It Couldn't Happen to Deserving Bunch of Guys

It Couldn't Happen to Deserving Bunch of Guys

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/harris-quinn-supreme-court-case-labor-unions

""One labor official said such a result would bring about "the possible final destruction of the American labor movement." The official added, "It would cause the death not only of public sector unions and what's left of private sector unions, but also the Democratic Party," suggesting that the demise of unions would make Democrats more reliant on Wall Street money.

Joel Rogers, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, wrote in The Nation magazine that the challengers' case in Harris goes for the "kill shot" against public employee unions.""

We need a kill shot. Obama and the Democrat party is destroying the country.



Dave Farnsworth

All lies, all the time

All lies, all the time
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/opinion/paul-krugman-so-much-for-obamacare-not-working.html?_r=0&referrer=
""And I'm not just talking about the politicians; I'm talking about the wonks. It's remarkable how many supposed experts on health care made claims about Obamacare that were clearly unsupportable. For example, remember "rate shock"? Last fall, when we got our first information about insurance premiums, conservative health care analysts raced to claim that consumers were facing a huge increase in their expenses. It was obvious, even at the time, that these claims were misleading; we now know that the great majority of Americans buying insurance through the new exchanges are getting coverage quite cheaply.
Or remember claims that young people wouldn't sign up, so that Obamacare would experience a "death spiral" of surging costs and shrinking enrollment? It's not happening: a new survey by Gallup finds both that a lot of people have gained insurance through the program and that the age mix of the new enrollees looks pretty good.""
Paul,Paul, there you go again as Reagon might say.  You have nothing but your thoroughly disproved opinion.
Where are the facts? You can't just assert facts not in evidence.  The full power of the federal government is in stonewall mode, you can believe nothing they publish unless you are in full "see no evil" mode••• but then again I guess you are.

liberal derangement is a progressive condition

liberal derangement is a progressive condition
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-john-boehner-wants-to-sue-president-obama/2014/06/25/fc1e93e0-fc9d-11e3-932c-0a55b81f48ce_story.html
"But the real problem with the lawsuit approach is that it misunderstands the cause of the problem: congressional dysfunction. Lawmakers, hamstrung by disagreement, have created a power vacuum, and presidents have stepped in to fill it. The solution is not to sue, but to legislate, which means to compromise — and this is something Boehner's troops have been unwilling to do."-Danna Milbank.

I once thought a perfect solution to the runaway federal government would be a straw dummy as president, where all legislation is vetoed. That has not worked out for me.  We now have two dummies that veto everything. President  Obama and Senate Majority leader Harry Reed.
The house' s legislating, the Senate is not. It is a contrived crisis tyrants create to justify their unlawful action. If the Senate did pass a law, the president would consider it a suggestion, so new laws are not the answer.
If a means to gain standing for congress, or either branch were achieved, it would be a permanent lever to restore the constitution through action by the courts.

The will to act

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-stopping-a-lawless-president/2014/06/20/377c4d6e-f7e5-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

"Courts, understandably fearful of being inundated by lawsuits from small factions of disgruntled legislators, have been wary of granting legislative standing. However, David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer, and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University have studied the case law and believe that standing can be obtained conditional on four things:

That a majority of one congressional chamber explicitly authorizes a lawsuit. That the lawsuit concern the president's "benevolent" suspension of an unambiguous provision of law that, by pleasing a private faction, precludes the appearance of a private plaintiff. That Congress cannot administer political self-help by remedying the presidential action by simply repealing the law. And that the injury amounts to nullification of Congress's power."

This needs to pressed in every instance, and should therefore produce cause "being inundated by lawsuits "

The abomination of Political Correctness

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://online.wsj.com/articles/patent-office-comanches-1403132099

"" So there you have it: The Obama Democrats now think government should dictate team mascots. As for the American people, an Associated Press poll earlier this year found 83% of the public favors keeping the name.""

All "political correctness" is an affront to the freedom of speech. "I am offended by your speech" doesn't empower me to shut you up. If done by a government official, such activity should free them of any government salary.

Blame it all on Bush

http://washingtonexaminer.com/what-should-iraq-war-advocates-say-about-the-current-crisis/article/2549891

""
Cheney, as the highest-ranking member of the group, bears a particular responsibility. Yet in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (co-written with daughter Liz Cheney), the former vice president simply does not take into account the Bush administration's failures in Iraq. Reciting President Obama's own failures, Cheney writes: "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many."

There's a remarkable lack of self-examination in that line.

It's not that Cheney, with a crisis raging, should write a piece apologizing for decisions made years ago. It's just that any article pointing out the Obama administration's mistakes in Iraq would be far more credible if it included even a brief admission of the Bush administration's errors, too. Instead, Cheney accuses Obama of "snatch[ing defeat] from the jaws of victory" in Iraq.

"When Mr. Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al Qaeda in Iraq had been largely defeated, thanks primarily to the heroic efforts of U.S. armed forces during the surge," Cheney writes. Well, why was there a surge? Because the Bush administration had so badly bungled the situation from 2003 to 2007, unleashing chaos and murderous forces in Iraq. More than 4,200 American troops died, and more than 30,000 were wounded in Iraq under Bush and Cheney's administration. How can Cheney expect his indictment of Obama's mistakes to have the influence it deserves without at least some acknowledgement of that fact?
""

This is a tired refrain, if only you would admit you made mistakes, we would lay off you. No you wouldn't.

The Obama mistakes are an order of magnitude greater than Bush's, and while I contend Bush's intent was good, I don't believe the Obama mistakes are rooted in a desire to do what is best for America. Obama's are due to egregious overreach leading to a cascade of failures.

Maybe the author should examine his own flaws. If the media wasn't giving Obama a pass on all his wrong doing, Obama would have been slowed, and Iraq might be in better shape.

Dem (pronounced "Dim")

In defense of all "David Farnsworth"'s

http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/sen-david-farnsworth-fears-living-a-sci-fi-tv-series.html

"" Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I don't watch a lot of television, mostly because of crappy television programming like NBC's post-apocalyptic science fiction television drama Revolution, the premise of which is that all electricity on Earth has been disabled and people are forced to adapt to a world without electricity.
""
Television is crappy because of "progressive" slant on news and programming. I would say the author not only doesn't watch but does't read or discuss. Isn't the no electricity thing a part of the Dem war on coal?


""Yeah, the key here is "nuclear blast." The loss of electricity is the least of your worries. You are either dead or dying. Game over. Here is an older television movie he should watch. The Day After (1983).""

Is the author pretending ignorance or is he the real thing. People with this attitude will be dead by their own hand. Where there is life there is hope, and remember with the government control of the military, there is a good chance the blasts will be ineffective. - now there is a '"I hate guvmint" rant'

"an "I hate guvmint" rant. So what does Mr. "constitutional" chickens propose to do about it?"

Does this this make any sense? Prior to this statement there was no rant. Or does the suggestion of individual responsibility constitute a rant. Is commitment to the constitution a rant? What does this guy have against chickens? As to "what is he proposing to do about it", Taking the government out of the hands of the crony capitalism contingent in both parties is a good start. The republicans are ahead of the Democrat party, in that respect. Another is to make an informal intelligence test of all politicians, and not voting for the more idiotic.

Caution: read sparingly of the above link, it appears you would be risking brain damage.

Governmental Incompetence is always believable.

Governmental Incompetence is always believable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/17/us/house-panels-looking-into-irss-claims-of-lost-emails.html?ref=todayspaper

"The I.R.S. told congressional investigators on Friday that two years' worth of emails sent and received by Lois Lerner, the former official at the center of the inquiry, had been destroyed because of a computer crash in mid-2011. The committees are examining whether the lost emails involved obstruction or a violation of the Federal Records Act, aides to the committees said."

My third grade teacher had a solutions to problems like this, punish everyone. How about removing the IRS employee's privilege of union representation, and a 10% across the board pay-cut, with cooperating individuals exempt (they would have to rat someone out to be judged "cooperating").

Obama did end the War

Obama did end the War
http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2014/06/12/in-the-middle-east-the-end-of-the-beginning/2/

'His goals are clear. Are ours? Obama likes to boast that he ends wars. But wars only end when one side gives up."

Obama "gave up". That is his favorite trick next to voting present.



Dave Farnsworth

It makes a difference

It makes a difference

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/05/can-hillary-clinton-close-her-benghazi-chapter.html
""Clinton: Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.""

It is important to identify the bad actors so they can be removed from power. It is also important to identify the enablers (the Democratic Party and Republican Party) so they can be reformed or eliminated.

""“What difference, at this point, does it make?” That line has, predictably, been used as a shorthand indictment by Clinton’s critics. Writing now, she says, “In yet another example of the terrible politicization of this tragedy, many have conveniently chosen to interpret [those words] to mean that I was somehow minimizing the tragedy of Benghazi. Of course that’s not what I said.….Nothing could be further from the truth. And many of those trying to make hay of it know that, but don’t care.” Fair enough, except that Clinton then adds,

My point was simple: If someone breaks into your home and takes your family hostage, how much time are you going to spend focused on how the intruder spent his day as opposed to how best to rescue your loved ones and then prevent it from happening again?""

The last is a strawman argument, not made by her opponebts.  A better answer is who left the door unlocked, or who took my gun.  In the immediate aftermath of the criminal action, these things are not the first to be considered, but if the results are bad due to the crime, the retubution to the enablers and stupid needs to swift.

Bad actors will be expelled from the home to fend for themselves.

Unamerican Dems

Unamerican Dems
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/articles/ted-cruz-the-democratic-assault-on-the-first-amendment-1401662112

"'For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech. Alas, more and more, the modern Democratic Party has abandoned that commitment and has instead been trying to regulate the speech of the citizenry.

We have seen President Obama publicly rebuke the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC; the Obama IRS inquire of citizens what books they are reading and what is the content of their prayers; the Federal Communications Commission proposing to put government monitors in newsrooms; and Sen. Harry Reid regularly slandering private citizens on the Senate floor for their political speech.

But just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. Senate Democrats have promised a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment."'

Democrats think they can make their un-americanism out of bounds. Not the actual un-Americanism just descriptions of their un-americanism. President Obama my be right that "You didn't build that" in many cases, but neither did he or the federal buracricy. Any good done on there part is incidental to their self survival.

The hidden hand of commerce has people cooperating each seeking his own objectives. The government is just another player, and not a very effective one.

Corruption in the Federal government is offsetting the little good it does with distortions due to cronyism. Both parties, but the Democrats are more unabashed in forcing other to their will.

It is time to get the government out of free speech and the perks out of government. Perks that lets the government self perpetuate.