#IRS scandal: Democrats make clear where they stand on the 1st Amendment

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a resolution condemning the Internal Revenue Service for trampling the Constitutional rights of Americans. (For example) It didn’t get very far:

Today, Senate Democrats placed a hold on Sen. Rand Paul’s recent resolution that condemns the targeting of Tea Party groups by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and calls for an investigation into this practice.

“This resolution is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal. It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. The First Amendment cannot and should not be renegotiated depending on which party holds power,” Sen. Paul said. ”Each senator took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet Senate Democrats chose to block my resolution and thus refused to condemn the IRS for trampling on our First Amendment rights. I am incredibly disappointed in Washington’s party politics and I am determined to hold the IRS accountable for these unjust acts.”

I’m not sure why anyone would find this surprising: as the party of arrogant, unrestrained government, the leaders of which think the Constitution is obsolete, well, of course they would shoot this resolution down.

It threatens their very reason for existence, after all.

via Stephen Green.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

That moment when irony slaps Hillary Clinton in the face

Given her fatal incompetence regarding Libya and Benghazi, this flashback to 2004 takes on a whole new meaning:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret “the way the president used the authority.”

“How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?” the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

“I don’t understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen.”

And, in her own case, I bet she still doesn’t understand. Nor will she ever.

via Vermontaigne and Instapundit

Raytheon Moving California HQ to Texas

Reblogged from California Briefing:

Looks like Texas has poached at least one California-based company out of the Golden State.

Raytheon, a major defense contractor and manufacturer, announced Thursday that it is moving one of its businesses' headquarters, currently located in El Segundo, California, to McKinney, Texas.

The business, Raytheon's Space and Airborne Systems, is worth $6 billion, and is reportedly bringing about 170 jobs to the Lone Star State.

Read more… 92 more words

And California, one of the most self-destructively governed states in the Union, loses another company, its jobs, and its tax revenues. Really, if I didn't live here, it would be fascinating to watch an "economic super-power state" drive itself off the cliff chasing Thelma and Louise. Thank you, Jerry Brown and the legislative Democrats.

This just in: Global Warming will turn women into prostitutes

Because there is nothing the Evil Demon of Climate Change cannot do! So speaketh Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of (I’m sorry to say) California (1) :

Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to “transactional sex” for survival.

The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.

“[F]ood insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says.

Climate change could also add “workload and stresses” on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries.

The Demon Climate Change will also bring an increased risk of war and refugee migration, according to Lee’s resolution. Really, in the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, this thing is more powerful than the Four Horsemen combined. No wonder they’re screaming “DOOM!!” at the top of their lungs.

Well, that and the fact that they lust after the tax money and power all the new anti-global warming regulations and legislation will give them. A “crisis” like this is just made for a statism-on-steroids solution.

But I’m just a cynic.

And Barbara Lee is an idiot.

But take a look at what she’s pushing: fear, not facts. Coulds, maybes, mights, but no science. This is what you do when the science is increasingly not on your side –for example, the troublesome fact that there has been no statistically significant warming since the mid-90s– you have to resort to scare tactics and various forms of baiting and then plead a crisis. This is all the Left has (in this case, Watermelons, the environmental Left), whether it’s climate change, the right to bear arms, or economics.

“Facts are stubborn things,” said John Adams, which is why the Left tries desperately to ignore them.

via Moe Lane

Footnote:
(1) However she was duly elected, so she arguably represents the views of California CD-32, which, you’ll be shocked to read, includes Berkeley.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

So, one of the schmucks who designed Obamacare warns it’s “too complex.”

Now that he’s retiring and doesn’t have to face the wrath of voters, Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) feels free to speak his mind:

West Virginia Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller, one of the towering architects of Obamacare, on Tuesday openly criticized program managers for not moving quickly enough to build the system, warning that if it gets off to a bumpy start it will just get worse.

Decrying the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as way too complex, he warned the acting Medicare director that Obamacare is “so complicated and if it isn’t done right the first time, it will just simply get worse.”

The retiring senator also told Marilyn Tavenner at her Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing to be administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that Obamacare rivals tax reform in its capacity to confuse Americans.

Gee, ya think???

“This? Confusing?? Surely you jest.”

Though I don’t see what Senator “I designed this monstrosity” is complaining about; people can always get a navigator and a translator.

And don’t you find Rockefeller’s naive faith that there was any chance in Hades that Obamacare’s implementation could ever be “done right” touching and quaint? He helped create it; surely someone can figure out how to make it work!

Why, I bet he believes in the tooth fairy, too.

Memo to those who voted for Obama in 2008 and, especially, 2012: We tried to warn you!

Next time, listen.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Reid gun bill criticized by radical conservatives at… the ACLU

“Post-constitutional”

From The Daily Caller via Ed Morrissey:

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties.

The inclusion of universal background checks — the poll-tested lynchpin of most Democratic proposals — “raises two significant concerns,” the ACLU’s Chris Calabrese told TheDC Wednesday.

Calabrese — a privacy lobbyist — was first careful to note that the ACLU doesn’t strictly oppose universal background checks for gun purchases. “If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.

“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,” he went on.

“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”

You know there’s a problem with proposed legislation when both the NRA and ACLU are criticizing it.

As Ed points out, it’s not that the ACLU has become a staunch defender of the right to bear arms, but they have do have serious concerns on 4th Amendment grounds, the retained database contributing to violations of rules against unreasonable searches and thus privacy.  Over at Protein Wisdom, Jeff Goldstein thinks a national registry –a step enabling a future confiscation– is just what the Democrats have in mind:

That they were discovered here watering down language to open the way for the beginnings of a national gun registry means only that, should they now be defeated in their plan by strong arguments and sunlight, they’ll merely try again later, in some other way, using some other bill or some other crisis to reach their ends.

That is, if the full-frontal approach doesn’t work, they’ll return to the incremental approach — and with respect to their gun control aims, the contours to that approach are already quite clear:  empower the AG to expand the parameters for what is included in a background check, wherein a partisan agent is given the power to determine what group or groups of people come to constitute a potential danger; cross-reference ObamaCare, with its governmental access to health and prescription records, with other databases, using medical professionals and (they hope) mental health professionals to create the conditions under which they can argue for “sensible” prohibitions on firearms ownership; use Democratic majorities in various states to drive draconian gun control measures through the state legislatures on a party-line vote, then see which of those state laws stand up to court challenges and which do not; use agencies such as the CDC to lend an air of scientific and medical emergency to the “gun violence” “epidemic” — as if gun violence is contagious in any way other than through some strained sociological metaphor — then demand action to combat the crisis or “epidemic” (regardless of what the crime statistics show).

We are living in a time when our government is looking for ways to usurp our rights, pressuring them from every angle, waiting for us to “compromise” if only to make them relent.

Jeff also notes the same simultaneous push at the federal and state levels I wrote about the other day with regard to healthcare. He’s right: this isn’t the old Democratic Party, anymore.  Having been taken over by Progressivism and then the New Left, they’re now the party of “constitutional deconstruction,” stripping the parts they don’t like at the moment of any meaning, something those who care about constitutionalism must struggle against constantly.

Thus making “strange bedfellows” of conservatives and the ACLU, at least in this case.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

This just in: If you oppose gun control, you might just be an Antisemite

According to MSNBC, that is.

Background: loathsome nanny-state Mayor (1) Mike Bloomberg has been on a crusade since the Aurora and Newtown mass killings to take New York City’s extremely restrictive (and, in my opinion, unconstitutional) gun laws nationwide, spending millions of his own money to pressure (2) Congress and various state legislatures. In reaction, defenders of the right to bear arms have been very critical of Bloomberg, both on policy grounds and his overall infatuation with statism. (3)

On America’s “lean forward” network, however, it couldn’t be that you oppose Bloomberg because you believe in the right to bear arms or that, in general, government should stay out of people’s private lives. Nope. If you oppose Bloomberg, it must be because you hate Jews:

According to MSNBC contributors Mike Barnicle and Al Sharpton, opposition to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control push is partly the result of anti-Semitism. “Let’s get down to it, Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, there’s a level of anti-Semitism in this thing directed towards Bloomberg,” Barnicle argued on Morning Joe, “It’s out there.” “No doubt about that,” Sharpton responded.

“If he was not a big-city Jewish man and was from another ethnic group, in some parts, I think it would be different,” Sharpton continued. 

If you can’t win on the facts, fight with slander.

At PJM, Bryan Preston reminds us that both Barnicle and Sharpton are a bit lacking in the ethics department:

Mike Barnicle, who a few years back was caught plagiarizing, and Al Sharpton, who a few years before that built his career by accusing an innocent man of rape, have resorted to smearing those of us who think New York Mike Bloomberg should at least confine his overbearing nannyist instincts to the city that actually elected him.

So I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at this latest bit of poo-flinging.

It’s all they have left.

Footnotes:
(1) That Allahpundit has such a way with words.
(2) Or buy, judging by the results of the recent primary election in IL-2.
(3) And that’s putting it nicely. Michael Walsh comes right out and calls Bloomie a liberal fascist.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

The horror of sequester: congressional aides might have to pay more for subsidized lunches

“House cafeteria, post-sequester”

Have those heartless House Republicans no mercy, no soul? How could they do this to poor, starving congressional staffers?

Speaking at a hearing of the House Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, [Debbie] Wasserman Schultz worried that prices of meals in House restaurants are getting so high that aides are being “priced out” of a good meal.

At the carry-out cafe in the Cannon Office Building, where Wasserman Schultz has her office, you can get an 8oz bowl of Ham and Bean soup for $2. You can buy gourmet sandwiches and wraps for around $5. Both of these are cheaper than I can get at delis down the street from my house.

Her aides could walk across the street to the Longworth Building, which has a large sit-down cafeteria. Today, it is featuring a roasted stuffed Chicken, with asparagus and mashed potatoes, for around $7. Or, one could opt for a heaping 12oz bowl of Chicken Chili for $3.

There is also the tried and true method enjoyed by millions of workers around the country: a brown-bag lunch.

Curse you, Tea Partiers! Have you no sympathy for long-suffering, hard-toiling aides who make more than the median salary in the US?

You can imagine that I, who lives the life of luxury –bringing my breakfast four out of five days to work, my lunch every day, going out to a cheap dinner with friends just once per month– Well, dear readers, you can picture just how my heart breaks for people who might have to pay $8 for roasted stuffed chicken with mashed potatoes and asparagus, instead of seven.

I weep.

Actually, I don’t. In fact, Wasserman-Schultz and her overpaid entourage of whiny self-entitled oligarchs can go do something anatomically impossible to themselves. It was her party’s leader who thought of the sequester, it was her party’s leader who fought tooth and nail any effort ease what little real pain it would cause, and it was her party’s leader and his minions (including Debbie) who tried desperately to scare the American people with a “sequester terror” that turned out to be a giant nothing. If she and her staff now have to live a tiny bit more like us great unwashed, don’t expect sympathy from me.

Honestly, this is a glaring example of just how (to use a cliche) out of touch and removed from the everyday life of Americans those who live within the Beltway must be, especially the progressives. If the Republicans don’t use this monumental example of elite cluelessness as a populist  club to beat the Democrats over the head with from now until November, 2014, they don’t belong in politics.

UPDATE: Mockery via Twitchy — #SaveTheStaffers

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Nancy Pelosi, a racist hypocrite?? Say it ain’t so!

I’m sure there’s a perfectly innocent explanation why a White Democratic congressman under investigation gets unstinting support from the House Democratic leadership, while Black Democratic congressmen also facing investigation are asked to step aside.

Back story: Representative Robert Andrews (D-NJ) has been credibly accused of using campaign funds to fund personal trips. He has received strong backing from Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, and Nancy Pelosi has promoted him into the caucus leadership. Representative Andrews is also White.

Don’t think the Black Caucus hasn’t noticed the difference in treatment its members receive:

“It bears notice that Pelosi appointed Mr. Andrews to a leadership position in the midst of this investigation,” the [chief of staff of a Congressional Black Caucus member] said. “That is in direct contrast to the approach taken with similarly situated members of the Black Caucus, who routinely faced pressure to step away from leadership posts during investigations.

“Her commitment to fairness will be tested in how she responds to this announcement.”

Dude, considering the Black vote always goes 90% for the Democrats and your caucus never seriously threatens to bolt, why should she “respond?” You’ll give the hypocrite what she wants, no matter how hard she backhands you. And until you start acting on the real interests of your constituents, instead of mindlessly parroting the Democrat-Left agenda, nothing is going to change.

Besides, Nancy is a San Francisco limousine liberal. Therefore, any charge or even hint of bigotry on her part is ridiculous on its face. In fact, the Democratic Party as a whole has been pure as the driven snow on race.

Just ask them.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Important Reminder: Harry Reid is despicable

Seven Marines were killed in a training accident in Nevada last night. So, how does Senator Harry Reid, Majority Leader, Democrat of Nevada, respond to this tragic accident? Does he offer condolences to the families? Prayers for the dead? Ask for a moment of silence?That’s what any decent human being would do.

But we’re talking about Harry Reid, instead:

As I indicated, it was quite a big explosion. We’ll follow this news very closely. I will do whatever I can going forward to support the United States military and the families of the fallen Marines.

Mr. President, it’s very important we continue training our military, so important. But one of the things in sequester is we cut back in training and maintenance. That’s the way sequester was written. Now, the bill that’s on the floor, we hope to pass today helps that a little bit. At least in the next six months, it allows the military some degree of ability to move things around a little bit. Flexibility, we call it, and that’s good. But we have to be very vigilant. This sequester should go away. We have cut already huge amounts of money in deficit reduction. It’s just not appropriate, Mr. President, that our military can’t train and do the maintenance necessary.

These men and women, our Marines were training there in Hawthorne. And with this sequester, it’s going to cut back this stuff. I just hope everyone understands the sacrifices made by our military. They are significant, being away from home, away from families, away from their country.

Emphasis added. In other words, if we hadn’t had a roughly 2% scale-back in the rate of increase in spending, which is what the sequester is, these Marines wouldn’t be dead. And, following the administration’s political line, those deaths are therefore the fault of the Republicans, even though the sequester was Obama’s idea and Reid opposed a Republican plan to give Obama flexibility in applying the cuts:

“Republicans call the plan ‘flexibility,’” Reid said in February before the Senate killed the bill. “But let’s call it what it really is: a punt. As President Obama said Tuesday, it would simply raise the question: ‘Do I end funding that helps disabled children or poor children? Do I close this Naval Shipyard or that one?’”

He told reporters that he would not change the sequestration law if Republicans didn’t agree to tax hikes. “[U]ntil there’s some agreement on revenue, I believe we should just go ahead with the sequester,” Reid said, per The Hill.

So, using Reid-logic, are he and President Obama then ultimately to blame for these deaths?

Of course not. This is just a tragic accident, something that’s been happening in militaries since time immemorial. The Marines will investigate and find either faulty equipment or procedural errors, and then fix the problem. It has nothing to do with a minimal slowing of the growth in federal spending that’s only just begun.

But that doesn’t stop a petty, weaselly punk like Harry Reid from using dead Americans to score cheap political points.

Like I said: “despicable.”

RELATED: In case you don’t know, Harry makes a habit of putting party ahead of decency. In 2007, as Majority Leader and with the war in Iraq just entering a crucial phase, Harry Reid went before the nation to say America had lost, cutting the legs out from under our troops to depress morale at home, giving aid and comfort to the enemy in order to advance the Democratic Party, before our forces had even entered the battle known as “the Surge.” A battle which, by the way, they won in a brilliant fashion, crushing al Qaeda.

Have I mentioned that Harry Reid is despicable?

UPDATE: The Marines aren’t happy with Reid, either.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

The greatest issue facing America: a cruise-ship passengers’ bill of rights

And Chuck Schumer is on the case:

Sen. Charles Schumer is calling on the cruise ship industry to adopt a “bill of rights” to guarantee passengers certain protections while aboard their ships.

The New York Democrat says Sunday he’ll be asking industry leaders to voluntarily adopt the guidelines which include guarantees that ships have sanitary conditions, back-up power, medical staff and other standard procedures.

Schumer’s plan would also include the right to a full refund if a trip is abruptly canceled due to mechanical problems.

And thus we see the modern Democratic Party’s priorities in action: no budget from the Senate in more than 1,400 days? Bah! The threat of a nuclear-armed Iran or North Korea? Don’t waste my time! Food-stamp usage at an all-time high while labor force participation is at a record low? Small potatoes, friend.

No, as we see from the senior senator from New York’s example, what really matters is grandstanding whenever possible and wherever cameras and mics are available, so that you can pretend you’re fighting for the little guy and convince enough saps to vote for you again.

This also shows the different mindset of the limited government advocates on the one hand, and the statists on the other.

Limited Government Advocate:

“A company that provides poor service will eventually put itself out of business, and those who feel harmed by it have access to the civil courts. Annoying as these incidents are, it’s really none of the federal government’s business, and we should get back to tending to what properly is.”

Statist:

“This is an outrage! People need our protection against evil corporations; the government must do something! What? They already have redress under the law? They can take their business elsewhere? Insufficient! We must pass new laws, because that’s what we’re here for — to pass laws! Not in our purview? Nonsense! We’ll pass a law to make it our business! Call a press conference!”

Is it any wonder people are disenchanted with our political class, when so many of them ignore the real problems we face and instead go chasing butterflies?

via Liberty Unyielding

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Quote of the Day: Obama really is the second FDR edition

They made and broke the same promises:

Compare that to this statement by the Man Who Would Be FDR:

“This is big,” wrote White House director of new media Macon Phillips in a February 23, 2009 blog post, ”the President today promised that by the end of his first term, he will cut in half the massive federal deficit we’ve inherited. And we’ll do it in a new way: honestly and candidly.”

Indeed, President Obama did make that promise that day, saying, “today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

The 2013 budget the president submitted today does not come close to meeting this promise of being reduced to $650 billion for fiscal year 2013.

Few remember today that Roosevelt ran to the right of Hoover on spending, decrying government that “costs too much.” Obama, in his turn, promised to go through the budget “line by line” to make D.C. more frugal.

In other words, both took over from presidents who had already expanded government and increased spending, both promised to get the budget under control, and both broke those promises to instead grow government and government spending massively.

Time was right: Obama really is the second FDR.

FDR graphic via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Cruz vs. Feinstein, Texas vs. California, Liberty vs. …???

The following fascinating exchange occurred between Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on gun control, presumably including Feinstein’s pet legislation to outlaw scary weapons. First, Ted Cruz:

“The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is,” said Cruz to Feinstein, “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

Notice how Cruz approaches the question of the legislation before them: as a Senator of the United States, whose oath binds him to protect and defend the Constitution. His first concern, therefore, is where it should be — on how the legislation jibes with the Constitution, the rights it enshrines and the limits it imposes on government. Hence the questions about the First and Fourth amendments and the attempt to draw a logical parallel in order to test whether gun control legislation meets constitutional muster.

Call me naive, but isn’t this how the Senate is supposed to operate?

Apparently the whole thing was just too much for Senator Feinstein to bear:

“I’m not a sixth grader,” said Feinstein. “Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture.”

In other words, “Don’t you dare presume to question me, boy!”

Note how Feinstein replies: outrage at supposed disrespect (“I’ve been here for 20 years! I’ve passed bills!”); an emotional appeal (“I’ve seen dead people! Think of the children!”); and confusing the issue through ignorance (cosmetic features do not a “weapon of war” make, no matter how scary looking). But only once does she touch upon the Constitution, referring to Heller, and she never answers Cruz’s questions.

Memo to Senator Feinstein: You may have been in Washington for a lot of years (too many, if you ask me), you may have sat at one of the constitutional seats of power, maybe even read the Constitution, but you clearly don’t “get it,” and I doubt you’ve ever really thought about it. Your smokescreen reply to your colleague from Texas betrayed the emptiness of your position, its lack of any constitutional legitimacy. It was the bluster of an oligarch unaccustomed to being truly challenged. Senator Cruz was doing exactly what he should be doing, and what you should have been doing for those 20 years you’re so proud of.

I may be, like you, a child of the Golden State, but, right now?

I side with the Lone Star.

via The Weekly Standard, which has video

UPDATE/FLASHBACK: Don’t bother Senator Feinstein with facts, either.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Pelosi really does believe that all the money is hers

All the money! Give it to me! MINE!!

Well, the government’s, but you just know that, deep down inside, she sees herself as synonymous with the government — l’Etat c’est Nancy!

Bryan Preston noted this interesting bit of progressive logic while the Minority Leader was talking about reducing government spending:

“Tax cuts are spending.”

“Our whole budget is what $3.5 trillion,” Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill press conference. “So, when we talk about reducing spending, we certainly must, and we certainly have–$1.6 trillion in the previous Congress, $1.2 of it in the Budget Control Act.

“But spending is also related to tax cuts,” said Pelosi. Tax cuts are spending. Tax expenditures, they are called. Subsidies for big oil, subsidies to send jobs overseas, breaks to send jobs overseas, breaks for corporate jets. They are called tax expenditures. Spending money on tax breaks.

“And that’s the spending that we must curtail as well,” she said.

Preston is right: the only way this logic works, the only way a tax cut can be intellectually considered a government expenditure, is if all money is the government’s in the first place. Then it would make sense: by lowering tax rates, the government spends money it otherwise would have had, by letting the people keep more. It is also the government’s right –superior to that of the people– to decide how the money is expended, because it’s their property, anyway.

And it’s an idea utterly alien to everything this nation was founded on.

As I wrote a couple of months ago, when Pelosi said something similar:

But, cynical me, I suspect that is not what Nancy wants. No, what she wants, like Rocco in “Key Largo,” is more.  More revenue, more of our money. There’s never enough. And she wants the power that comes with having more money to redistribute, to turn citizens into dependent clients of the State and the Democratic Party. She and her progressive brethren will take the money and then control who gets how much — and if they want to keep getting it, they’ll vote the right way.

The power to distribute money is the power to control.

That’s what’s at the heart of the repeated bleatings from progressives about “more revenue.” Forget “fairness,” at least as it’s understood in the real world.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Quote of the Day: “When your own side is asking…” edition

From Senator Ron Wyden, during Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster:

Mr. President, what it comes down to is every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

That’s liberal Democrat Ron Wyden (1), from the liberal state of Oregon.

Second term isn’t turning out to be as much fun as you thought it would be, eh, Mr. President?

Footnote:
(1) And good for him, too. Seriously.

#Guncontrol – Colorado Democrats to ban popular shotgun?

Yet another “solution” that won’t do a thing to deal the problem of mass shootings, but will trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens:

A popular hunting shotgun could be banned under one of the bills moving through the state Capitol.

A pump or semi-automatic shotgun is the gun most hunters in Colorado use. It’s a gun state Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, says could be banned under a bill that’s already passed the House and Gov. John Hickenlooper says he’ll sign.

“They’re coming after the standard shotgun,” Brophy told CBS4 Political Specialist Shaun Boyd.

And what would this bill do? It bans the dreaded “high-capacity magazine,” which affects this model because it can be adapted to hold more than eight shells. If the bill becomes law, it would impose draconian rules:

“The law is specific as of July 1. You can keep it, but only if you maintain continuous possession of it,” Brophy said. “If it breaks, you can’t give to a gunsmith even to fix it. You can’t hand it to your son to use. It’s all now outlawed because of this 1224, the bill that Gov. Hickenlooper says he’s going to sign … this is most extreme thing anybody’s ever done related to firearms.”

Like many of the gun-grabbing bills pushed by progressives (whose real intent is a de facto ban via onerous regulations), this bill ignores the facts about firearms-related violence in America, including the fact that the vast majority of mass shootings involve handguns. It pays no attention to what may well be the real problem, the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill.

There is a problem, but taking advantage of tragedies to ram through  legislation that only gives the appearance of doing something to solve it really does nothing.

Except punish the law-abiding.

PS: The article goes on to report that Democratic legislators promise an amendment to deal with this issue. Forgive for thinking that’s an offer to sell the Brooklyn Bridge.

via Liberty Unyielding

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

“Democrats” — Where the “D” stands for “Denial”

President Obama and the congressional Democrats bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for our metastasizing national debt, but don’t you dare remind them of that:

During a House Financial Services Committee hearing Tuesday on the budget, two Democrats complained after House Financial Services Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling instructed that two monitors in the hearing room display a real-time running national debt clock.

California Rep. Maxine Waters and Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison both issued complaints about the displays, according to video of the hearing.

“Clearly it is a political prop designed to message ideologically,” Ellison said.

Waters asked that the debt clock not be on display whenever Democrats spoke, Hensarling said during the hearing.

“At the request of the ranking member, the national debt clock will not be put on the screens during Democratic time,” said Hensarling, a Texas Republican.

Follow the link for video of this sterling moment in political courage.

Congresswoman Waters, of course, is a California Democrat who recently skated on corruption charges. She also famously supported nationalization of the oil industry in 2008, but you’re a racist if you call her a Socialist.

Congressman Ellison (D – MN), on the other hand, is the well-known representative for the Muslim Brotherhood, and had a long association with Nation of Islam leader (and antisemitic fruitcake) Louis Farrakhan.

But reminding them of their party’s role in the United States’ looming debt disaster is somehow offensive to these two fine, upstanding people.

I guess the old saying is right: Truth hurts.

RELATED: My blog-buddy ST has declared a “whine alert.” And here’s an article on Ellison’s meltdown on last night’s “Hannity.”

The 20 most embarrassing moments in Democratic Party history

I know, I know. “Only 20″, you ask? Via Liberty Unyielding, let’s think of this as a Greatest Hits album. Here are the first six:

 1) The Trail of Tears (1838): The first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren, herded Indians into camps, tormented them, burned and pillaged their homes and forced them to relocate with minimal supplies. Thousands died along the way.

2) Democrats Cause The Civil War (1860): The pro-slavery faction of the Democrat Party responded to Abraham Lincoln’s election by seceding, which led to the Civil War.

3) Formation of the KKK (1865): Along with 5 other Confederate veterans, Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest created the KKK.

4) 300 Black Americans Murdered (1868): “Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor.”

5) The American Protective League and The Palmer Raids (1919-1921): Under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, criticizing the government became a crime and a fascist organization, the American Protective League was formed to spy on and even arrest fellow Americans for being insufficiently loyal to the government. More than 100,000 Americans were arrested, with less than 1% of them ever being found guilty of any kind of crime.

6) Democrats Successfully Stop Republicans From Making Lynching A Federal Crime (1922): “The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure.”

Now, none of this is to say that the average voting Democrat today is a sheet-wearing racist terrorist or a supporter of arresting people for daring to criticize the government. Far from it.

But, as I’ve written before, the Democratic Party has successfully whitewashed its dirty history on race and made the Republicans, the party that fought slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, and supported civil rights look like the historical villains. This record is in desperate need of correction.

Click through for the rest and for a great Jonah Goldberg quote from Liberal Fascism.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

#GunControl: Proof that Washington State Democrats don’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights

At least, State Senator Adam Kline (D – Seattle) doesn’t.

First go back and read my post from yesterday. The digest version is that Democratic state senators, including Kline, were following the post-Newtown party line on gun control and introduced a bill that would, among other things, permit the local sheriff to enter a gun owner’s home for inspection once per year without a warrant.

Naturally a furor resulted when this was discovered and the offending section was removed. Senator Kline went so far as to tell Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat:

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

In my original post, I voiced strong suspicion regarding Kline’s protestations that it was an accident, pointing out that progressivism disdains our founding documents and the philosophy behind them. But, in the back of my mind, I wondered if I was being too hard on Kline and his colleagues. Maybe it was just a simple error of oversight.

I shouldn’t have worried; it turns out I was right.

Via Bryan Preston look at what The Sure Things of Life found:

Senator Kline was a sponsor of an assault weapons bill in the 2009-2010 session which contained the EXACT SAME  PROVISION.  From Bill 6396:

“(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;”

 And from a bill he sponsored in 2005, Bill 3475:

“(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:

 (a) Within ninety days following the effective date of this section, submit to a background check identical to the background check conducted in connection with the purchase of a firearm from a licensed gun dealer;

(b) Unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, immediately register the assault weapon with the sheriff of the county in which the weapon is usually stored;

(c) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;“

Senator Kline didn’t “make a mistake”. 

No, he didn’t. He knew just what he was doing.  It seems subverting the 4th amendment is a bit of a hobby for Senator Kline. Maybe his voters should start asking themselves if they want someone in office who takes their liberties so lightly, before he goes after their other remaining rights.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

#GunControl: Washington State Democrats forget a little thing called the 4th amendment

Quick synopsis: Democrats in Olympia have heard their master’s voice from D.C. and have decided to “do something” about gun violence, even if that something does nothing but trample on the constitutional rights of Washington’s citizens. Hence a new gun-control measure was introduced in the legislature to “sensibly regulate” firearms and ban those assault weapons that aren’t really assault weapons but look scary. (1)

And it also gave local sheriffs the right to inspect your home without a warrant:

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?

As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.

That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

The column’s author, Danny Westneat, points out that the offending section has been excised from the current version of the bill. And I’ll point out that a self-described liberal is the one who first spotted the worm in the apple.

But something smells about Democratic claims that they didn’t know the provision was in there, that it surely would have failed constitutional muster, and that it was the fault of an unnamed staffer. (2) More likely they knew very well that the bill included a warrantless search and thought they could slip it through. The fact is that progressives, going at least as far back as Wilson, and whether they know it or not, despise the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the theory of natural, unalienable rights on which they are based, because they stand in the way of progressives remaking society in their utopian vision.

This is also another example of the parallel track progressives are following on their anti-Second Amendment quest: Feinstein’s “assault weapon” ban is likely dead in D.C., but they’re trying to achieve much the same thing in as many state capitals as they can: New York, California, Minnesota, Washington, wherever Democrats are strong and there’s little chance of people paying much attention because the news is so D.C.-centric these days.

While I think the Washington provision would have been chucked out in court, it’s a reminder to us all that the price of liberty is unceasing vigilance — abroad and especially at home.

RELATED: I’ve been saying for a while that an assault weapons ban would be useless, and now it turns out a high-power sourced agrees with me — the US Department of Justice. Go ahead, call them bitter-clingers. Meanwhile, it yet another example that gun-free zones are a tragedy waiting to happen, Pirate’s Cove reports that Adam Lanza, the psycho who attacked the Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut, did so in part because it was an “easy target.” Res ipsa loquitur.

Footnotes:
(1) If you’re detecting a whiff or sarcasm and scorn in that passage, you’re not having hallucinations.
(2) They claim they just didn’t read the bill. Gee, where have I heard that before? If true, then they’re only incompetent, not malevolent.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)