to to accept this self-evident truth. So the people, or should I say the subjects of the State of Michigan, will bear the taxes and the consequences for years to come.

"I think we have more machinery of government than is
necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the
industrious." ---Thomas Jefferson