Washington State Income Tax Begins January 1, 2022

My employer announced that it is required to begin withholding Washington State income tax from my paycheck on January 1, 2022. I learned this for the first time from my employer, not the mainstream media. Huh. 

I didn't vote for this. Did you? One of the reasons I moved to this state in 1986 is because there was no income tax. I suppose my residence here is no net positive for Olympia, but I digress.

It's for some kind of long term care insurance policy, like Social Security, which I already resent not having the freedom to invest and plan for myself. I'll be retired before I'll be eligible to collect anything, so basically I'm just paying in. There's no benefit for me at all. What's more, they're already saying this program is underfunded, so look out. Federal income tax and Social Security started out low too. 

The state thinks all my earning are belong to them. I think we need to make a big deal out of this. 

Washington State’s New Long-Term Care Payroll Tax Begins 1-1-2022: What You Need to Know

CRT is a Logical Regression From Which There Is No Escape

 

The Liberty Offensive

(Feel free to be offended!)

Playing Offense

For about 100 years, starting around 1913, the beginning of the 'progressive' era during the Woodrow Wilson regime, and continuing with the Frankfurt School, liberty and freedom have been under attack. Freedom and liberty supporters played defense. For 100 years, we've been in defense of liberty, and look where it got us.

We need to take offense, and play offense. I keep hearing, and have said it myself, "once lost, liberty is nearly impossible to recover". That's only true if you're playing defense -- trying to defend your liberty. Don't defend liberty! Demand liberty! Make our illiberal oppressors defend their reasons for taking our liberty! Let's start kicking ass, and taking names!

Coming out of the Age of Enlightenment, the concepts of freedom and liberty were on the offense in the American Revolution, and we won against seemingly insurmountable odds. This nation was founded on the idea that the individual is the world's smallest minority, and that individual rights and responsibilities deserve the most respect. We are being oppressed. We have been playing defense for too long. The government is taking our freedom, and selling it back to us as permits. We must go on the offense! Join The Liberty Offensive!

Flinging Poo

The left are throwing crap at the wall faster than we can scrape it off. Throwing legislation, ideas, movies, plots, TV shows, that all audaciously push the envelope further and further to the left. They are overshooting their goals, just so the line gets pushed to the left, where they want it. Who would have guessed, 20 years ago, that long held traditional values like marriage and Christmas would be corrupted and marginalized, and if we object, we're the ones who can be fined for bigotry?

The Constitution binds the government, and forces government to treat every citizen equally under the law. The Constitution frees the individual and private business. Everyone is at liberty to be as bigoted as we please. Other dissenting individuals and businesses are at liberty to boycott us. That's how things work in the free market of ideas. Not for very much longer.

A friend of mine was a Marine. He said that they were trained in hand-to-hand combat, to punch past the goal. If you mean to punch a man in the nose, aim for the back of his head. That way, you'll be sure to smash his nose. The left are already doing that. We cannot wait for the left to throw out their next outrageous idea, and try to fight it. Just by getting it out there, it gains a certain level of acceptance. Even if we object, and the judge says, "sustained", the jury cannot un-hear it. The defense rests. How many more times do you think the Supreme Court will say the right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right?

So what does it mean to join The Liberty Offensive? It means we need to start putting our ideas out there, for the jury to hear, even if the judge says, "overruled". We need to try to pass legislation that enhances individual liberty and responsibility, even if President Zero vetoes it. We need to write songs with liberty-laced lyrics. We need to write TV shows that celebrate freedom and responsibility. We need to mock and ridicule the ridiculous PC ninny-speak. As Bill Whittle likes to say, "we are the steely-eyed missile men who believe in loud guns, hot women and fast cars". We need to aim for the back of 'progressives' heads, just to be sure we smash their noses.


Do you know why I always put the word 'progressive' and 'liberal' in single quotes? Because 'progressivism' is the exact opposite of progress. It is regression. Today's 'liberals' are illiberal statists. Those are irony-quotes. And I use single quotes instead of double quotes, because I don't think 'progressives' and 'liberals' are worth the extra effort it takes for me to hit the shift key to make double quotes. That is the kind of contempt I have for 'progressive', 'liberal' ideology. They talk liberal, but they mean slavery.

If the Republican party doesn't start going on the offensive for liberty, it will be left in the dust. The Democrat party have become increasingly 'socialist' (communist-lite), and the opposition party is supposed to provide a counterbalance. It means moving further to the right, to counterbalance the left. The Republicans are supposed to be the opposition to the Democrat party. But the most recent budget bill passed by the Republican-controlled congress, essentially passed the entire Democrat agenda. That is not opposition; that is capitulation!

"Grow a Pair, Baby Cakes!"

Come on, you GOP-ers, grow a pair, or a spine, or both, and start introducing some offensive legislation worthy of the name, "Grand Old Party"! And I mean "offensive" in every sense of the word. Make that legislation offensive to the left. The more offensive, the better! Go on the offensive! Be on the offensive! Offend the hell out of them! Offend their faces off! Aim past your target, so that what you hit will be the new target. Move the Overton Window back to the right. Stop walking on eggshells, being afraid to offend people. Being offended is for weenies! Donald Trump doesn't have all the right ideas, but he has the right attitude.

Audit the Fed! Defund Planned Parenthood! Dismantle the IRS and the EPA! Dismantle the Department of Education! Get rid of as much oppressive bureaucracy as possible! If it isn't an enumerated power, lose it! Audacious? You bet! Non-starters? Maybe for the first 100 tries. The 'progressives' have been doing their crap like this for 100 years. We have to play the long game.

No more defense of liberty! This is The Liberty Offensive! We are offensive! We're here to throw crap against the wall faster than the left can scrape it off. The stickier the better. People just want to be left alone to live their lives, keep the stuff they earned, and be decent people, to the greatest extent possible. Even 'liberals'. Suck it up, lefties!

Pro-Choice, or Anti-Vaxxer?

One of the battle cries of the pro-choice movement is, "keep your government out of my body!" Nevermind that one of the legitimate functions of government is to protect the rights of every citizen (of course, the preborn may not be citizens). Still, I'm pretty sure murder is illegal, even if no citizen is involved. Nevertheless, the concern about how much jurisdiction government has over one's own body is legitimate.

Which brings us to mandatory vaccination. Sure, it's a public health issue. Unvaccinated people may pose a greater risk to the general population. On the other hand, can government literally inject pathogens, dead or alive (attenuated), directly into our bodies, with the intention of modifying our immune systems without our consent? That is just about as invasive as you can get. 

Having handily survived chickenpox, mumps and both kinds of measles as a child, I can tell you that a full infection of those diseases is quite survivable, and could provide better lifelong immunity. Though there is risk, it is certainly nothing like pertussis, smallpox and polio, for which I was immunized. 

I think it is probably best to be immunized against certain killers. It may be better to be immunized against the less severe diseases as well. I can accept the idea of mandatory immunization in order to be admitted into various public and private institutions, such as schools, as long as conscientious objectors still have alternatives (such as home schooling). 

This is not anti-science: I have been a lifelong student of science, and I know perhaps better than most, that although modern science and technology is nothing short of miraculous in many respects, science still doesn't have everything figured out. Biological systems, including our immune systems, are not well understood. Vaccines are not without risk. We don't have long term data for the newer vaccines. By definition, that won't happen until the vaccines have existed for one average human lifetime. Our immune systems are unpredictable, and can be triggered to react violently and badly. Autoimmune diseases are difficult to treat. It is not irrational to not want to risk it. But it is tyrannical to mandate the exchange of one risk for another. We should have a choice.

When In The Course of Human Events ...

A friend of mine sent me a link to an article entitled, America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President. Now, maybe you're not a Christian, and maybe you're not even religious. That's beside the point. The thing that struck me about this article is the similarity to another document. See if you can guess what it is.

When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions. 

Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith. 

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

• December 2009-Present - The annual White House Christmas cards, rather than focusing on Christmas or faith, instead highlight things such as the family dogs. And the White House Christmas tree ornaments include figures such as Mao Tse-Tung and a drag queen.
• June 2013 – The Obama Department of Justice defunds a Young Marines chapter in Louisiana because their oath mentioned God, and another youth program because it permits a voluntary student-led prayer.

TL;DR, you can go here to see the rest. Now, here's the comparison. 

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

TL;DR, you can go here to see the rest.  Now, the list of grievances against the present King of Great Britain President Barack Obama is limited to religious freedom and an attitude, but the real list goes all the way back to the Great Imprognation, starting over 100 years ago, ca. 1913. And that list is much, much longer than the list enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, and spans more than one president.

I will re-iterate: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. 

My question is, what is our new breaking point? How much shall we endure? Are evils still sufferable? We are supposed to be a free country, but from my perspective of almost 60 years, I can see a very monotonic diminution of our freedoms. I can no longer do a great many things that we used to do without thinking 40 years ago. I could make a list of what those things are. They would take a form very similar to the two lists I just presented. GHUA.

The Great Imprognation

The Great Imprognation is the process starting over 100 years ago, ca. 1913, when 'progressive' ideas began infiltrating the American Republic. The year the Constitution was sullied with the 16th amendment (progressive income tax), the 17th amendment (direct election of senators), and the 18th amendment (prohibition). Prohibition was the only one that we repealed. I guess we're more worried about protecting our booze than protecting our freedom.

Climate Change Deniers Are Completely Insane

There's an interesting article over at The Blaze, called Climate Change Deniers Are Completely Insane.

I’m wondering if you have the guts to address something and actually force your right wing readers to think for themselves. I’m getting really tired of seeing these idiots on Facebook who every time it gets cold or snows start gloating about how it “proves” there is no climate change. You’ve never outed yourself as a climate denier, and I know you like to consider yourself a logical person, so I’m hoping this is one area where you differ from your cohorts. These morons need to be put in their place. Colder temperatures and blizzards ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC MODEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. This is why I could never be a republican. I can’t be a part of a group of anti-science climate deniers who would kill this planet if they were given free reign. Prove you’re really “controversial,” Matt, and call your people to task here.

Of course, he means "climate change denier", not "climate denier", as the article explains. But enough about them This my blog, and this is all about my opinions.

I'm not a denier. I'm a skeptic. Huge difference. Climate change may or may not be happening. We have, or can get incontrovertible data that will confirm or deny it (although it seems rather inconclusive and open to interpretation at the moment. And it depends heavily on what you choose as initial conditions -- a very common concern for anyone who has ever even dabbled in science).

The thing that I am skeptical about is the hypothesis that there is a strong causal link between human activity and whatever is happening in the climate today. Hear me now and believe me later: The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim. As I see it, the burden of proof is nearly overwhelming, because there isn't even any real consensus about where the data is trending. Until that is sorted out, all we have is some weak correlation, which is a huge leap from establishing a cause.

Reproducible experiments are most likely impractical, which means anything we do to counteract whatever it is, would have to be based solely on faith. Without scientific evidence, the watermelons want to invoke the precautionary principle. But without reproducible experimental results, we have no clue what will really work. Whatever random straws we grasp would be no more predictable than religious incantations.

According to Wikipedia,

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

Notice the use of the word "consensus". I always wondered where that came from. Science is based on experimental evidence and proof, not consensus. Now we have a deeper understanding of the narrative. Oh, and see what they did there? Look at the convenient shift of the burden of proof! Welcome to the Church of Our Lady of Anthropogenic Global Whatever.

I Want to do Something That Works

The kids for the past 30 years or so, have been programmed by government indoctrination factories euphemistically called schools. What classical liberals say does not resonate with this generation's world view or life experience anymore. They do not hold these truths to be self-evident. Not even the scientific method is understood or valued. The trappings of science and research are being used to promote an evil agenda; nothing more. When the end justifies the means, that is the end.

I think there is a very real chance that we're screwed, that we're entering another dark age, as we gradually lose the principles to create and maintain the freedom and technology that gave us the highest standard of living in human history. There's actually a reactionary rejection of it. I don't think we'll get it back without a cataclysmic historical event to effect a total reset. I only hope that in the rubble, someone finds the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, "gets it", and uses it as a model to rebuild their little corner of the world.

Too despairing? I have been watching our government work. Unlike most people, I have been attending practically every city and county council meeting for the last four years. I have seen the sausage being made. Voters, voting for benefits paid for by someone else. Opportunists, special interests and "non profits" insinuating their "vision" into public policy, getting their hands on the levers of authority without any responsibility to the voters. Dare I say without our knowledge, for the most part. And I am sorry to say that all too many folks are unaware of, or downright hostile to the principles of good government. 

I blame government schools. My wife and I spent years trying to get public schools to serve our kids. We thought we were the customer. But serving the kids was too much bother. It was against regulations. Or the professionals "knew better". The fact that we knew our kids better wasn't important. We finally realized that the schools think of our kids as the product, and not the customer. 

I'll repeat that: the schools think of our kids as the product, and not the customer. When we realized that schools were nothing more than factories, producing only what the monopolistic factory owner wants to produce, that's when we decided to home school our kids. Oh yes, we still pay taxes for the public schools (you're welcome), but we then invest the additional personal time and resources to teach our kids what we think they need to know to succeed in life, in ways that are individualized for the best benefit to them, and not the reverse. I feel bad for the families who can't afford this luxury. 

Every time I turn around, I hear about more claptrap in the schools. This wouldn't bother me if people had a choice. If you like your claptrap, you can keep your claptrap. If not, change schools. Did you know that the word "university" is the opposite of "diversity"? That's right, we need more diversity. Real diversity. Diversity of thought, not the superficial crap that passes for diversity on the left. The government schools need competition. Let the people choose. The best ideas will thrive, and the flawed ideas will wither and die. And not a moment too soon. 

Two Americas

In early January 2014, Bob Lonsberry, a Rochester talk radio personality on WHAM 1180 AM, said this in response to Obama's "income inequality" speech.

The politics of envy was on proud display last week as the president said he would pledge the rest of his term to fighting “income inequality.” He notes that some people make more than other people, that some people have higher incomes than others, and he says that’s not just.

It was the rationale of thievery.

The other guy has it, you want it, Obama will take it for you.

Vote Democrat.

(Continue reading...)

This is tied up in the myth of "white privilege", "male privilege" and all the other 'progressive' claptrap. Hard work heals all wounds. But life has never, ever been fair, and you can't legislate it to be. The best you can do is protect everyone's right to pursue happiness with equal justice under the law. Stop government corruption. Stop government interference trying to "level the playing field". The power that goes with thinking you can do that just invites the fraud and corruption that we have in spades today. Don't like "crony capitalism"? Don't like "corporate welfare"? Then deny government the authority to try to regulate these things! Insist on a constitutionally limited government!

Any regime that governs against nature, including human nature, is bound to fail. The entire economy will grind to a halt under the oppressive weight of a failed regime, that continues to think it can control the economy and guarantee equality of outcomes in a nation of individuals. The American dream will die when the people who work for a living are outnumbered by the people who vote for a living.

Tax Day

I have no objection to paying for the care and feeding of a federated government, limited by the founding documents (the official specification if you will), with the primary function of protecting everyone's individual rights, equally under the law. It costs money to run a legislature, judiciary and executive branch. It costs money to do things like making sure the tax paying citizens are secure within our borders (which the regime hasn't been doing by the way). 

But my individual rights don't cost you a dime. I have a right to free speech, but that doesn't require you to provide me with free air time. I have freedom of religion, but that doesn't require you to buy me a Bible or a Koran. I have freedom of the press, but that doesn't require you to provide me with free paper, or free internet. Do I have a right to keep and bear arms? I think I still have a right to obtain those things, but that right doesn't require you to provide me with free guns and ammo. Do I have a right to food and shelter? I have the right to obtain those things, but that right doesn't require you to provide me them for free. Do I have a right to health care? I have the right to obtain health care, but that right doesn't require you to provide me with free contraceptives. 

While we all have the moral obligation to help provide for the less fortunate, when someone demands that one person provide for another under duress, that is called theft, or slavery. And we deem those things to be immoral.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground”, and that is exactly what has been happening in this country for 230 odd years. But we have had some major upward inflection points since the 'progressive' movement began 100 years ago: FDR's New Deal, LBJ's Great Society, and BHO's bailouts, hope'n'change and ObamaCare. These things all transfer individual freedom (the free market) to government control. Forced redistribution of wealth isn't a Great Society, it's a sick one: creating a dependent idle class at the expense of the independent, productive one. Discouraging self-sufficiency. Creating envy instead of cooperation and healthy competition.

The advent of a bureaucratic state, run by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who's primary objective is basically mission creep (with all the best intentions), increases cost and thereby the tax load. The worst thing is, taxes don't even begin to cover the cost of government anymore. The deficit and the debt is an even bigger burden on our society. High taxes are only the tip of the iceberg. 

We need more teachers like this one, with the guts to speak out. Even if Common Core was a great thing, she should not be threatened with loss of her job for speaking out on any political issue. This is not the same as badmouthing your employer in public.

 

Letterman's Top Ten Reasons He Votes Democrat

I got this via email from one of my racist tea party terrorist friends. It has been making the rounds on the interweb for a while, but I modified it slightly to suit my own personal convictions, because dag nabbit, it's my blog:

#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my German Shepherd.*

#9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn’t.

#8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

#7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody I agree with is offended by it.

#6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. Because when seconds count, the police can be here in minutes.

#5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.

#4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.

#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.

#2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

…And the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers or fish in those other countries. 

I know, it's a cheap shot, but somebody had to take it. I realize each individual Democrat might not think exactly like this -- it's a caricature -- but it does represent a pattern that repeats itself on the left. By the way, David Letterman would never say anything like this.

*Just so you know, the lowercase 'L' libertarian in me wonders what gives government the authority to say anything at all about marriage. I think a legal framework to form families and partnerships is sufficient. Churches and social groups should be empowered to make moral value judgments for their adherents.

Thanks to Dave & Maddie for sending this.

We Are Not Subjects!

by Laura Hollis

The unveiling of the dictatorial debacle that is Obamacare absolutely flabbergasts me. It is stunning on so many levels, but the most shocking aspect of it for me is watching millions of free Americans stand idly by while this man, his minions in Congress and his cheerleaders in the press systematically dismantle our Constitution, steal our money, and crush our freedoms. 

The President, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (with no small help from Justice John Roberts) take away our health care, and we allow it. They take away our insurance, and we allow it. They take away our doctors, and we allow it.They charge us thousands of dollars more a year, and we allow it. They make legal products illegal, and we allow it. They cripple our businesses, and we allow it.They announce by fiat that we must ignore our most deeply held beliefs – and we allow it.

Where is your spine, America?

Yes, I know people are complaining. I read the news on the internet. I read blogs. I have a Twitter feed. So what? People in the Soviet Union complained. People in Cuba complain. People in China complain (quietly). Complaining isn't the same thing as doing anything about it. In fact, much of the complaining that we hear sounds like resignation: Wow. This sucks. Oh well, this is the way things are. Too bad.

Perhaps you need reminding of a few important facts. Here goes:

1. The President is not a king. Barack Obama does not behave like a President, an elected official, someone who realizes that he works for us. He behaves like a king, a dictator – someone who believes that his own pronouncements have the force of law, and who thinks he can dispense with the law's enforcement when he deigns to do so. And those of us who object? How dare we? Racists!

And while he moves steadily "forward" with his plans to "fundamentally transform" the greatest country in human history, he distracts people with cheap, meaningless trivialities, like "free birth control pills"! (In fact, let's face it: this administration's odd obsession with sex in general - Birth control! Abortion! Sterilization! Gay guys who play basketball! -- is just plain weird. Since when did the leader of the free world care so much about how people have sex, who they have it with, and what meds they use when they have it? Does he have nothing more important to concern himself with?)

2. It isn't just a failed software program; it is a failed philosophy. People are marveling thatHealthcare.gov was such a spectacular failure. Well, if one is only interested in it as a product launch, I've explained some of the reasons for that here. But the larger point is that it isn't a software failure, or even a product failure; it is a philosophy failure.

I have said this before: Obama is not a centrist; he is a central planner. And this – all of it: the disastrous computer program, the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted, the lies, the manipulation of public opinion, the theft of the public's money and property, and freedom (read insurance, and premiums, and doctors) -- IS what central planning looks like.

The central premise of central planning is that a handful of wunderkinds with your best interests at heart (yeah, right) know better than you what's good for you. The failure of such a premise and the misery it causes have been clear from the dawn of humanity. Kings and congressmen, dictators and Dear Leaders, potentates, princes and presidents can all fall prey to the same imperial impulses: "we know what is good the 'the people.'

And they are always wrong.

There is a reason that the only times communism has really been tried have been after wars, revolutions, or coups d'état. You have to have complete chaos for people to be willing to accept the garbage that centralized planning produces. Take the Soviet Union, for example. After two wars, famine, and the collapse of the Romanov dynasty, why wouldn't people wait in line for hours to buy size 10 shoes? Or settle for the gray matter that passed for meat in the grocery stores?

But communism's watered-down cousin, socialism, isn't much better. Ask the Venezuelans who cannot get toilet paper. Toilet paper. ¡Viva la Revolución!

Contrary to what so many who believe in a "living Constitution" say, the Founding Fathers absolutely understood this. That is why the Constitution was set up to limit government power. (Memo to the President: the drafters of the Constitution deliberately didn't say "what government had to do on your behalf.") They understood that that was the path to folly, fear, and famine.)

3. Obama is deceitful. Just as the collapse of the computer program should not surprise anyone, neither should we be shocked that the President lied about his healthcare plan. Have any of you been paying attention over the past few years? Obama has made no secret of his motivations or his methods. The philosophies which inspire him espouse deceit and other vicious tactics. (Don't take my word for it: read Saul Alinsky.) Obama infamously told reporter Richard Wolffe, "You know, I actually believe my own bullshit." He has refused to be forthcoming about his past (where are his academic records?). His own pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, told author Ed Klein, that Obama said to him, "You know what your problem is? You have to tell the truth."

Did Obama lie when he said dozens of times, "If you like you plan, you can keep it. Period!"? Of course he did. That's what he does.

4. The media is responsible. And had the media been doing their jobs, we would have known a lot of this much, much earlier.

The press is charged with the sacred responsibility of protecting the people from the excesses of government. Our press has been complicit, incompetent, or corrupt. Had they vetted this man in 2008, as they would have a Republican candidate, we would have known far more about him than we do, even now. Had they pressed for more details about Obamacare, Congress' feet would have been held to the fire. Had they done their jobs about Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, NSA spying - or any of the other myriad betrayals of the public trust that this administration has committed, Obama would likely have lost his 2012 reelection campaign. (A fact that even The Washington Post has tacitly acknowledged. Well done, fellas! Happy now?)

Instead, they turned a blind eye, even when they knew he was lying, abusing power, disregarding the limits of the Constitution. It was only when he began to spy on them, and when the lies were so blatant that the lowest of low-information voters could figure it out that they realized they had to report on it. (Even in the face of blatant, deliberate and repeated lies,The New York Times has the audacity to tell us that the President "misspoke.") They have betrayed us, abandoned us, and deceived us.

5. Ted Cruz was right. So was Sarah Palin. The computer program is a disaster. The insurance exchanges are a disaster. What's left? The healthcare system itself. And this, of necessity, will be a disaster, too. Millions of people have lost their individual insurance plans. In 2015, millions more will lose their employer-provided coverage (a fact which the Obama administration also knew, and admitted elsewhere). The exorbitant additional costs that Obamacare has foisted on unsuspecting Americans are all part of a plan of wealth confiscation and redistribution. That is bad enough. But it will not end there.

When the numbers of people into the system and the corresponding demand for care vastly exceed the cost projections (and they will, make no mistake), then the rationing will start. Not only choice at that point, but quality and care itself will go down the tubes. And then will come the decisions made by the Independent Payment Advisory Board about what care will be covered (read "paid for") and what will not.

That's just a death panel, put politely. In fact, progressives are already greasing the wheels for acceptance of that miserable reality as well. They're spreading the lie that it will be about the ability of the dying to refuse unwanted or unhelpful care. Don't fall for that one, either. It will be about the deaths that inevitably result from decisions made by people other than the patients, their families, and their physicians. (Perhaps it's helpful to think of their assurances this way: "If you like your end-of-life care, you can keep your end-of-life-care.")

6. We are not SUBJECTS. (or, Nice Try, the Tea Party Isn't Going Away). We have tolerated these incursions into our lives and livelihoods too long already. There is no end to the insatiable demand "progressives" have to remake us in their image. Today it is our insurance, our businesses, our doctors, our health care. Tomorrow some new crusade will be announced that enables them to take over other aspects of our formerly free lives.

I will say it again: WE ARE NOT SUBJECTS. Not only is the Tea Party right on the fiscal issues, but it appears that they are more relevant than ever. We fought a war once to prove we did not want to be the subjects of a king, and the Boston Tea Party was just a taste of the larger conflict to come. If some people missed that lesson in history class, we can give them a refresher.

The 2014 elections are a good place to start. Call your representative, your senator, your candidate and tell them: "We are not subjects. You work for us. And if the word "REPEAL" isn't front and center in your campaign, we won't vote for you. Period."

Laura Hollis is an attorney and teaches entrepreneurship and business law at the University of Notre Dame. She resides in Indiana with her husband and two children.

(Sent to me by several readers. ~ KU)

Update: Here's the original post, on Town Hall.

Merry Christmas! God Bless Us, Every One!

Bill Whittle talks about faith, morality and the American form of government:

My Annual Christmas Post

This never fails to choke me up, especially since it was mainstream when I first saw it in 1965, and it is considered controversial today.



They would never put this on network TV today. How far we have fallen.

A Fool's Paradise

This is from an email that has been circulating around the Interweb. It's another cautionary tale.

---

"Winston, come into the dining room, it's time to eat," Julia yelled to her husband. "In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered.

Actually Winston wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington. Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad" example it sets for the rest of the world", Winston was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting.

Yet, it wasn't the game that Winston was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another Tofu Turkey. Even though it was the best type of Veggie Meat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce, and mincemeat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey.

And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020, to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims' historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the Tofu Turkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats - which were monitored and controlled by the electric company - be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family.Winston missed his mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of life-saving medical treatment. He had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though he demanded she be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. "The RHC's resources are limited," explained the government bureaucrat Winston spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I'm sorry for your loss."

Ed couldn't make it either. He had forgotten to plug in his electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2021 which outlawed the use of the combustion engines - for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and Ed didn't want to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there. Thankfully, Winston's brother, John, and his wife were flying in.

Winston made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids. Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists."

Winston's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2022. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny," even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, grocery stores, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.

The Supreme Court is reviewing statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. "A living Constitution is extremely flexible", said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan. "Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example," she added.

Winston's thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Winston had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.

His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism, or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner", but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn't help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5,000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13.

The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth." This time, they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Winston was not particularly hopeful.

Yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful Winston thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least, he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential.

Winston, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them. He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2009, when all the real nonsense began.

"Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said 'enough is enough' when we had the chance," he thought.

Maybe so, Winston. Maybe so.

---

Thanks to Dave and Maddie for sending me this.

Is this over the top? Maybe so, dear reader. Maybe so. But look how oppressive statism is today. For those of you who were in high school in the 1970s, or grew up in the 1960s, like me, you remember what life was like. You remember the freedom. Sure, pot was illegal. Nobody even considered gay marriage (some of us knew gay people but we didn't persecute them; we simply were at liberty not to celebrate or condone their lifestyle).

People were responsible about gun ownership, and you could even openly carry a rifle or a handgun around town (taking it in for service, or buying or selling) without a police escort. You could have a fire in your fireplace, or burn some brush if you needed to, without fines or special permits. You could build a shed on your property (or tear one down), or do some landscaping without being fined or hauled to court by the county government. Oh, and it wasn't legal to kill unborn children by the millions each year.

Meanwhile, we have not reduced poverty; we have institutionalized it. We've created a dependent underclass. We've reduced self-respect. We've increased crime. We've reduced upward mobility. We've reduced liberty. Then, there's this from Bill Whittle:



So is this cautionary tale so outlandish? If we follow the current 'progressive' trajectory, I'd say it's a tad conservative in it's projections. Many of these prognostications are already in force, or nearly so. If you call that 'progress'. The end.

What Americans Can Learn From The Constitution Nelson Mandela Signed

Oh boy. This article is so wrong: 

The South African Constitution, by contrast, devotes 32 different articles to individual rights before it even mentions the structure of government. While America’s founders were primarily worried about how lawmakers would be selected and what powers they would and would not have, South Africa’s Constitution begins with a statement of human rights. It’s drafters wanted first and foremost to ensure that nothing like apartheid would ever exist again.

Our US Constitution doesn't start with a list of rights, because government cannot grant rights! We're born with them by virtue of being human (not by being US citizens). The principles of good government were given in our Declaration of Independence; the Constitution is the specification for the government that implements it. Even our Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to our Constitution -- not an afterthought) acknowledge that they are not granting these rights, and the tenth amendment further states that the Bill of Rights are not a complete list -- and cannot be (because government cannot grant rights that we're born with). 

The US Constitution is the "white list" of things our government must do. The Bill of Rights is the "black list" of natural rights on which no good government should ever infringe. Guess what? The US government infringes on several of them routinely.

I respect Nelson Mandela, and everything he had to endure under apartheid (not that dissimilar from our own slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation), but all of those things are already supposed to be illegal -- problems we had to work out under our own form of government. No constitution can prevent tyrants from ignoring it or circumventing it, as we see playing out in abundance today by the US government.

The article is from the website, Think Progress (as in 'progressive'), so you just know I'll disagree with them. Nelson Mandela was an avowed communist, so whatever "individual rights" his Constitution arrogantly granted most likely involved little or no economic freedom, but rather provision without consent, by the productive members of society, for the non-productive members. When done by anyone but government, it is the definition of "theft".

From each according to his ability; to each according to his need is a beautiful thing when it is done voluntarily. But it is slavery when earnings are redistributed by government, without the consent of the worker-producers.

BOHICA Folks, You've Earned It!

Q: Can this problem be solved with more freedom, instead of less? ~ Penn Jillette

A: HELL NO! It cannot! Our problems can only be solved with fewer choices and dictatorial 'solutions' handed down by people who 'know better' than we do! ~ Whatcom County Voters

I think about half of the voters in yesterday's election have never known what it was like to live in a free country. It was a wonderful place! Sure, we had our problems, but we were at liberty to work them out for ourselves, make our own choices in life, and adjust our own behavior if we guessed wrong. Live and let live, we didn't try to force anyone else to do what WE thought was right.

Well, you have made your choice, and you deserve to get what you voted for, good and hard. BOHICA, folks, you've earned it!

ObamaCare: Define Success!

Local morning talk show host Dillon Honcoop noted that people focusing on the failure of the HealthCare.gov website were missing the big picture, namely that millions of people are losing their health insurance due to ObamaCare.

While I believe Dillon was correct as far he went, I think he is missing an even bigger picture: ObamaCare was never intended to succeed in the way you or I, or dozens of Democrats in the US legislature who voted for it, would define success.

The progenitors of ObamaCare measure success by the degree of chaos that it can cause in the health insurance and health care provider market. Because the ultimate goal is single payer, which will be much easier to implement when people are demanding relief from the bomb that is ObamaCare. Who knew?

I think Obama knew, Pelosi knew, probably Harry Reid, and a handful of other Democrats in the legislature knew. The rest of them were hornswoggled into believing that ObamaCare was this benevolent thing that would bring affordable health care to the masses. They were the useful idiots.

They were the useful idiots who didn't read the bill, because the bill was designed to be unreadable. Most of the text simply modifies arcane elements of other laws. It would take a team of lawyers months of research to make sense of it. The rest of them simply read the executive summary, assumed it was an honest representation of the bill's intent and scope, and voted on that basis.

President Obama famously said (numerous times), "If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period". That is now obviously false. Since I believe Obama knew, I'm calling this a lie. So, why would Obama lie? He had to lie, in order to make ObamaCare succeed in the way he wants it to succeed. You might say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but a week ago, you would have called me that for saying millions would lose their health care coverage. There's a big difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact.

Grammar and Cultural Chauvinism

Supposably, for all intensive purposes, irregardless of the fact that I could care less, I'd buy an expresso, excetera, pacifically for anyone who realized that it is of upmost importance that we use proper spelling and grammar. Otherwise, we'll look dull and uneducated, and no one will read our resume'.

Does anybody else think our preoccupation with spelling and grammar is a trifle arbitrary? I have always been a stickler for good spelling and grammar, but seriously, it is arbitrary, right? It has to be. English grew out of a need to communicate, long before we had any concept of English grammar. The English language is an ad-hoc hodgepodge of other languages and dialects. 

Shakespeare liked to toy with the language, and he frequently invented new words. He had the liberty of defining the part of speech and the spelling. Why did that spelling have to be locked in place for ever after? Spelling wasn't actually "standardized" until the first dictionaries began to capture the current (local) spellings, or assigned spellings based on the current (local) pronunciation. That was arbitrary. 

I think the current preoccupation with spelling and grammar actually stems from a need for educated people to be able to draw a line between themselves and other, uneducated people. I honestly do believe that. The same goes for the disdain for "Ebonics", various southern dialects, the use of "ain't", and so on. 

When we say, "nice day, eh", we're either mocking or identifying with Canadians, eh? When we say, "We be racis'", we're either mocking or identifying with the black culture. When we say, "Oh my God! Gag me with a spoon!", we're mocking the Valley Girl culture. And it works both ways: When a Negro uses "good" grammar, s/he is said to be "acting white". 

I think we humans engage in cultural chauvinism without realizing it, even at the very same time we denounce it. We want to be accepted by our culture and by our peers, and language is just as much a badge or uniform as skin color or clothing. "Good" spelling and grammar are just other ways to impose uniformity. It doesn't bother me, but I think this observation will irritate 'progressives' who pride themselves on their expensive liberal arts education and impeccable spelling and grammar.