Hope this catches on:
From their website:
The Wyoming Country Party is a new political party that will nominate, support and elect candidates to the Wyoming legislature who will reduce the size and scope of government.
We embrace these fundamental principles:
- that government is best which governs least [TeeJaw says: you get an extra cookie if you know where this phrase comes from*]
- the people are entitled to a government that stays within the confines of the Constitution
- the Constitution was written to keep the government off the people’s backs
The Wyoming Country Party advocates reducing taxes on Wyoming citizens, reducing state government spending, and reducing Wyoming’s dependence on the federal government. The party believes that the federal government has grown too large and powerful, and will work to elect Wyoming citizens to the Wyoming legislature who will reclaim, through legal and peaceful means, state responsibility for education, land management, wildlife management and other government functions that were reserved to the states or to the people by the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.
Check out their website.
*It’s part of the opening sentence of Henry David Thoreau’s 1849 essay “Civil Disobedience” in which he criticizes the poll tax, the standing army, the standing government, and just about everything else. It’s available here and about a zillion other places on the internet.
A third party that confines itself to one state and tries to elect members of the state legislature might actually be a way to effect changes in the Republican party. Third party movements that are conservative in outlook simply enable more Democrats to get elected. Janet Napolitano would not be the head of Homeland Security today if she had not be elected governor of Arizona as a Democrat. And she would not have been elected governor of Arizona if the Libertarian party had not split the Republican vote.
Likewise, liberal third party movements elect more Republicans by splitting the Democrat vote. That’s why the Democrat party, being so much more politically astute and ruthless than Republicans, move quickly to crush and neutralize liberal third party movements.
Third party movements do the most good when they are able to get the Republican party to shape up and act responsibly conservative. When they attempt to compete directly with Republicans, Democrats are the beneficiaries.
Found this at Instapundit, and couldn’t resist copying it because it’s hilarious. I posted on Elizabeth Warren below at From Harvard Law — Elizabeth Warren. If you haven’t seen the original of this [it’s everywhere] please check out my earlier post before reading this or you won’t get it.
Actually, I wouldn’t call Elizabeth Warren hot, but that’s not what the writer of the parody meant anyway. I don’t know who created this, but good on him, or her. The parody hits Warren where she lives — she thinks the government owns us so this must be a logical extension of her own warped mind.
Today is Rosh Hashanna, the Jewish New Year, 1 Tishrei 5772. It is the first of the “High Holidays” (“Days of Awe”), celebrated ten days before Yom Kippur. According to Jewish tradition God inscribes each person’s fate for the coming year into a book, the “Book of Life” on Rosh Hashanah and waits until Yom Kippur to seal the verdict. During the Days of Awe, a Jew tries to amend his or her behavior and seek forgiveness for wrongs done against God and against other human beings. The evening and day of Yom Kippur are set aside for public and private petitions and confessions of guilt. At the end of Yom Kippur, one considers oneself absolved by God.
On this day I think about the 50 or so percent of American Jews who don’t support Israel, and some that affirmatively condemn Israel. These American Jews also harbor ill feelings toward devout Christians, especially evangelicals. They seem to believe that Christians are rabidly anti-semitic, evangelicals again getting the worst of this slander. Or maybe this is just a way to rationalize irrational beliefs because devout Christians are about as devoid of anti-semitic attitudes as may be found anywhere on this planet. It could also be that the Democrat party has conducted one of the most successful brain-washing campaigns ever on American Jews. About 73% of American Jews voted for Obama in 2008 and polls seem to show he will get pretty close to that level of support from American Jews in 2012. This support is for the most anti-Israel American president ever, and the leader of a political party where actual anti-semitism can be found in abundance.
So on Rosh Hashanna I always wonder if American Jews will spend any part of the Days of Awe reflecting on their reflexive voting habits and support for a politicians and a political party that has massively duped them into false beliefs. Will they seek atonement for their false accusation of anti-semitism against Christians, who are in fact their allies in fighting anti-semitism around the world? No, of course not. I’ve wondered about this for too many years. As they used to say in my old neighborhood, “It ain’t gonna happen.”
Actually, fearing I would be perceived to be mean spirited or even anti-semitic, I wasn’t going to say any of this. But then I found something written by an American Jew that seems to support my theory on American Jews of the liberal variety. I don’t think he is of the reform movement variety of American Jew, or he probably could not have written this:
Sundown tonight marks the start of the Jewish New Year that begins with the celebration of Rosh Hashanah. The ten days from the start of that holiday until the end of Yom Kippur next week are known as the Days of Awe in Judaism. During this period, Jews reflect on their deeds in the past year and seek to account for them to their Creator as well as their fellow human beings. This period of introspection should cause all of us to think about what we have done in the past 12 months and work to improve ourselves.
It would also be good advice for many world leaders as we observe the circus at the United Nations where nations line up to cheer dictators and to single out Israel for discriminatory treatment. As Jews around the globe take note of their shortcomings, perhaps those who have done so much to encourage hatred of the Jewish state and the Jewish people should take a few moments and own up to their policies that have done so much harm and which have made peace even more unlikely.
Though we refer to Jewish tradition, the notion of accountability is something that speaks directly to the problems of any democracy which is based on the concept that elected leaders are judged by the voters. For those in both parties who have sought to demonize their political opponents, the dawn of the New Year represents an opportunity to step back and realize that attempts to brand leaders, parties and movements as being beyond the pale or even questioning the wisdom of democracy itself — that is to say, questioning the right of the voters to override the dictates of the politicians and the intellectuals — has done much to undermine any hope for a resolution of our national problems.
These are the words of Johnathon Tobin writing at the Contentions Blog of Commentary Magazine. I have been a subscriber to Commentary since about 1968. Wow, that’s 43 years. It’s former editor, Norman Podhoretz, is a favorite author and has written a shelf of wonderful books, one devoted to the question of why so many American Jews are liberals.
I’d have to take exception to Mr. Tobins moral equivalence on how both parties demonize their opponents. Demonization of political opponents is a Democrat trait, not a Republican one. But otherwise I quite like what he says.
I may be reading too much into Mr. Tobins statement. I think I read a call to American Jews to take stock of themselves in their political beliefs and attitudes and consider whether they are giving aid and comfort to those who seek to do harm to Judaism, to Israel and to America. Others might read it differently.
The old media goes berserk trying to cast Sarah Palin as dumb, stupid, ignorant, and crazy. But it’s an elected Democrat dumb blonde who is the personification of dumb, stupid, ignorant and crazy. Here is what she said, and she was serious and not joking or kidding, as the media has tried to portray:
“You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things.
“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover.
“I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”
I refer to Democrats as members of the Democrat party. I have for the last several years refused to say “Democratic” party because I believe they disdain the democratic process. They don’t like it because they can’t get their agenda advanced that way. Now the idiot governor of North Carolina has spilled the beans and proven that the Democrat party does not deserve to be called “Democratic.”
I recall that when Castro entered Havana in 1959 he said, “Elections? We don’t need no election. The people have spoken.” Hitler became Chancellor of Germany after the Nazis won a majority in the elections of early 1933. By the end of that year he had concentrated his power and had become the supreme leader. No more elections were held until the Third Reich had been defeated in World War II. This dumb blonde is probably unaware of this history, and she’s probably just as clueless as to what a stupid statement she has made. The way to fix the American economy is for the voters to clean house in the 2012 elections and get rid of as many Democrats as possible, not to insulate them from elections so they can continue to wreak havoc.
The shameless media trying to save Purdue’s bacon by claiming she was joking don’t have enough self awareness to realize what a pathetic joke they have become. [I don’t know how the lovely Beverly spells her name, it seems to appear with a “u” in some accounts and with an “e” in others.]
The Democrats and Obama continue to give Republicans plenty of material for campaign commercials and speeches next year. Republicans will be grossly remiss if they don’t exploit it to the hilt.
UPDATE: Democrats seems to be on a bender to get rid as much democracy* as possible and to institute rule by unaccountable committees of technocrats. The “super committee” created out of the deficit deal is an example of how Democrats dream of having a government they can control without interference from the schlubs who think they should get to elect their own representatives. See Peter Orszag calls for less democracy, more rule by elite technocrats and Orszag and the People.
UPDATE II: The Washington Examiner calls for Purdue [Perdue?] to resign as governor of NC or for voters to fire her if she doesn’t: Obama Style Democracy: Bureaucrats Know Best:
The federal government’s legitimacy is based upon the consent of the governed. This nation’s Founding Fathers would have had it no other way. Given Perdue’s apparent disdain for the American constitutional system, she might be more comfortable in the private sector, where hierarchical management is the rule. And the voters in her state should remind her next November who’s the boss.
*I use the term “democracy” loosely meaning a representative republic which is what the founding fathers created in the U.S. Constitution and tried to guarantee to us. Our founding fathers wisely foresaw that there would be people like Beverly Perdue, Peter Orszag and Barack Obama. They tried to give us a Constitution that would save us from such people. They couldn’t think of a way short of armed insurrection to save us from a Supreme Court stacked with liberal justices who will trash the Constitution if they can. The 2012 election will be about saving the American Republic.
There are red-light cameras at 14 intersections in Albuquerque. On October 4th residents get to vote on whether to keep them or abolish them.
Oh, there’s a catch. The “vote” is non-binding. If the residents vote the wrong way, i.e., against keeping the cameras…well the politicians and bureaucrats won’t stand for that. Heads we win, tails you lose, you uppity, troublesome, miscreant people! Who do you think you are? You think we are going to let you decide? Screw you, take your silly little vote, we’re still going to do as we damn well please and you people can go pound sand if you don’t like it!
Freedom? Democracy? Don’t be silly. We know what is best for you.
Back to sanity and liberty: Red light cameras are a menace and don’t deliver the promised benefits, except to politicians and the sellers of the cameras. Instead of increasing safety they present a safety hazard through the moral hazard of giving officials an incentive to reduce the yellow cycle* to enhance ticket revenue (which also creates more intersection accidents). The sound of crunching metal and cries of agony from torn flesh and bones breaking are completely drowned out by the ca-ching, ca-ching of the cash registers at City Hall and in the corporate offices of the camera manufacturers.
Read all the arguments and objections against red-light cameras here.
UPDATE: Perhaps the Albuquerque city council will take the voters preference seriously so the vote won’t be merely symbolic. But when officials are willing to cause life threatening accidents to reap profits, why would they care about a non-binding vote?
*I don’t have specific evidence that this has been done in Albuquerque, but it has been done so many times in so many places because a powerful incentive exists, so I believe suspicion and cynicism are always warranted.
Looks like people’s hopes were up quite a bit about the time Obama was
immaculated inaugurated at the beginning of 2009, but boy have those hopes been dashed. Hope and change? More like no hope and dreadful changes leading to massive dissatisfaction.
Lady on a horse saved a boy from a grizzly attack near Glacier National Park by charging the bear on her horse, a part-percheron standing 18 hands high. One tough horse and a determined lady wrangler who wasn’t going to let a 750-pound grizzly attack an 8-year old boy is what it took to give a happy ending to a dangerous encounter on a mountain trail. Story here.
Two World War II airmen, one White the other Black, meet 50 years later and discover astounding connections between them.
Warren Buffett wants his taxes raised. Now, in my mind anyone who wants their taxes raised is numbskull stupid. Consider how government wastes your tax dollars and you’ll have to agree. We have a $14 trillion dollar accumulated deficit that arose seemingly out of nowhere, with a quickness never before imagined. It will rise another $1.3 trillion this fiscal year alone. The government spends only a small part of the money it takes from us on the things we really need government to do for us — roads, police and fire, national defense, etc. The bulk of the money the government confiscates from taxpayers and spends benefits the few at the expense of the many so that if all that spending were stopped in its tracks the only thing the most of us would notice is that our taxes just went down and our liberty went up, by a lot.
Buffett probably did not accumulate his multiple billion dollar fortune by being stupid. But his stated reason for wanting his taxes raised turns out to be false. He says his secretary pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does. Only thing is, he’s wrong about that. The rich in America, like Buffett, actually pay the overwhelming majority of all taxes collected by the government. Never mind facts, Buffett can believe whatever he wants but if he chooses to believe his secretary is getting hosed by the government, why doesn’t he just give her a raise? Or why doesn’t he call for her taxes to be lowered? Neither of those things is on his mind. So what is he really up to?
When Charlie Rose pointed out to Buffett that even if the government confiscated all of the wealth of people like him the math doesn’t compute. It’s not enough money to clear the deficit for even one year and the government could only do that one time because then Buffett and all like him would be in the poor house. Buffett replied with an answer that opens a window into his psyche: “I don’t think that what I’m talking about on taxes solves the deficit gap at all. But I think fairness is important.”
Ah, fairness. It’s not just for children anymore. It’s also for head-up-their-asses billionaires.
If you have as much wealth as Buffett, what can you buy with it that you haven’t already bought? Certainly, there are no material things that will excite you anymore because you already own all those. We know money can’t buy you love, so….wait a minute. That’s it. Love, admiration, attention and self-aggrandizement. Maybe that is what Buffett hopes to get out of his buffoonish calls for Obama to raise his taxes, and everyone else’s making over $200,000 a year as well [that’s the level at which Obama considers you to be a “millionaire.”] But wait you say, anyone as rich as Buffett is surrounded by sycophants, what does he want with more of the same. Yes, Buffett and his ilk are surrounded by people who profess to believe in his immortal greatness, but their phoniness becomes transparent and gets tiresome fairly quickly. Genuine belief by others in one’s greatness usually cannot be had by financial success alone, cannot be bought with one’s money. But one’s money might find other ways to get it, such as adopting a stance of self sacrifice for the common good. I have a lot of money, I want to do good with it. That’s why rich people establish foundations named after them and donate their money to causes that spend it in ways that do more harm than good in the world.
Like everyone else in his class, Buffett probably already has a trophy foundation, he needs something more. He needs to be seen as a savior, to be remembered like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Whitney, etc., the great philanthropists of the 19th and early 20th century. He’s already given billions to education, medical research, family planning (i.e., abortion) so he will be remembered as a philanthropist, if not by all at least by liberals. Maybe more is needed for true immortality. A rich guy committed to…fairness! That’s where immortality lies for an 81-year old multiple billionaire.
He is taking a risk. He might just be remembered for allowing his name to be associated with expanding an already bloated government that gobbles up the prosperity of its most productive citizens and doles it out in ways that make more and more people dependent on government handouts, destroying their aspiration to achieve the American dream.
There may be other more practical reasons for Buffett’s supposed generosity, that have nothing to do with any idea of “fairness” and everything to do with his attempting to advance his own peculiar self interest. See for example, The Buffett Tax Gambit by Ira Stoll. Mr. Stoll suggests we should consider the “Buffett Rule” in another way. By framing the fiscal debate on the tax rate of millionaires Buffett and his allies in politics avoid the debate of other questions, such as:
• Who should allocate capital, the people who earned it and own it, or the politicians in Washington as influenced by their lobbyists and campaign contributor cronies?
• How did we accumulate $14 trillion in debt so rapidly, and what are the consequences of that?
• How and why has federal spending grown to $3.8 trillion in 2011 from $1.8 trillion in 2000?
A debate over millionaire tax rates, which can hardly hurt anyone as rich as Buffett, is the debate they prefer to questions such as those above. Read all of Ira Stoll’s excellent article for more explanation of what Buffett might really be up to.
This morning I was reading an internet discussion about a woman whose boyfriend died of cancer. She has saved all of the email and text messages they exchanged over a period of years, and she reads selected ones from time to time. I don’t think she intended to save them just to have them after he was gone, the ones she posted on the internet reflect their hope and belief that he was going to survive the cancer and they would be together for both of their lives. Whether by plan or chance, these electronic notes and missives still exist and have now attained precious significance. Her boyfriend, planned future husband, by his words and hers recorded while he was present makes him seem to still be there, just out of reach.
Emily Dickinson knew nothing of email or text messages on the phone, nor of telephones for that matter, but she may have captured the essence of what this woman is feeling today, in this poem:
Death Sets A Thing Significant
Death sets a thing significant
The eye had hurried by,
Except a perished creature
Entreat us tenderly
To ponder little workmanships
In crayon or in wool,
With “This was last her fingers did,”
The thimble weighed too heavy,
The stitches stopped themselves,
And then ‘t was put among the dust
Upon the closet shelves.
A book I have, a friend gave,
Whose pencil, here and there,
Had notched the place that pleased him,–
At rest his fingers are.
Now, when I read, I read not,
For interrupting tears
Obliterate the etchings
Too costly for repairs.
For those interested, the piece I was reading can be found at Good.
So Why is he trying to raise them now? That was then, this is now? Or does he just say whatever he thinks sounds good at the time and he really has no clue what he’s talking about?
Usually a person’s bloated ego and narcissism are displayed in their words and actions, but Obama oozes so much of the stuff he can put it on display in a still photo. Here he’s the only one waving in a group photo at the United Nations with his hand covering the face of Tsakhia Elbegdorj, the president of Mongolia.
It might be tempting to think this is photoshopped, but apparently it is not. It’s the real thing.
FBI Crime report for 2010 is here.
The nation-wide violent crime rate fell 6.5% to 403.6 per 100,000 population and the overall murder rate declined 4.8% to 4.8/100,000. As usual, violent crime and murder are lowest in states with firearms freedom and highest in states with draconian firearm restrictions.
Overall the Western states, however, have the highest violent crime rate when compared broadly to the Northeast, Midwest and the South. That’s because it includes California and Arizona (lack of border control means high number of illegal alien criminals), and Alaska (lots of criminals seeking refuge in a land-wise large state with low population where law enforcement is often hours or even days away).
Within the statistics for the West are included Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho and Colorado — all states with relatively low violent crime and murder. Other states with very low crime are New Hampshire and Vermont. Those two have the most firearms freedom of all states, New Hampshire with minimal controls and Vermont with essentially none.
The District of Columbia and Chicago continue to be basket cases.
According to The Daily Finance the 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the U.S. lie in the following zip codes, in order from the 1st to the 25th most dangerous: 60612, 44104, 89106, 89101, 30313, 19123, 30303, 20003, 37402, 37403, 37408, 28206, 38106, 29403, 29405, 40203, 40204, 76102, 76111, 76103, 27105, 30312, 60609, 38105, 44115, 77550, 30310, 64106, 45210, 32805, 32801.
This is not a list of the most dangerous zip codes, it is a list of zip codes in which lie some of the most dangerous neighborhoods. There may be other neighborhoods within one or more of these zip codes which are not considered to be among the 25 most dangerous neighborhoods in the nation. Some zip codes cover several square miles so that a relatively safe neighborhood could share a zip code with a very dangerous one. I’d say that zip codes 60612 (Chicago) and 20003 (Washington D.C.) are not recommended if you’re looking to relocate, however. 90210 is still a good one, if a bit on the pricey side.
Your chances of becoming a crime victim in a year’s time in these neighborhoods range from 1 in 4 in the first most dangerous to 1 in 13 in the 25th most dangerous. For the methodology of how these determinations are made see The Daily Finance.
We can seek her out in this Encounter Books Broadside. They call them “Broadsides” because, I guess, they are strongly-word critical attacks on the lies, false notions and hidden agendas that promulgate throughout the political culture, mostly by the liberal left. The one pictured here (click on it to go to its Amazon page) debunks the Palestinian lie that seeks to blame Israel for standing in the way of the creation of a Palestinian state when Israel has a long history of offering land and money for peace with the Palestinians and Arabs everywhere.
Israel has tried everything, both carrots and sticks, and nothing works for one reason only: Palestinians don’t want a state, they don’t want peace, they want Israel gone and all Israeli Jews dead. Er, that ah, makes it a little hard to find common ground.
These “Broadsides” are both short and inexpensive. This one is 48 pages for $5.99, $4.49 for the Kindle edition (no taxes!). Here is the Encounter Books description:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has launched an international campaign to achieve recognition by the United Nations for an independent Palestinian state. Abbas and his international supporters claim that only Israel (with the United States) stands in the way of this act of historical justice, which would finally bring about peace in the Middle East.
In this eye-opening Broadside, Sol Stern debunks the Palestinians’ claim and shows that Abbas has been lying about the origins and history of the conflict. Palestinian leaders have rejected partition plans that would have given them much more land for their independent state than the Jews were offered for theirs. Rather than being the innocent victims of a “dispossession” at the hands of the Israelis, the Palestinians rejected reasonable compromises and instead pursued their aim of getting rid of the only Jewish state in the world.
This 11-minute video tells the story vividly. It’s remarkably informative, and will be worth your time:
The other GOP primary candidates are spending their money and political capital making TV ads against each other. Rick Perry is the only one using his resources where it counts — taking the case directly to Obama. Donald Trump did that also and shot up in the polls during his brief dalliance with the GOP nomination. The key to winning the GOP nomination is run against Obama first, and the other GOP candidates second. Perry gets it.
Here is Perry’s new TV ad. It’s highly effective, especially the tornado siren.
A recent Colorado Court of Appeals Case, People v. DeWitt, says they have that right, at least if they are in possession of a gun for their personal self defense.
There is an interesting discussion of this case at The Volokh Conspiracy. Please read the discussion, then take a look at the comment I left there. My comment was the 29th comment so you’ll have to scroll down a ways, or read the first 28 comments. Not a bad way to spend a little time, actually. My screen name there for leaving comments is, what would you think? TeeJaw, of course.
I guess I need to say one more thing. Yes, I am in favor of felons who have paid their debt to society having their right to keep and bear arms restored, especially non-violent felons. No, this position is not because of any circumstance personal to me. I have no criminal record, nary even a speeding ticket (since I ride a Ducati for pleasure that is no small feat).
I believe in the possibility of redemption, just in case anyone was wondering.
Would anyone want to go back to 2008 and do it over, even if it were highly likely that McCain would win this time? Obama has been a disaster, is pretty much the prevailing consensus, and there’s no disagreement with that here. But where would the country be now if McCain had won? Back on March 30th of this year, when the Republican field for 2012 didn’t look all that promising, I tried to rationalize an Obama win in 2012 by offering some evidence that it might not be all that bad. Now the Republican candidates look better and an Obama win in 2012 would be more forbidding. In that post, however, I considered where we’d be if McCain had won:
The way to think about an Obama reelection in 2012 is to think about a McCain victory in 2008. Had McCain won in 2008 where would conservatives be now? “On the ropes” is the only answer that makes any sense given what is known of McCain’s history and his personal traits. It’s unimaginable that there would be the sort of conservative ascendancy that has occurred in the last 2 years if McCain had defeated Obama in 2008. Obama has done for the conservative movement what McCain could never have done, nor had any desire to do, and that is to revive the conservative movement and inspire The Tea Party which has moved big numbers of “precious” independents away from the Democrat party to the Republican party. I call independents “precious” because both parties think they are the key to electoral success.
I’ve never seen anything in all the stuff I read almost daily, or listen to on conservative talk radio, that has said anything similar. Until now, that is. Today Instapundit points to Victor Davis Hanson’s article on The Great Obama Catharsis. Hanson begins with this:
Barack Obama has done the United States a great, though unforeseen, favor. He has brought to light, as no one else could, many of the pernicious assumptions of our culture from the last half-century. He turned theory and “what ifs” into fact for all America to see, experience, and, yes, suffer through.
And ends thus:
Had McCain been elected, or had Obama proved a canny Clinton triangulator, we would never have gotten out of the bipartisan rut of massive borrowing, growing government, higher taxes, and unionized public employee regulators. But with Obama as the great liberal deliverer and with the masses scared to death of Him, the next president will inherit an America in catharsis. The future is uncertain, but at least now, after our cauterizing, we have some sort of chance to return to the old principles that might save us.
My sentiments exactly. As bad as Obama has been, McCain would have destroyed the conservative movement and that would have led to longer term ills for the country. At least now conservatism is still alive and we can see some light at the end of the tunnel. You’d think far-sighted liberals would have preferred McCain. Actually, they did in the open primaries before the general election. They knew something conservatives didn’t.
You’ll want to read the whole thing, of course.