CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE: here to stay?


I certainly hope so. Follow the link for budget details.

HEH. NASA wins the Shorty Award for best government Twitter account: "... name another agency that promises you the moon(s) and delivers".

A QUARTER-CENTURY LATER, the F-22 is finally ready for combat. But, but, but ... we were promised that 'spiral development' would lead to faster, more efficient development cycles.

Which is true in a commercial environment -- think of Apple's iPad, where the bells-and-whistles were added in iPad versions 2 and 3. But in military development, less than full capability puts the initial pilots at additional risk.

DEMOCRATS: Let's demonize the oil companies.

GOOD LORD! The Ryan Plan vs. the President’s Budget.


Compared to the President's Budget, the Ryan Plan constitutes about a 1% annual reduction in spending. And the Democrats consider that catastrophic? Scaled to my budget, a 1% reduction in spending is pocket change -- not even cigarette money.

And Heaven knows I could stand to quit smoking....

FLYING ROBOTS deliver tacos to your location.

"A Web site has popped up at TacoCopter.com that offers a unique service: tacos airlifted directly to your doorstep via unmanned quadcopter drone. Here’s the idea: customers download a smartphone app, which allows them to order tacos to a specific location. The tacos then arrive via flying quadcopter. Tipping your delivery drone is presumably optional."

WORLD'S LARGEST paper airplane takes flight over Arizona.



Here's another video look showing the crash at the end of the flight.

THE EWOK DANCES: Keith Olbermann fired.

Keith who?

IT'S THE TOPPINGS: How health 'insurance' is like pizza.

NICE SUPREME COURT YOU HAVE THERE. It Would Be A Shame If Something Happened To It.

More Democrat threats.

WHY PROGRESSIVE 'SOCIAL ENGINEERING' doesn't work:

These days the experts, “social entrepreneurs” and smart young blue twenty somethings fresh out of the Ivy League whomp up social programs with as much verve and dedication as their New Deal and Great Society predecessors, but the new Dreamliners don’t take off. At most they roll around the runway, emitting clouds of noxious smoke; wings fall off, windows pop out, turbines misfire and the tires go flat.

No engineers.

Read the comments. I particularly liked this one.

HEALTH INSURANCE does not automatically equal health care.

OBAMA'S GOAL is to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY? Just wait until ObamaCare kicks in.


And you thought Obama didn't/wouldn't raise taxes.

VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN CUCCINELLI on Day Three of the Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare:

Today was the third and final day of the three-day healthcare hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court, and as promised, I wanted to offer you my reflections on today's hearing.

Today's arguments were divided into two separate sessions. The Court heard arguments regarding severability first. In a separate session, the Court heard the States' claim that PPACA's Medicaid expansion represented unconstitutional coercion of the States under the spending power of the constitution. I will address each session in turn.

SEVERABILITY

As those of you who have been following the various challenges know, the severability issue will only come into play if the Court finds a portion of the law unconstitutional. If the Court finds that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it will strike that portion of the law. When it does so, the Court must also determine if the remainder of the law (or at least certain pieces of it) must also be struck down. To the extent that the Court allows other portions of the law to stand, they are said to have "severed" the unconstitutional portion of the law from what it lets stand as law.

Interestingly, as it did regarding the AIA on Monday, the Court did not just hear from lawyers representing the States and the federal government. The Court appointed a lawyer to argue that if the individual mandate is struck down the rest of the law should be allowed to continue in full force and effect.

The appointment of a lawyer to make this argument was necessary because the federal government has made a significant concession regarding severability. The federal government conceded in the all of the cases prior to the Supreme Court that, if the mandate were held unconstitutional, PPACA's provisions regarding community rating and guaranteed issue (essentially that the insurance companies have to insure someone no matter what problems they have or what risks they face) must also fall because they cannot work without the individual mandate. Interestingly, the first time the federal government made this concession was in our case here in Virginia.

So there were three basic positions argued. The States argued that individual mandate is so central to the law that the whole law must be struck down if the mandate is unconstitutional. The federal government argued that, if the mandate is unconstitutional, the mandate and the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions must be struck down, but the rest of the law may stand. Finally, Mr. Farr, the lawyer appointed by the Court, argued that, if the mandate is unconstitutional, only the mandate should be struck down.

Monday's argument about the Anti-Injunction Act was about legal procedure. Tuesday was about constitutional theory and the relationship between citizens and the federal government. Today's arguments regarding severability were all about practical, real world effects. If the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional, what happens next? What's the proper remedy?

From the beginning, it was clear that the justices were interested in the practical effect of striking down the mandate.

The best example of a justice being concerned with the practical effect of a ruling may have been Justice Kagan, who noted that if the mandate is found unconstitutional, but the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions are left in place, that creates a large problem. She said: "Once you say that the insurance companies have to cover all of the sick people and all of the old people, the rates climb. More and more young people and healthy people say, why should we participate, we can just get it later when we get sick. So they leave the market, the rates go up further, more people leave the market, and the whole system crashes and burns, becomes unsustainable."

While it's always dicey to try and guess the outcome from questions at oral argument, all of the justices who asked questions seemed to have this same basic concern over just striking the mandate and leaving the rest of the law in place. However, there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to whether that meant that, in addition to the mandate, just the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions should be struck down or whether the whole law should be struck down.

In asking their questions about severability, all of the justices agreed that the Court must respect Congressional prerogatives, but their questions suggested two very different views of how best to do that.

Some of the justices, particularly Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg, seemed to suggest that the best way to show respect to Congress was to only strike limited portions of PPACA and nothing else.

Others suggested that, to truly show deference to Congress, the Court would need to strike the entire law because, to do otherwise, would be to leave Congress with a law they never passed or even intended to pass. Justice Kennedy said that if the Court struck down the mandate, but left the rest of the law standing, "we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than . . . striking the whole."

Justice Scalia seemed to echo this view, stating that "My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone. That enables Congress. . . . to do what it wants . . . . It seems to me it reduces our options the most and increases Congress's the most."

Justice Scalia also pointed out that the severability issue in this case was unlike any case that had come before the Court previously. He noted that the previous severability cases did not deal with the primary purposes of a statute, but generally, dealt with ancillary issues. However, he said that there is no case where the Court has found the "heart" of a law unconstitutional and left the remainder standing, stating: "This is really a case of first impression. I don't know another case where we have been confronted . . . with this decision."

I caution everyone not to read too much into the questions that justices asked about severability in trying to predict whether or not the Court is likely to find the individual mandate unconstitutional. In its opinion, the Court will only reach the issue of severability if some portion of the law is held to be unconstitutional. Thus, all of the questions about severability necessarily assumed that some provision of the law will be found unconstitutional. So, you can't assume that a justice is leaning towards striking down the law simply because of the way he or she asked a question about severability.

MEDICAID COERCION

Today's second session dealt with the States' Medicaid coercion argument. The argument is that because States are so heavily invested in the Medicaid program they are forced or "coerced" to accept the Medicaid expansion in PPACA because, if they do not, Secretary Sebelius could stop them from receiving any Medicaid funds from the federal government, causing financial ruin for the States.

The coercion theory is grounded in a few Supreme Court cases, most recently South Dakota v. Dole, which was decided in the 1980s. The issue in that case was the federal government conditioning the States receiving a small portion (7 percent) of the federal highway dollars that they would otherwise receive on States raising their legal drinking age to 21. The Court held that this was a proper use of Congress's spending power because the States could keep their drinking age at 18 if they were willing to forego the federal money.

However, in issuing its decision, the Court noted that seven percent of the federal highway money was a relatively small amount. The Court, relying on cases dating back to the 1930s, noted that there might be a situation where the amount of money involved was so large that the States would be forced into accepting the conditions. If such a situation ever arose, the Court indicated that the law might constitute unconstitutional coercion of the States.

While the theory of unconstitutional coercion is well known, the modern Court has never found a situation where it actually existed. Today's argument was really about whether such a case could ever exist or is the theory of unconstitutional coercion an academic theory that will never have practical effect.

The questions from the justices pretty much covered all of the possibilities. Some of the justices clearly suggested that so long as the States have the right to refuse the federal money, they are not being coerced. Others seemed to suggest with their questions that, given how much States have come to depend on federal Medicaid dollars, we may have finally found a case where the coercion threshold had been met.

Justice Scalia asked the Solicitor General if the federal government could identify even a hypothetical example of what would constitute unconstitutional coercion. Citing a 1911 case about the location of Oklahoma's state capital, the Solicitor General indicated that Congress could not condition the receipt of federal funds on a State moving its capital. Wow.

Chief Justice Roberts also pressed the federal government on the coercion question, seeking examples of what would go too far. However, he was also critical of the States' position, noting that, to some extent, the States reliance on Medicaid is a problem of their own making. Justice Roberts said: "Well, why isn't that a consequence of how willing [the States] have been since the New Deal to take the Federal government's money? And it seems to me that [the States] have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the Federal government has done, they should not be surprised that the Federal government having . . . tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised if the Federal government isn't going to start pulling them." Again, wow. But this one hurts in part because of the truth in it.

For me, one of the most significant comments on the Medicaid issue came from Justice Alito. As those of you who have followed our efforts from the beginning know, I have repeatedly said that this case is not about health care, it's about liberty. The decision in this case will determine whether federalism - a bulwark of liberty - survives as a tool to preserve our liberty. While noting that the federal government might be correct in its argument, Justice Alito said that, if Congress can condition the receipt of all federal funds on accepting all federal strings no matter what those strings are, "then there is nothing left of federalism."

As I have said before, it is risky to try and guess the outcome based on the questions asked at oral argument (even three days worth of oral argument). The three days of argument have generated lots of things to think about, and I will be reflecting on all of it over the next few days. Once I have chewed on these last three days, I will probably write another Compass giving you my impressions of the whole week taken together.

While I still make no predictions on what the Court is likely to do, I have been cautiously optimistic since we filed the first challenge to PPACA. This week has left me more encouraged about our prospects then I have been to date. I still believe that the positions we have taken, and that our sister States have taken, are consistent with the Constitution and the foundational principles of this great nation.

You can hear my audio summary of today's hearings by clicking here.

Here are links to Cuccinelli's thoughts on Day Two and Day One.

MICHAEL BARONE: It's not morning in America.

IT'S BEGINNING TO LOOK like the 'civil' Left may have overreacted in the Trayvon Martin shooting death case.

More reason for 'journalists' to shut up and do their homework first.

HOW MUCH MONEY would it take for you to give up the internet for a year? I think I'd charge more than average, but I'd be better off if I just gave it up for free....

WHAT'S THE GOVERNMENT TO DO? A large branch from a tree in my back yard fell due to the high winds we experiened over the last few days. The branches dug holes of 3 and 4 inches deep when they hit.

I'm sure that OSHA - if it had the ability to do so - would declare my back yard a safety hazard and either restrict access to only people wearing hard hats or require that all the trees be cut down. On the other hand, I'm equally sure that - again, given the power - the EPA would require the trees to be kept, and more planted to absorb CO2 and prevent global warming.

President Obama would solve the dilemma by issuing an executive order that "henceforth all winds over US territory shall be limited to 20 knots".

MSNBC'S UNBIASED FACT-CHECKER: Obama Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

PAUL RYAN'S BUDGET won't hurt the poor; it will help them out of poverty.

VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN CUCCINELLI on Day Two of the Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare:

Today was the second day of the three-day healthcare hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court, and as promised, I wanted to offer you my reflections on today's hearing.

Today the Court heard two hours of argument on the individual mandate - the heart of the federal health care law. It was exciting and modestly encouraging today in the courtroom.

Let me note at the outset that I am a litigator, and any good litigator will tell you their own stories of having been in court and having the feeling that things were going their way, only to see the court rule against them in the final order. So, while today went well for the limited government side, it always comes with the foregoing caveat born of experience.

The federal government went first in the person of Solicitor General Verelli. He was up for almost an hour, followed by Paul Clement for half an hour on behalf of the states, and Mike Carvin for half an hour on behalf of the NFIB.

Previous Compass readers will recall that this argument has two parts: the most important is the argument whether or not the mandate is permissible under Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce; the federal government's fallback argument is that the penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government-mandated insurance is a tax for constitutional purposes (a position that Justice Scalia quietly called "extraordinary" at the end of the SG's argument).

Justice Kennedy spoke early and asked the SG if the federal government could order people into commerce in order to regulate them. And thus began more quasi-answers (like yesterday) by the federal government, as the SG said "that's not what's happening here."

Gradually the SG was directly confronted with the main challenge the feds had in court today, namely, to identify some limiting constitutional principle regarding federal power if the mandate was in fact constitutional.

The SG identified two circumstances that he said demonstrated the uniqueness of the health care (I'm going to say "HC" for short) market that would restrict 'mandates' from spreading to the other areas of the economy. First, he said that HC was unique because big, unaffordable costs could hit someone without insurance unexpectedly; and Second, those costs would be shifted to others if the person couldn't afford to pay those costs.

Somewhat amusingly, Justice Alito noted that burial costs were expensive and could hit one unexpectedly as well. He further noted that if he was too poor to pay his own costs and hadn't prepared for his burial, he would still certainly be buried, and those costs would in turn be shifted to others either by raising everyone else's burial costs if the buriers had to absorb those costs, or we'd all pay higher taxes if the government bore those costs.

The Chief Justice had his own examples handy.

The SG more or less simply insisted that HC was unique.

The old standbys of the fed's being able to order you to buy a car or broccoli came up too.

My strong sense is that the federal government failed to overcome its main hurdle of the day, namely, to articulate some limitation to federal power if the mandate was constitutional.

Justice Kennedy noted that the mandate was unique in light of its affirmative requirement of a citizen to purchase something, and that would appear to alter the relationship between the government and individuals in a "fundamental way." This is a powerful and deeply philosophical statement that I take great comfort in.

It is a point that we have been making repeatedly, and it goes deeper than just this piece of legislation. It is akin to my consistent comment that this case is not about HC, it's about liberty. And I believe the fundamental change Justice Kennedy was speaking of was one that dramatically reduces citizens' liberty.

At several points, Justice Kagan threw the SG what I thought were 'lifelines.' She seemed to advance the notion strongly that this is just ordinary regulation of a national market, and it's just a question of timing - of 'when' the feds apply regulation. Justice Kagan seemed to base her assertion on the notion that we are all in, or will be in, the HC market.

Justice Scalia roughly hammered on what market was actually being regulated. He noted to the SG that 'you are talking about HC, but you're regulating insurance.'

The Chief Justice played off that discussion a bit by noting that the feds were trying to solve the problems in the HC market by regulating insurance. Thus, even if the HC market were unique, what's to stop the feds from coming back later with some other mandate that was not related to insurance but that was rationalized as helping out with the HC problem?

The Chief Justice also noted wryly that if the Court allows the mandate, 'you'll just be back with something else that's unique' later.

Justice Breyer referred to the opinion of former Scalia clerk and now 6th Circuit Judge Sutton who ruled the mandate constitutional, and noted his two pages of alleged government compulsions. To which Mike Carvin simply said 'none of them apply.'

Never before has the federal government ordered us to buy a product under the guise of regulating commerce.

Justice Breyer also played off one of Justice Kennedy's exchanges with the SG, and pressed the SG to concede that if they could compel this under the commerce clause, then the feds could compel other purchases too. This revealed one of the numerous difficulties of the federal position. Justice Breyer's tone strongly suggested he thought the SG's position should be that the feds could order us all to make government-directed purchases under the commerce power, but the SG knew that would be a deep hole with many of the Justices and he wouldn't go there.

The SG's problem is that Justice Breyer was actually pushing him toward a much more consistent position. And it was the logical position for the SG, but it didn't suit his more limited goals in this case - goals that have left him desperately trying to find some way to treat insurance for health care as totally unique from everything else on earth.

He simply did not pull it off, and while Justice Breyer may vote his way, I don't think Justice Breyer will agree with the SG's argument re the mandate.

The Justices also heard argument about whether the the penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government-mandated health care was a tax. There was much less discussion of this, frankly, because I think it is seen as a far-fetched argument... I would call it radical.

If all the feds have to do to bring a directive under the taxing power is fine you if you fail to do it, then they can order you to do anything that doesn't conflict with some other constitutional protection.

That argument is going nowhere.

As a final sign that the tax argument is going nowhere, Justice Ginsberg reiterated her statement from yesterday that taxes are designed to raise revenues, but penalties are to compel behavior, and if the penalty works perfectly (i.e., everyone buys the health insurance), the penalty will raise no revenue at all. I.e., there's no way it's a tax.

No Justice gave any particular indication that they were ready to defend the penalty=tax position.

Thus my conclusion that it's going nowhere.

I left court today happier than when I arrived.

Tomorrow morning, the Court will hear argument on the severability of the individual mandate (i.e., the remedy if the mandate is found unconstitutional); and tomorrow afternoon they will hear the 4th and final argument regarding whether the massive medicaid burdens foisted on the states under the health care law are so onerous as to amount to unconstitutional coercion by the feds of the states under the spending power.

Unconstitutional coercion of the states using the spending power has never been found to exist by the Court, but if this isn't the case for it, I don't know what is.

You can hear my audio summary of the day by clicking here.

From my email.

VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN CUCCINELLI on Day One of the Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare:

Today was the first day of the three-day healthcare hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court, and as promised, I wanted to offer you my reflections on today's hearing.

Today the Court heard 90 minutes of argument on the Anti-Injunction Act ("AIA"). The AIA was enacted in 1867 to require any lawsuits challenging tax statutes to happen only after the taxes are paid; i.e., pay first, then sue. The rationale is that it's important to keep the tax revenues flowing without nuisance lawsuits getting in the way, and the national government can pay back any necessary taxes and interest on those relatively rare occasions when it loses such a suit.

Two years ago, the federal government was arguing that the AIA barred the lawsuits challenging the federal healthcare bill, but they have since changed position to agree with the states that the AIA should not apply to bar this case.

Even if the AIA applied and the case was dismissed, it would not be a judgment on the merits of the lawsuit - i.e., it wouldn't be a judgment about whether the individual mandate is constitutional or not. So, we'd all be back in three years after folks refused to pay the penalty.

Can you imagine the destruction that would be caused by three more years of uncertainty about whether or not the federal healthcare law is constitutional? I'd rather not contemplate it.

It's always a bit dicey to read too much into oral argument, but the tone and focus of the justices' questions and comments gave me the strong impression that they will not throw the case out without reaching the merits.

The moment the case began, Justice Kennedy was immediately on the front edge of his seat, but Justice Scalia got the first question in... followed closely by Justice Kennedy. Pretty soon all of the justices were firing away (except Justice Thomas, as he famously does not ask questions during oral argument).

Some of the most interesting exchanges came from some unexpected directions. And there was some spill-forward into tomorrow's hearing regarding the individual mandate as it relates to the feds' tax argument.

Today also saw a lawyer appointed by the Supreme Court itself arguing that the AIA bars the case from going forward.

It is fairly common for the Court to appoint a lawyer to argue a position that no party in the case is advancing, but I cannot remember a case in which the Court appointed two such lawyers. The second Supreme Court appointed lawyer will argue on Wednesday regarding the severability of the individual mandate (more on that Wednesday night).

Justice Breyer was the first to ask a tax question that clearly will tie in to tomorrow's arguments. Quite simply, as it relates to the penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government-mandated health insurance, Justice Breyer asked simply "why is this a tax?"

While addressing the U.S. Solicitor General, Justice Alito noted words to the effect that 'today you are arguing the penalty is not a tax, so the AIA shouldn't come into play, but tomorrow you'll be here arguing that the penalty is a tax.' He clearly had a problem with that set of arguments, and he wasn't alone.

Justice Sotomayor noted a series of exceptions or exemptions from the AIA, and wanted to know if there was ever a case where something was found to be a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the AIA. No such case was cited.

This is consistent with the federal government's inconsistency (did you follow that?). In this particular case, both the states and the feds agree the AIA should not apply, and today's discussion seemed to suggest the Court is headed in that direction. However, the states and the feds come to their conclusions differently, and once again, the feds rely on words meaning one thing here, and another thing there.

Wouldn't it be nice if words meant the same thing every time? Words like "tax," "penalty," and "economic activity." To you and me maybe, but not the federal government.

Regarding the tax question, Justice Ginsberg noted that the penalty was to induce compliance with the mandate, not to raise revenue (generally, to be a tax, an act must be intended to raise revenue generally). Justice Ginsberg went on to note that because the penalty was to back up the compulsion to buy insurance, it wasn't a tax.

I'll finish today's walk-through with what I thought was the most interesting exchange of the day, and it was between Justice Kagan and the SG. Justice Kagan posed the following scenario and question: "If someone didn't buy the mandated insurance, and paid the penalty, then later was answering a question about whether they had ever violated a federal law, what would the answer be?" The SG, in a decidedly unconfident manner answered "No."

Think about that. The feds mandate you have to buy insurance, but if you don't obey that mandate, you have not broken the law? Again, this illustrates the incredible inconsistencies undertaken by the feds.

Assuming that the AIA does not bar the case - an outcome I expect - then they will reach the question of the constitutionality of the mandate itself... and that is what will be argued for two hours tomorrow.

This really is the heart of the case, and it goes to the outer limits of already-expansive federal power.

If the federal government can order you to buy health insurance, then there's nothing to stop them from ordering you to buy a car, asparagus, or a gym membership (the very examples used by the district court judge in Virginia's case). That's why I say this case is not about health care or health insurance, it's about liberty.

On a separate note, it's worth recognizing that today's subject matter - the AIA - is in many ways the most confusing subject in the case. After you read my analysis of all three days, I think you'll see what I mean.

If you'd like to hear the audio briefing I gave to Virginia media today, click here.

Tomorrow I will again be in the courtroom taking notes to share with you in The Compass.

From my email.

SIGN OF THE TIMES: City-funded activist group teaches homeless how to invade (unoccupied) apartments.

Next it will be occupied apartments.

EVERYTHING OLD is new again.

ENVIRONMENTALISTS: We love wind power -- except when the turbine blades are moving.

JUST STOP LYING. How the Left can shut down Rush Limbaugh.

ALIENS ATTACK; Republicans to blame.

MITT ROMNEY: "I Don’t mean to be flip with this, but I don’t see how a young American can vote for a Democrat.’’ He cheerfully apologized to anyone who might find such a comment 'offensive', but went on to explain. The Democratic Party “is focused on providing more and more benefits to my generation, mounting trillion-dollar annual deficits my generation will never pay for.’’

He's right. I won't be paying -- hell, I'm receiving -- and those of you under 30 and your children will stuck with a poverty-inducing debt burden that will last for the rest of your lives.

Read it all.

DUDE, where’s my hate crime?

LAST FRONTIER WOMEN don’t tolerate misogynists: "If these misogynists [read Bill Maher] said one of their disgusting comments up here in person to an 'Alaskan chick,'” they would have to replace their veneered teeth."

HOW'S THAT hopey-changey stuff working out? Follow the link to this Mark Steyn piece:

I get asked with distressing frequency by Americans where I would recommend fleeing to. The reality is, given the dollar’s decline over the last decade, that most Americans can no longer afford to flee to any place worth fleeing to. What’s left is the non-flee option: taking a stand here, stopping the spendaholism, closing federal agencies, privatizing departments, block-granting to the states — not in 2040, but now. “Suddenly” is about to show up.

Irresistable force, meet immoveable object. It's going to get ugly.

ANSWERING THE CALL FOR CIVILITY: Twitter explodes with Cheney hate following heart transplant.

MORE MONEY FOR LAWYERS! Fewer people swimming! Higher hotel room charges! These are a few of the things we get from the 80,000 pages of new government regulations we got this year. What gripes me is that we have to have Congress write laws (follow the link) to prevent regulatory agencies from doing stupid things when it could perform a post-natal abortion on them.

TODAY IN WASHINGTON: The rally for nothing in particular.

OBAMA ISN'T A FAILURE, PER SE. No, he's a failure, in toto.

JOHN STOSSEL: "It's not about electing the right people. It's about narrowing [the government's] responsibilities." The book is here.

iCANDY: geek technology from the IEEE.

THE BEST REASON for killing ObamaCare: "Freedom saves twice as much money as bureaucracy—and with 100 percent less rationing."

LOS ANGELES POLICE will ignore the state's impound rule because they say it limits ability for illegals to get to work. Wasn't that the purpose of the rule?

IT'S OBAMACARE'S SECOND BIRTHDAY and only the Republicans are 'celebrating'.

NEW PHOTOS of the asteroid Vesta. More photos here.

GUN SALES are booming under the Obama administration. The Second Amendment should thank them for their support.

INSTAPUNDIT: Santorum go home! While I agree that 'culture' is indeed an underlying problem, as any physician knows, the first order of business is to keep the patient alive.

THE STIMULUS was simply a massive partisan wealth transfer -- the largest single transfer in American history.

SHADES OF 'FAKE BUT ACCURATE': lying to tell the truth. Is there any doubt why much of America doesn't trust the mainstream media?

I KNEW THEY WERE FULL OF IT: Occupiers Dump Human Waste in Public Spaces.

The jokes are self-writing.

VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL Ken Cuccinelli announced his candidacy for Governor of Virginia (in 2013) today.

WHY WON'T THE DEMOCRATS adopt a budget? Read the comments.

AL QAEDA killed an American teacher in Yemen because he was trying to spread Christianity in the mainly Muslim Arab nation.

It's past time to admit that Al Qaeda and its Islamist supporters are nothing short of savages and to start treating them as such.

IF YOU THINK education hasn't morphed into proselytization, think again.

ENVIRONMENTAL 'PROTECTION' AGENCY gets a swift kick in the teeth. Now it's time to elect a Republican President and Congress and perform a full extraction of those remaining.

Here's a question that the Congress and Supreme Court should ponder: What if I were to accidentally (or intentionally, for that matter) create an EPA-defined 'wetland du jour' (since there's obviously no statuatory definition) on my own property ... would the EPA require I fill it in? Or take it away?

THE WAR ON WOMEN: Two views by Peggy Noonan and
Vox Day. I would argue that they're both right; sort of like seeing both sides of the same coin. There's both a culture gap and an age gap, with Noonan reflecting the older, more civil side and Day reflecting the younger, more uncivil side of the gaps.

"SMART" isn't about intelligence; it's about control.

RE-ELECT ME; it could be worse. If there's anything the Obama administration knows how to do, it's keep digging.

VIDEO OF THE DAY: A guy rigged a remote controlled motorbike with a skeleton that has a speaker attached to it driving the bike. The guy hides across the street from a walled cemetery and when people walk by it at night the skeleton rides up quietly on his motor bike and scares the bejeebers out of them. The video is hysterical.

VISION MATTERS; inevitability matters less.

FACT-CHECKING death panels.

WILL BILL MAHER go the way of Keith Olbermann? To brain-dead Zombie Land?

WHEN YOU BREAK THE LAW, it's generally not a good idea to brag about it in public.

CALLING TIME on life's wasted moments: "The authorities seem very keen to extend my life, so much so that I now spend a fair proportion of every day listening to health warnings. If I followed all the advice, my life would be extended by 2½ years, which is, coincidentally, exactly the same amount of time I would have spent listening to all the health warnings."

LIBERAL DOGMA; liberal progress.

HOT NEW TREND: Carefree Hipsters Go For Funemployment, Starve-cation.

Linked from Instapundit, where high gas prices really aren't such a bad thing (and I just paid for my third sixty-plus dollar tank of gas).

SURE, REDISTRIBUTION WORKS: The 'Buffet Rule', centerpiece of Obama's wealth redistribution tax plan, would take 11 years to pay for less than 5 days of federal government spending.

For amusement and reference, it would take a stack of $100,000 bills 55,900 feet high to pay off the current National Debt. (Mount Everest is only 29,028 feet high.)

JOHN STOSSEL: What is fair?

SHOULD BLACKS VOTE REPUBLICAN? Maybe, maybe not. What is certain is that [Democrat] "political power doesn't necessarily translate into economic power and well-being for the ordinary citizen."

OBAMA’S BROKEN WINDOW COMPANY — and his larger, more serious damage. Obama's economic plan has always been to break more windows and then use taxpayer money to repair them.

FIRE 'EM ALL and privatize.

A SIGN that there's a Democrat in the White House.

SHOULD THE GOP hope for a brokered convention? If I thought Newt Gingrich had a reasonable chance of winning, then yes.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Are progressives immoral? Hanson makes a good case, but my own thought is that liberals are uninclined (incapable?) of considering the morality of the secondary and unintended consequences once they've deemed the primary act 'moral'.

"POND SCUM STINKS. And so do the Obama administration's enormous, taxpayer-funded 'investments' in politically connected biofuel companies."

Read it all.

IF OBAMA won't accept responsibility for gasoline prices, my wife suggests that we elect someone who will.

INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS haven't been banned -- they're just illegal to manufacture or import.

HEH: Concealed carry on campus reduces crime.

RANDOM THOUGHTS from the retirement lane. When Obama said he wanted to 'redistribute wealth' most folks didn't realize he meant to redistribute it to himself.

LET THEM EAT CAKE STARVE: Bloomberg’s New York Bans Food Donations for the Homeless. More here.

IF GETTING GAS PRICES to record highs was his goal, then Energy Secretary Stephen Chu deserves an 'A'.

PAUL HARVEY: If I were the Devil.



From Bing, it appears that the piece may have been written in 1964 and broadcast in 1964 or 1965. Whatever the origin, it's as relevant today as it was then.

It appears on YouTube here.

THE SUPERSONIC JET of the future may be a biplane. I'd sure like to see a side view.

THE NATIONAL DEBT has increased more in three years under Obama than in eight years under Bush.


He's on track to very nearly double the National Debt by the end of his second term, should he and the Democrats win in 2012.

GOODBYE and good riddance, Mr. President. Highest Gas Price Recorded in March.

Last week I paid over $61 to fill my Honda; today I paid $74 to fill my pickup. In baseball, you get three strikes; in my pocketbook, two is too many. You're out.

WHO REALLY SERVES during a disaster? Most government agencies are only interested in after-the-fact patting themselves on the back for inconveniencing citizens and stopping commerce in the name of 'safety'.

OBAMANOMICS: Even his supporters are fading away.

WHY IS PRESIDENT OBAMA so rattled by Newt Gingrich?

BRISTOL PALIN: Mr. President, when should I expect your call?

DOES OBAMA really care about gas prices? Of course he does, and he'll continue to drive them up as soon as he's re-elected.

WORTH READING: A Practical Guide to Situational Awareness.

BIRTH CONTROL to crowd out real health care? Well, on the bright side, with enough birth control there'll be no need for real health care....

MOCK HIM: Obama's History Lesson. Or future generations will laugh at us.

THE LEFT'S 'grassroots' is all plastic.

WINNERS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY; losers blame others.

IMAGINE THAT: Hollywood's elite liberals don't even live by the policies that they seek to impose on us.

WHAT DOES IT MATTER how much of 'the world’s oil' we use? "There aren’t countries around the world with cars sitting idle because we’ve used up their share of oil. That’s like saying people who work out use more than their share of oxygen because they breathe heavier. And if only they’d take a few days off every now and then, fat people on couches eating Doritos would be able to exercise, too."

THEY'RE BACK: the 'soft bigotry of low (food) expectations'.

REAL MEN don't dye.

MODERN ENVIRONMENTALISM: born 1970, died 2012.

DON SURBER: Obama smears President Rutherford B. Hayes. As they say in journo-speak, here's the nut graf:

Rutherford ... spent much of the Civil War fighting as an officer in the 23rd Regiment of Ohio Volunteer Infantry. He was wounded one two separate occasions and had a horse shot from under him. He ended the war a general.

As a community-organizer, Obama once got plumbers to unplug toilets in a Chicago housing project.

Read it all.

UPDATE: President Hayes mocks President Obama.

UPDATE 2: Even more mockery.

A POLITICAL STUNT that buys time for the president but actually concedes nothing.

BILL MAHER: "You know, no one at my shows ever objects to me calling Palin a 'c*nt'".

That's because no one listens to him.

I'D LOVE TO MOVE, but I can't.

SPRING has begun in Virginia.


As an aside, I note that I've got roughly a half-acre of ObamaGas growing in the yard.

FROM MY EMAIL: Isn't It Ironic? The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the National Park Service asks us to "Please Do Not Feed the Animals" because the animals may grow dependent and not learn to take care of themselves.

GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY defies satire when a $50 light bulb wins an affordability prize.

DOUBLING DOWN ON STUPIDITY: Obama seeks halt to tax subsidies for oil industry. That's it, Obama, just keep digging.

"ONE IN FIVE AMERICANS calls California or Texas home. The two most populous states have a lot in common: a long coast, a sunny climate, a diverse population, plenty of oil in the ground, and Mexico to the south. Where they diverge is in their governance."

USA: An oil rich nation after all.


Read the comments as well.

LOCAL ALTERNATIVE UNITS: “It’s an easier, more direct way of exchanging goods and services....”

I had suggested earlier that this was already happening in the U.S., albeit as an underground economy thing.

SAVE WATER: close all the swimming pools in America. Every single time I think government has reached the nadir of stupidity, they prove me wrong.

THE ROAD WE'VE TRAVELED:


Linked from PowerLine.

OBAMA TO BUSH: My regulations are bigger than your regulations.

OBAMA: If you like your current health care coverage, you can keep it. Uh, no, you can't.

DON SURBER: T-Shirt of the day.


I'd really rather you didn't, but go ahead, reelect Obama.

While 80% of Americans believe that they are no better off today than they were four years ago, I'm one of the lucky 20%.

I don't have to worry about unemployment, I've already been laid off. I'll have already used up most - if not all - my social security and defined-benefit pensions before the baby-boom retirees push them to extinction. And my retirement savings are doing quite nicely, thanks to the Obama depression causing businesses to hold cash and sell off/close unprofitable and marginally profitable subsidiaries.

Thanks, Mr. President.

THE HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE has popped.

Moral of the story: buy a car; you won't be as deeply in debt and you'll have something with residual value.

BARACK OBAMA: a victim of affirmative action?

LITTLE BOXES: It's okay to be outside the box. The boxes are getting so damn constricting, it's better to be outside.

BREITBART IS HERE.


Sarah Palin: "Those three words express the instant connection many of us feel for our fallen friend. They express our identification with him, and our need to continue his fight for the good of our republic."

Another three words: Yes, we will.

BE COMPLIANT: let the government usurp your authority.

CAGEY: the new term for 'woefully incompetent'.

COMPLEX SOCIETIES need simple laws.

Big-government advocates will say that as society grows more complex, laws must multiply to keep up. The opposite is true. It is precisely because society is unfathomably complex that laws must be kept simple. No legislature can possibly prescribe rules for the complex network of uncountable transactions and acts of cooperation that take place every day. Not only is the knowledge that would be required to make such a regulatory regime work unavailable to the planners, it doesn't actually exist, because people don't know what they will want or do until they confront alternatives in the real world.

Not that big-government advocates won't keep trying.

IRAN AND OBAMA: "The track record of Barack Obama's pronouncements on a wide range of issues suggests that anything he says is a message written in sand, and easily blown away by the next political winds.... Churchill warned, 'Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late.' But that is what expediency-minded politicians are always tempted to do."

THIN SKIN: What’s the matter with Soledad O’Brien?

Someone, somewhere (I can't find the link right now) suggested that readers/viewers/followers tweet back. I'm not a twit (my term for twitter user) but I have to admit the force is strong in the 'tweet back'suggestion.

THE EUROPEAN UNION won't back down on their avation carbon trading program.

My suggestion: Let Switzerland, which is right in the middle of the European Union (and not a member) build a humongous international airport and let the rest of Europe take (Obama's bullet) trains to the EU member countries. I would think there is a tidy profit to be made for Switzerland.

A RINGING DEFENSE OF STEPHEN CHU: He was for it before he was against it. Or something like that. Maybe. Or maybe not.

See if you can figure out what Weigel wrote.

COMMENT OF THE DAY: "Obama views himself as Leonardo Da Vinci, when he is actually Don Quixote."

In response to the President's assertion that Republicans who doubt my clean energy programs would have been Flat Earthers when Columbus sailed.

FULL SERVICE


I like to think the destination's the same in both cases.

BARACK OBAMA: Commander Lunatic-in-Chief.

MICHAEL REAGAN: Saving California. Victor Davis Hanson: Why bother?

COLLATERAL DAMAGE FROM 'REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS': "Abortion-rights advocates think the right to choose has conferred great benefits. Maybe so, but not on everyone."

Slippery slopes.

EDITORS COLLUDE with "Distinguished" Professors to silence the education reform debate.

NANOWIRE FOREST uses sunlight to make energy from water.

GIVE HIM CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE:

Obama often says, "Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years." That's true: It's also true that under Obama's administration, Snooki from "Jersey Shore" got pregnant and Charlie Sheen lost his job. And he can take about as much credit for those developments....

The latter two are his more important accomplishments.

CHANGE: the Obama transition from work to welfare. 'Going Galt' Obama style.

THE BENEFIT of top-down government planning. Live in a small apartment in an urban high rise and drive an electric bicycle to and from the nearest high-speed rail system.

DOWN ON SANTORUM from both ends of the conservative spectrum.

In my estimation, Suzanne Fields is too harsh in her judgment, though I do wish he would back off the social issues and focus on the immediate problems: the economy and foreign policy. Culture is important, but it's not the immediate issue as are the other two.

Rachel Alexander is on more firm grounds opposing Santorum as 'too liberal'. Again the reality doesn't, in my opinion, fully support the charges, but the charges are on economic policy, which is the single most important issue in this election.

FORENSIC ENGINEERING: I'll believe it when I see it on NCIS.

THERE IS ANOTHER REVOLUTION in the Mideast, presently underway, that centers on the all-important area of energy production, and it might be called "the Battle for Leviathan".

At issue is the recent discovery of huge untapped natural gas fields in the Levant Basin, the section of the eastern Mediterranean Sea that abuts Israel to the East, and Cyprus to the North.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that this underwater area holds 123 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. In simpler terms: That's equal to 20 billion barrels of oil, more than twenty times what the United States maintains in its Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Through "exclusive economic zones" finalized under prevailing laws of the sea, Israel and Cyprus have laid internationally recognized claims to these fields, which analysts suggest could be worth $130 billion to the Israeli economy.

This is why in February, Benjamin Netanyahu became the first Israeli prime minister ever to visit Cyprus, and why the two nations have inked a number of unprecedented pacts with each other.

I recall first reading about the Leviathan natural gas fields a few years ago in a Tom Clancy-like techno-thriller. At the time, I thought it was fiction.

IF YOU WANT to be treated with respect by The New York Times and the rest of the multiculti establishment, make it clear you’re willing to kill them. It worked for the Islamist terrorists; we don't need to be that tough - a willingness to fight back is more than sufficient.

Linked from Instapundit.

BUMMER: So It Turns Out that Obama’s Election Wasn’t the Moment that the Seas Stopped Rising.

MORNING EXAMINER: ObamaCare’s cost just doubled. Tell me something that does surprise me.

IN A SENSE, he's right: Biden tells $10K-a-couple fundraiser audience that GOP doesn’t know the middle class. For those of his, uh, status, $10K/couple donors probably are 'middle class'.

WATCH A LIVE FEED of the Northern Lights. The Canadian Space Agency’s AuroraMAX Camera — located in the city of Yellowknife, near the Arctic Circle — can fulfill all your Northern-Light-viewing needs every night from now until late May (the camera shuts down during the Arctic summer, when the midnight sun prevents aurora viewing). You can get aurora forecasts here; and the live camera is here.

THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY, in one anecdote: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”

BLOG COMMENT OF THE DAY: “Social justice” is the stubborn application of unworkable solutions to imaginary problems.

INSIDER TRADING: "People who bought politicians seem to be getting a good return."

BRING IT ON: We will not be intimidated.



Bravo! Linked from Instapundit.
~~~~~
Update & bump: more here.

YOU ARE AN OLD FART if you .... And it continues through the comments. I qualify on nearly every count.

SANDRA FLUKE: I will not be silenced. Doesn't matter; no one's listening.

NAACP ASKING UN RIGHTS COUNCIL to put American voting laws on trial. Tell the UN to pound sand - and remind them who's footing their bill.

OBAMA'S not looking so good:


The trend lines are second-order polynomial fits. Data from Rasmussen.

THE YEAR SOLAR GOES BANKRUPT: because 2012 is the year the Obama administration 'goes bankrupt'.

OBAMA ARROGANCE:


The cult of personality. Is any additional evidence necessary?

Much more here.

HERE'S A QUESTION FOR YOU: Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports [sic] Advancing Technology For Humanity? Short answer, no. Here's the IEEE Code of Ethics in its entirety:

We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

2. to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;

3. to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;

4. to reject bribery in all its forms;

5. to improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application, and potential consequences;

6. to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;

7. to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;

8. to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin;

9. to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;

10. to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

Approved by the IEEE Board of Directors
February 2006

There is no mention of 'advancing technology for humanity' and rightly so. The IEEE is a professional society; not a 'social justice' society. I have been a member for 42 years, and social justice has not been, is not, and should not be part of the Code of Ethics.

I have no problem with 'advancing technology for humanity' -- and I'm pleased that much of my engineering work has had that effect -- but that's a personal commitment, not a professional one.

PROBABLY NOT: Is the federal Department of Education constitutional?

RANDOM THOUGHTS from the retirement lane. I was out in the yard today, looking at all the branches that have been brought down by recent high winds. That, in turn, reminded me of the wisdom of the ages about inequality: "Sometimes you get the short end of the stick."

Any day now I expect a new Obama administration executive dictate: All sticks shall henceforth have two long short ends."

THERE CAN BE honor among thieves, but not among liberals.

"THIS IS STARTRAM, a proposed launch system that would use magnetic levitation trains, a 1000-mile tunnel, and a superconducting cable to reach low Earth orbit. Amazingly, we already have the technology to do it...at far less than the cost of rockets."


This concept, along with space elevators, has been a staple of science fiction for many years; it's nice to be able to see it as a potentially viable candidate for future space transportation.

OBAMA is running for reelection as a troll.

EIGHT SECRETS about gas prices every Liberal needs to know.

WHY MAJOR ACQUISITION PROGRAMS FAIL. A longer, but better and much more entertaining explanation can be found in Norm Augustine's book, Augustine's Laws.

COMMENT OF THE DAY:

It is not that “Progressives” don’t understand business.

“Progressives” don’t understand reality…

The post is here.

DON'T MESS WITH RUSH: Advertising boycott fails. I'd join the boycott but, alas, I never subscribed to either.

HOW TO COPE with Obama BS (bumper stickers).

OBAMA'S (part-time) economic recovery.

HEH: Even European airlines are fighting against the EU's emissions trading system (carbon tax).

BILL AYERS: Breitbart was a radical right “bombthrower”. This, from a confessed real bomber. Revolting.

SPACE CHRONICLES: FACING THE ULTIMATE FRONTIER: Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson on how space exploration -- especially human voyages -- can profoundly inspire scientists and technologists of the future, and charts the path for missions to Mars and beyond. Too few of us are left who can remember the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs.

There is also a podcast version available at the link above.

WE THE PEOPLE petition the Obama administration to: resign.

BARACK OBAMA has a new campaign ad out running against -- of all people -- Sarah Palin.

The assumption, I suppose, it that the American public is as stupid as the average liberal and can't recognize the association fallacy (Sarah Palin is evil; Sarah Palin is a Republican; therefore, all Republicans are evil).

They also failed to recognize that Palin is a hockey mom and that hockey moms bite!

Exhibit A ... is an absurd new attack ad President Obama has released taking my comments out of context. I’m not running for any office, but I’m more than happy to accept the dubious honor of being Barack Obama’s “enemy of the week” if that includes the opportunity to debate him on the issues Americans are actually concerned about....

Just off the top of my head, a few of these concerning issues include: a debt crisis that has us hurtling towards a Greek-style collapse, entitlement programs going bankrupt, a credit downgrade for the first time in our history, a government takeover of the health care industry that makes care more expensive and puts a rationing panel of faceless bureaucrats between you and your doctor (aka a “death panel”), $4 and $5 gas at the pump exacerbated by an anti-drilling agenda that rejects good paying energy sector jobs and makes us more dependent on dangerous foreign regimes, a war in Afghanistan that seems unfocused and unending, a global presidential apology tour that’s made us look feeble and ridiculous, a housing market in the tank, the longest streak of high unemployment since World War II, private-sector job creators and industry strangled by burdensome regulations and an out-of-control Obama EPA, an attack on the Constitutional protection of religious liberty, an attack on private industry in right-to-work states, crony capitalism run amok in an administration in bed with their favored cronies to the detriment of genuine free market capitalism, green energy pay-to-play kickbacks to Obama campaign donors, and a Justice Department still stonewalling on a bungled operation that armed violent Mexican drug lords and led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people.

I’m sure I missed a few things, but the list is just for starters. Along with millions of others, I’m willing and free to discuss these issues with the President anywhere, anytime....

Ouch!

KIRSTEN POWERS: Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist. Powers may be liberal, but she's neither progressive nor stupid.

SOUTHERN STRATEGY: Gingrich-Perry Pre-Convention Ticket in the Works. That's a ticket I could vote for.

NEWT FOR PRESIDENT: Seriously. I'm supporting Newt (with my money as well as my mouth) for three reasons.

First, he's the only serious candidate -- including Barack -- who has demonstrated a 'grand vision' for America. Something like Reagan's shining city on a hill. Sure, Newt's grand visions may be a bit too grand, but without a vision, what is there to strive for? Romney and Santorum are demonstrably capable of 'managing the decline' but neither has shown himself to be the visionary I want in the Oval Office.

Second, Gingrich is a 'Washington insider'. Some may think that a bad thing, but I differ. I've never liked the 'outsider' schtick, simply because the President will have to work with, go around, or bull through 535 other insiders. As Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke observed, "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" and Gingrich knows Congress, knows where the bodies are buried, has proved he can get his way, and has made enough public Tea Party committments that he'll have a very hard time reneging on any of them. Unlike Democrats, Republicans tend to make promises they plan to keep.

Third, Newt, for my money, has his priorities straight. With the exception of Ron Paul on foreign affairs, the candidates' policy stances differ only in detail; all are for lower taxes, less regulation, more jobs, drilling for oil here and now, border control, repeal of ObamaCare, ad nauseum. Only Newt has shown the ability to step back from the current topic of debate and show how it fits into his grander vision of America to be.

And for my fourth and final reason, Thomas Sowell agrees with me.

My choices for the next President of the United States are, in order, Newt Gingrich, followed by Mitt Romney, followed by Rick Santorum, followed by Ron Paul, followed by Diamond (the fat cat), followed by Zeeba (the syphlitic camel), followed by a sack of hammers, followed by (gasp!) Barack Obama.

RANDOM THOUGHTS from the retirement lane. A lesson from progressives: when you find yourself in a hole, quit keep digging.

Conservatives are smarter than that.

NEW YORK TIMES ECONOMIST PAUL KRUGMAN: borrow more, spend more, go through an 'orderly' default. The tried-and-true path to prosperity. R-i-i-i-ght.

THE REAL ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY:

While most voters view excessive government spending as the problem, those who feel entitled to rule over the rest of us see the voters as the problem. And that's the real entitlement crisis facing the nation today. The political class wants to govern like it's 1775, a time when kings were kings and consent of the governed didn't matter.

More here.

RANDOM THOUGHTS from the retirement lane. Remember this from President Obama? "At some point you've made enough money."

Explain to me why that doesn't apply to his government as well.

MISOGYNY revealed. Here's the relevant background.

FOUR YEARS LATER, Obama Campaign Still Running Against Palin.

A storm is on the horizon,


and I truly think that Obama is scared that a contested Republican convention could bring him face-to-face with his worst nightmare.

‘OCCUPY JESUS’: Evangelicals Give OWS a Taste of Its Own Medicine. Follow the link to the complete report. Then ask yourself which side is the more productive.

RANDOM THOUGHTS from the retirement lane. Remember that childhood phrase that 'every cloud contains a silver lining'? It's been rewritten by the Nanny State to 'every cloud contains a tornado'.

THEY'RE SCARED: The rise of the totalitarians. This is from Australia, but it's equally true here.

56% THINK AMERICA IS OVERTAXED. That's down (!) from 66% two years ago. Is that a result of Obama's continuously demagoging 'the rich'? Or, as an Instapundit reader suggests, does it represent the declining number of actual taxpayers?

BILL MAHER: Santorum homeschools his kids because he wants them locked up in his “Christian madrassa”. If Maher is a typical example of public schooling, I'd home-school myself.

GOOD NEWS from England's health care system: "If we ever do get single payer, government health care on this side of the Atlantic, we won’t have to worry about all those death panels critics keep warning us about. Given the bureaucratic delays and inefficiencies in the system, patients can be confident that, abused and neglected as they will be in government-run nursing homes, they will die of old age before the death panels ever meet."

NATURALLY: Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan speaks at University of California, Berkeley.

RANDOM THOUGHTS from the retirement lane. I just paid $61 for a skosh over 15 gallons of regular today. I can now understand why some prefer to stay on welfare to work; the cost of gasoline is so high that low-wage workers probably lose money by working if they have to drive.

DON'T CAMPAIGN while driving. Running over your voters is not a good election strategy. Neither is turning your Mercedes into scrap iron ....

UPDATE: "the first Democrat to throw himself under the bus."

RANDOM THOUGHTS from the retirement lane: the only 'product' liberal arts graduates seem to be able to produce is whine.

SPLC [SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER] has been an incredibly successful organization. It has consistently solved the poverty problems of its directors....

TAXI MEDALLIONS -- brute protectionism.

A THOUGHT on Daylight Saving Time:

MORE TAXPAYER MONEY wasted to bring 3000 granite countertops to Los Angeles. All in the name of 'art'.

'WE CAN'T WAIT!' Yes, we can.