Unintended consequences

California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation yesterday designed to collect online tax revenue from corporations that do not have a physical presence in the state (because the Supreme Court  has ruled that such a practice is unconstitutional) by somehow tortuously redefining "company" to include any and all small satellite businesses that happen to subcontract for that corporation. 

For example, this would be akin to decreeing, say, Roy's Nuts and Bolts of California to be a subsidiary of a fictitious Iowa-based Onlinefasteners.com simply because Roy happened to ship a couple of odd-sized lag bolts to a customer in Oregon who ordered them online from Onlinefasteners, thus making a couple of bucks to which California obviously has no claim.

Amazon.com and Overstock.com have subsequently announced that effective immediately they would be ending their affiliate programs with small California companies (estimated to be as many as 25,000) such as independent bookstores and small retail shops, meaning that many of them will now most likely be driven out of business and thus will not be contributing any more local sales and income taxes into the state's coffers.  Other online companies are expected to quickly follow suit.

In other words, greedy California not only stands to gain nothing, it's actually going to lose badly-needed tax revenue as a direct result of this ill-conceived law. 

Well done, Governor.  Enjoy your eventual heaping bowlful of nothing.

Start making the popcorn

John Solomon of The Daily Beast is reporting that the Senate Judiciary Committee has reached a deal that will allow Ken Melson, the acting head of the ATF, to testify before that body next month about the disastrous "Project Gunwalker" debacle that has claimed the lives of at least two U.S. law enforcement agents as well as those of countless innocent Mexican citizens.

Since Mr. Melson has already stood up for himself by refusing to be the fall guy and resign his position amid the fallout from the botched "investigation", he will presumably be quite eager to explain in great detail exactly who among his superiors at Justice (and at State, since this mess involved an international border) knew about and authorized allowing thousands of straw-purchased guns to be sent to Mexico over the objections of street-level ATF agents and even the gun dealers themselves. 

Bob Owens of Pajamas Media theorizes about the possible repercussions from Melson's upcoming appearance.  We think Owens's third scenario is the one most likely to come about - that Attorney General Eric "Neutral, leaning towards favorable" Holder will ultimately be held accountable over this.  Why?  We think it's because Senator Chuck Grassley smells important blood in the water, otherwise he wouldn't have paid the relatively high price he did (releasing holds on three Obama nominees) for securing Melson's on-the-record testimony.  Representative Darrell Issa is also apparently convinced (and is working like mad to prove) that Holder perjured himself when he testified in front of Issa that he didn't know about the failed scheme until it broke in the national news. 

Be sure to tune in for this particular hearing.  We look forward to watching the roaches scurry away from the light.

Ugly bias from the same old sources

"I think if it's Kansas, if it's Missouri, no big deal, you know that's the dance of the low-sloping foreheads, the middle places... right?"

New York Times columnist David Carr (a Minnesota native, by the way.  No pathological self-hatred there, no sirree), talking about state education scores on Bill Maher's HBO television program and actually expecting agreement from the other panelists, who to their credit did no such thing.

Powerline nailed it when they titled their post on this incident "The Mask Slips.  Again".  Funny what slips out when liberal media figures get a little too comfortable with their surroundings and forget they are on TV and not palling around on Journolist or haunting the local newspaper watering hole with the rest of the monochromatic herd who happens to think just like them.

By way of comparison, any panel member regardless of political leaning would be deservedly run out of town on a rail had she or she callously ridiculed, say, inner-city minority schoolkids in the same manner.  Since Carr was slandering the proles in flyover country, though (which includes himself, we remind everyone), the Times apparently has no problem with or response to this arrogant, elitist pronouncement by one of its favored employees.

Typical, but not particularly surprising.

We'd like to know the answer to that as well

The American peasant is constantly lectured that SWAT teams need to be routinely deployed these days for the most minor of search warrant services, even for aged or infirm suspects, ostensibly for reasons of "officer safety".

Radley Balko poses a very interesting question - if such extreme overkill is indeed a true necessity, then why was FBI Ten Most Wanted List member James "Whitey" Bulger, an extremely dangerous double-digit murder suspect who had upwards of thirty firearms in his apartment when he was arrested the other day, lured out and taken into custody without incident by using a simple and effective phone call ruse?

(h/t to Billy Beck)

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"Michelle Obama:  'I can't stop eating French fries.  But eat your vegetables.'"

Do as I say, not as I do.  Limousine liberalism in a nutshell.

The Jack-Booted Thug of the Week...

... is Rochester, New York police officer Mario Masic, for arresting local resident Emily Good on May 12 for filming Masic with her cellphone from her own front lawn while he and other officers performed an allegedly questionable traffic stop on a young black male motorist on the street in front of her home:





Masic is seen on the tape unlawfully ordering Good to go into her home, telling her that "I don't feel safe with you standing behind me", even though she is clearly doing nothing but standing in her own yard holding a phone while not interfering with the officers in any way.  Masic then trespassed onto Good's property and placed her into custody on an obvious retaliatory charge of "obstructing governmental administration".

The motorist seen handcuffed in the traffic stop?  He was apparently released without charge after the officers' reported allegation that he possessed drugs wasn't borne out after a search of his car uncovered no illegal substances.  Go figure.

Here's a firsthand account from a friend of Good's who was an eyewitness to the incident.  We note with more than a little incredulity the following portion of that statement:

"According to the arrested woman, after the arrest the four police met in the parking lot of Wilson High School around the corner and had a conference for about an hour about how to deal with the case. A Sargent came over and gave them advice about how to write up the report that would minimize their wrong doing."

If you have to have a hour-long meeting to figure out how to respond to something you did, fellows, you most likely didn't do the correct thing.

Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard has reportedly opened an official investigation into this incident.  Time will tell if "Officer" Masic will be disciplined for this blatant and unlawful misuse of his authority.


(h/t to Carlos Miller)

Nothing's allowed

Big Intrusive Government marches on, this time in Washington State:

"People who hope to beat the summer heat by swimming, floating or boating on rivers in King County must wear a life vest or face an $86 fine."

So much for being able to enjoy a competitive, challenging swim or a relaxing ride on an inner tube (which floats, we remind everyone) without risking a visit from the Water Police.  We're surprised the County Council didn't also mandate crash helmets while they were at it.

"'We are improving the health for everyone because of these laws that we pass,' [Councilwoman Julia Patterson] said."

Sure you are, ma'am.  You keep right on believing that.  In fact, you'd better get busy and start passing even more restrictive regulations to see just how "healthy" your community can get.  We're sure your subjects will thank you profusely for taking over every aspect of their lives.

The snakes have been very busy lately

Mother Jones magazine reports that the tactical gear-clad goons who comprise the TSA's attempt-to-be-intimidating VIPR teams (Yes, intimidating.  It's right in their name - Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response) have lately been ramping up their warrantless searches of innocent passengers on subways, ferries, trolleys and buses (and in at least one instance forcing people disembarking from a train in Savannah, Georgia to submit to a so-called "screening"): 

"Currently, the TSA only has 25 VIPR teams doing these impromptu searches: in 2012, it wants to get 12 more."

Coming soon to a public transportation system near you - the elimination of your right to travel without being interrogated and/or molested by an agent of the government.

Want an example of how much of a ridiculous farce this kind of exercise really is?  These VIPR teams have been seen operating on the light-rail system in Phoenix, Arizona:



The carrying of firearms without a permit by law-abiding citizens on the light-rail system in Phoenix, Arizona happens to be perfectly legal.  Precisely what, then, are those teams looking for, and how many innocent citizens are going to be unlawfully detained or even placed in danger by an "operator" over something those people have every right to do?

The story also links to the first reported instance of that agency searching the private vehicles of citizens entering and leaving a public facility:

"Random car and truck inspections are wrapping up at the Port of Brownsville [Texas]. 

...

A spokesperson says TSA is checking all private and commercial vehicles coming in and out of the port."

(How can such a process be considered "random", by the way, when all vehicles are forced to submit to such unlawful snooping?)

Ask them politely for a warrant.  If they can't produce one, or if they don't have reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, they have no legal right to search either you or your car.  Don't let the TSA violate your basic Fourth Amendment rights without challenging them.

A new Obamacare "glitch" rears its ugly head

"WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed."

Another maddening detail that proves just how hastily and shoddily this unconstitutional law was constructed. Thank you so much, Nancy "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy" Pelosi.  Your scheme worked to perfection.  Except for that whole avoiding controversy thing, of course.

We wonder how many other nasty surprises like this one are lurking around just waiting to be discovered in that execrable piece of legislation (rammed down our throats by the Senate in the dark of night on Christmas Eve precisely because of the presence of such ill-conceived "twists").

That sure settles the issue

One of Dear Leader's core constituencies has once again been merrily thrown under the bus:

"At today's briefing, Jay Carney again clarifies that another aide was mistaken to claim that Obama did not sign a questionnaire supporting same-sex marriage.

Obama has been 'very clear that his position is evolving.'"  (emphasis ours)

Yeah, that kind of mealy-mouthed pap will go a long way towards pacifying the justifiably growing very angry gay community, which like so many other voting blocs has been waiting for close to three years for their turn to be "taken care of" by the man they helped put into the Oval Office after he made all of those flowery promises to them.

We hope they're not in some kind of hurry or anything, because it looks like Obama's "evolution" on the issue is proceeding at about the same pace as species evolution.

A snapshot of life

Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Los Angeles, California
7:15 p.m.

Seen posted on the door of an art gallery in Little Tokyo:

The careless flicking of leftover food bits by casual browsers is apparently quite the issue at this particular establishment.

On a related note, the food at the nearby Shabu-Shabu House is well worth however long the wait might be for you to get a seat.

Quote of the Day, Social Engineering Edition

Today's (paraphrased) insightful saying comes from a member of an email list to which we subscribe:

"Liberals divide human activities into *two* categories:
Mandatory and Forbidden."

How completely (and unfortunately) accurate that statement is these days.

Road tripping

Out of town for a few days.  Back late Friday.

Massive potential for (and thus a virtual guarantee of) official abuse

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents — allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention."

Without having to bother with opening a formal investigation or even being required to make a record of why such persons of interest "attracted their attention" in the first place, according to the article.

We are still waiting for someone to point to the section of the Federal code that authorizes all of these shiny new "powers" that of course have absolutely no potential for misuse, just like with those bogus "national security letters" the FBI kept abusing after 9/11.  Oh wait, they fixed those:

"Valerie E. Caproni, the FBI general counsel, said the bureau had fixed the problems with the national security letters and had taken steps to make sure they would not recur."

But the agency still refuses to tell us just how that process was "fixed".  Somehow we don't feel particularly reassured about this latest policy announcement, and others who know much more than us about the issue don't like it much either:

"The FBI recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former FBI agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing."

Keep moving, citizen.  Nothing to see here.

The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...

... are the Customs and Border Protection agents who on May 26 made a shipful of 2,000 elderly British tourists on a 72-day dream cruise wait in line for seven hours with no food, water or lavatory access, all to simply be cleared for entry into the Port of Los Angeles for a one-day visit.

According to the passengers, most of the reason for this completely unacceptable wait was the addition of a bunch of wildly overreaching security checks, in apparent direct retaliation for some of the cruisers daring to complain about the already-long wait since they had already been given advance clearance to enter the U.S. and their itinerary had already taken them to nine other American ports:

"The fingerprints of both hands were taken as well as retina scans and a detailed check of the passport as well as questioning as to their background."

Because, you know, elderly wealthy Brits champing at the bit to relax and spend their money in our country are a well-known source of terrorist zealots.

Here's the part that earns these CBP goons this week's coveted award:

"When one lady asked in desperation whether she could use a bathroom, one immigration official is said to have replied: 'Do it over the side, we won’t mind.'"

Way to represent our nation and welcome guests to our country, Zippy.

Even the cruise line itself admits that the incident happened pretty much the way their passengers said it did, although the company was a bit more PC about it:

"[A company spokeswoman] added: 'The delay in immigration procedures was largely to blame on issues with the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) computer systems, not aided by the verbal approach that a minority of our passengers, clearly frustrated by this delay, took with the local immigration officers.'

'The US has a record for the most stringent and thorough security and entry requirements in the world, and they felt the need to enhance their security checks further, which they have the power to do.'"

Then those particular agents need to have that power permanently taken away from them.

Pay up

The Justice Department is refusing to pay $750,000 in damages to the insurance company that owns a 1995 Ferrari F50 supercar (one of only 50 in the U.S.) after FBI Special Agent Fred Kingston totaled it while ostensibly "moving it to a different garage", prompting the company to file a lawsuit seeking to be compensated for its loss.

The car had been recovered five years after had been reported stolen (and the insurance company had paid out the claim, thus taking ownership), and the FBI had custody of it pending the outcome of the criminal investigation.  No problem there, and of course such items have to be moved from time to time.

But -

Kingston had thought it a good idea to invite his good buddy Assistant U.S. Attorney J. Hamilton Thompson along for the joyride "short ride", and according to Thompson's email detailing the incident they were just moseying along, no doubt like a couple of grandmas out for a Sunday drive, when "Just a few seconds after we left the parking lot, we went around a curve and the rear of the car began sliding" and they and the car ended up wrapped around a tree and some bushes.

(Pictures are from the article)

Why are we not terribly convinced that these two were doing nothing more than ferrying evidence from one garage to another?  Oh, probably from Justice's blatant stonewalling of the insurance company: 

"The Justice Department recently responded to the lawsuit  by saying it is not liable for certain goods when they're in the hands of law enforcement. 

The government also has refused to release most documents related to the crash, saying most records are exempt."

Of course they are.  How convenient.

The case is scheduled to be tried this month.  We will be very interested to learn just how the government is going to argue that it should enjoy immunity from the very kind of obvious liability it so often goes after private companies for criminally shirking.

Health care "reform" is on the ropes

The chances of unconstitutional Obamacare remaining the law of the land aren't looking too good these days:

"Judges on a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday repeatedly raised questions about President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, expressing unease with the requirement that virtually all Americans carry health insurance or face penalties."

Dear Leader's choice to defend the case once again isn't helping matters any, either:

"Acting U.S. Solicitor Neal Katyal sought to ease their concerns by saying the legislative branch can only exercise its powers to regulate commerce if it will have a substantial effect on the economy and solve a national, not local, problem."

First of all, it's not "regulating" free commerce if you make people buy something they don't want to own.  That would be "forcing" government-mandated commerce.

Secondly, who would get to decide what constitutes a "national problem?  Congress, of course, the very same body that would then supposedly solve those dire issues by requiring that people purchase something.  Nope, no conflict of interest there. 

Thirdly, Mr. Katyal's overbroad argument could be stretched in any number of ways to justify forcing Americans to do any number of things they don't wish.  How about solving a "national problem" of an overabundance of orange juice, for example, by making people buy a certain quantity every month, thus avoiding a price plunge and keeping a multi-billion dollar industry in business?  Especially if, you know, some of the growers, producers and distributors are big donors to whatever party happened to be in control at the time. 

In the same vein, maybe Congress could require that every household buy one Government General Motors car every two years, which would make GM profitable and protect the taxpayers' current (forced) investment in the company. 

What about making people buy $500 or so worth of U.S. made electronic devices every year to stimulate the economy and help harden that industry against cheap foreign competition?  Such a mandate would certainly have a "substantial effect on the economy".

The possibilities for abusing this kind of unlimited and unchecked power are endless, which is precisely why the Founders expressly limited the authority of the Federal government in the first place.  The health care law needs to be overturned for lots of reasons, but protecting the citizens from a predatory Congress intent on arbitrarily picking their pockets "for your own good" by making them purchase whatever that body wishes to is the most critical one.

The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...

... are the Department of Education (?) SWAT team goons who broke down Stockton, California resident Kenneth Wright's door at 6 a.m. yesterday morning while apparently looking for his student loan-defaulting estranged wife (who doesn't even live there), traumatizing this innocent man and his three young children:

"Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts as a S.W.A.T team barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn. 

'He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there,' Wright said."

Mr. Wright was handcuffed and he and his kids were made to sit in a patrol car for six hours, after which they were finally released without so much as an apology or explanation.

Think about all the myriad implications of this incident for a second and try hard to not let the rage build:

1.  The Department of Education, of all government agencies, somehow "needs" a taxpayer-funded SWAT team that is equipped and willing to perform dynamic entries.  How many of these sorts of unnecessary raids do they do each year, for Pete's sake?

2.  The Department of Education convinced a judge to sign a dangerous (for all parties) "no-knock" warrant allowing said SWAT team to kick in the door of an innocent private citizen solely because his spouse has an unpaid tuition loan.  Does that sound even remotely like the kind of emergency or imminent deadly threat situation that would nominally require such drastic measures?

Here's the most incredibly stupid description of such a warrant service we've ever read:

"The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in the S.W.A.T for his wife's defaulted student loans." 

Utterly infuriating madness.

3.  Even if the above circumstances were somehow justified, the idiots on the SWAT team didn't even bother to perform the expected surveillance or investigation to ascertain whether the target of their little operation even lived at the address, much less if there were innocent children around that could be terrorized or injured by their unbelievably hazardous and stupid cowboy raid.

4.  The idiots on the SWAT team manhandled, abused and mechanically restrained a person who presented no threat and offered no resistance, and then forced him and his frightened kids to sit in a hot police cruiser for hours in front of all their neighbors, no doubt causing the entire family enormous stress, fear and humiliation.

5.  Once the idiots on the SWAT team figured out they had screwed up, the arrogant officers basically uncuffed Mr. Wright, shoved him towards his smashed front door and took off without any sort of apology whatsoever.  Federal cops are never wrong, you know.

Enough is enough.  This is one of the most egregious abuses of official police powers we have ever documented here, and we've recorded some doozies.  Those thugs (and their incompetent and abusive martinet bosses who unleashed them, as well as the judge who allowed this travesty to occur) need to be separated from their government jobs in short order, and every freedom-loving American must contact their representatives in Congress to demand that all funding for these Federal goon squads be immediately cut off.

Please don't let this challenge to our independence and liberty go unanswered.  The next innocent person's door to be kicked in could be your own.  Are you paid up on your student loans?


(Many thanks to our good friend and fellow blogger Bike Bubba for the heads-up on this story)

His master's voice

Another reason to never again purchase something made by Government General Motors:

"General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars"

We're sure that naked endorsement of government-controlled social engineering will make prospective customers just fight to line up in front of Chevy dealerships from coast to coast.

This is exactly what happens when the government unconstitutionally gets its hooks into a private company - its putative head (who makes a reported 9 million dollars a year and gets a new company-provided vehicle every quarter.  Think Mr. Akerson has fretted at the pump lately?) ends up having to parrot the Obama Administration line in order to stay in their good graces.

The article also informs us just how much this little exercise in corporate favoritism is going to cost the peasants:

"At the current stock price, U.S. taxpayers would be out more than $12 billion on GM's bailout."

What happened to all those hearty assurances that the taxpayers were more than likely going to end up making money from this wretched deal?

"Asked if GM is considering buying back its stock, Akerson paused for eight seconds before declining to answer directly. 'But we have a lot of cash,' he added."

So get out from your deal with the devil already.  Unless, of course, that's exactly where you want to be.  We can't imagine the government would show up disgruntled at the stockholder meeting, after all.

"'We are in the midst of transforming an iconic American company so 20 and 30 years from now (taxpayers) will look at this company and they'll say, "Absolutely it was the right thing to do,"' Akerson said. 'And it shouldn't be measured on did it sell for $43 or $53 (a share) or did they lose a couple billion dollars?'" 

Unbelievable.  What's a few billion taxpayer dollars between friends if it ends up "transforming" a company that just couldn't manage to do so itself and thus deserved to fail, right, Mr. Akerson?

Officially second-class journalists

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that they do not consider bloggers to be "mainstream journalists", and because of that designation they don't meet the requirements for that state's shield law which protects the identities of confidential sources:

"New Jersey's highest court says online message boards are little more than forums for discussion and don't fit the definition of news media as described by the law."

We will merely point out to those justices that most of the major national stories of the past decade have been broken by bloggers, with the mainstream media either playing belated catch-up (the current "Project Gunwalker" scandal involving the ATF and the Justice Department) or even actively working to prevent the information from becoming public knowledge (Newsweek originally discovering and then spiking the Monica Lewinsky story).  We ourselves have broken important stories on many occasions which made use of confidential sources and will continue to do so despite this asinine decision, which only serves to unfairly benefit large media outlets.

Besides, we have never been informed as to the correct government office to supplicate ourselves in order to apply for our shiny "Authorized Journalist" badge so that we can be all official-like "news media" and get such privileges.  Whoever gave the government the power to decide who is or isn't a journalist, anyway?  Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin were one-man pamphleteers; under this arbitrary ruling they would no doubt be considered merely pests and ordered to immediately give up their anti-Crown sources on pain of imprisonment.

Why I carry a handgun for protection, Vol. 54

So that if we happen to be walking down a street and are randomly attacked by a group of 15-20 feral youths (there's the clinching argument against imposing an arbitrary 10-round limit on firearm magazine capacities right there, Ms. Brady) we will be able to successfully defend ourselves, unlike the innocent Japanese doctor tourist who was the latest to find himself beaten and robbed of his belongings last Saturday on North Lake Shore Drive (not exactly what one would call a bad neighborhood) in Chicago, Illinois.

These brutal mob attacks are fast becoming a regular occurrence in the Windy City, no doubt mainly due to the fact that law-abiding citizens there are prohibited from carrying firearms for self-defense against the kinds of violent and cowardly thugs who prey on the public because they have no fear that their targets will be able to fight back against such overwhelming numbers:

"Police sources said they have been aware of large groups of teens causing trouble along North Michigan Avenue for at least the last year. One source said the fear is the attacks could become more frequent as the weather gets warmer."

The cops themselves admit they have a huge problem on their hands and are helpless to put a stop to these incidents or protect the local residents, yet the Illinois "authorities" consistently block permitting law-abiding people to exercise their constitutional right to self-protection, a policy that has resulted in a steep drop in violent crime rates in every state in which it's been implemented.  No wonder those boogers of society in that town feel so empowered to take whatever they want from whomever they wish.

It's going to be a long and hot summer.  Our recommendation for your own safety is to spend it anywhere except Chicago.

Missing the point entirely

"President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money."

Neal Kumar Kaytal apparently managed to keep a straight face when he made this ludicrous argument before the Sixth U.S. Court of Appeals on Wednesday.  How is encouraging people to earn less money (and thus pay less taxes) so that they can receive expensive government-funded (and ironically taxpayer-financed) health care for "free" going to solve anything, much less our nation's current bankrupt status?

We also fail to see how this sort of juvenile reasoning would address the primary issue at hand, which is that Obamacare forces citizens to buy a product or service regardless of whether they wish to own or use it.  Such a practice, regardless of what one may believe about the nobility of it, is illegal because that sort of coercion isn't one of the clearly enumerated powers given to the Federal government by the Constitution.

"Throughout the oral arguments, Kaytal struggled to respond to the panel's concerns about what the limits of Congressional power would be if the courts ruled that they have the ability under the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something."

Because he and his boss Dear Leader firmly believe there should be no such limits or checks on the power government can exercise over the peasants.  If this law is allowed to remain in place Congress would be able to point to it whenever they arbitrarily decided to saddle Americans with whatever requirements they wished - the most-used recent example being if they required people to purchase and eat broccoli because it would reduce health care costs to the government.  Regardless of any supposedly beneficial merits of the law, the sort of unbridled authority it represents is why it needs to be immediately thrown out as unconstitutional.

"In arguments before the Fourth Circuit last month, Kaytal also struggled with a judge's question about what to do with the word “regulate,” to the point where the judge asked him to sit down to come up with an answer."

We are positive we would trip haplessly over our words as well had we been asked to argue this indefensible position.  Nice try, Mr. Kaytal, although we believe your pitiful efforts ultimately and deservedly will be for naught.

We would do well to learn from their mistake

Britain's always on-the-cusp-of-failing National Health Service, the polished turd of a government-run health care scheme that Dear Leader and many in Congress want America to emulate (despite our country being far larger and more populous than England as well as trillions of dollars more in debt, not to mention the fact that Obamacare is patently unconstitutional), is failing even harder these days:

"Andrew Lansley [England's Health Secretary] says the core values of the NHS are under threat as never before from a “financial crisis” that will see annual health spending double to £230 billion a year without urgent reform.

While insisting he would never privatise the NHS, Mr Lansley warns that its future as a universal service, available to all and free at the point of use will be at risk “within years” if radical change is blocked." 

So a privatization solution appears to be forever off the table there, even as the masters in charge of that farce admit that their pet program is unsustainable and will soon collapse, rendering basic health care unavailable to the very peasants who are supposedly paying for it (we imagine the likes of Mr. Lansley and Her Majesty the Queen will still be able to be seen for their ailments in a reasonable time frame).  Sounds like things are going just swimmingly for the Brits, and that we of course should immediately strive to be just like them in terms of solutions to our health care woes.

Still want our bankrupt Federal government, which has a long track record of never instituting a program that's been run efficiently or under budget, to be in charge of funding and running your health care?

The Jack-Booted Thug(s) of the Week...

... are the three Maryland Transit Administration "officers" who detained a man for over 40 minutes and threatened him with arrest (under some nebulous and super-secret provision of the Patriot Act that only cops apparently know about.  We are personally very familiar with that particular dead-wrong argument) for taking some pictures at the Baltimore Cultural Light Rail Station (we're assuming that the word "cultural" is in there implies there's some sort of painting or display worth photographing in the first place):



"The MTA acknowledges that additional training is in order.

'We’ll look at our training processes, we’ll look at whether any administrative situations need to occur with those officers,' [MTA Administrator Ralign] Wells said."

We figured something along the lines of "We were completely wrong, the officers involved will be appropriately sanctioned and we will immediately take the proper steps to make sure no innocent citizen engaged in legal activities will ever again be unlawfully detained" would have been too much to hope for, but that particular mealy-mouthed statement is just pathetic.

Based on Mr. Wells's response (and the fact that this is not the first time the MTA has been guilty of this practice), we sadly predict that it's going to take yet another ACLU lawsuit, with the concomitant paying out of thousands of dollars of peasant-funded money in damages, to force that agency into halting the abusive behavior of its employees.

The horror of it all

A group of about 15 Pennsylvania 8th-graders on a recent field trip to the National Aquarium in Baltimore, Maryland ended up at a Hooters restaurant for lunch because no one eatery in the area could accommodate the entire 100-kid party, and thus the chaperones (which included women) had to scramble to find enough places for the students to eat.

"Superintendent Wayne Brookhart says that while he wishes the group's coed chaperones had chosen another restaurant, he has not received any complaints from parents."

So where's the story?  Given the recent heat wave on the East Coast, those kids probably saw more skin on the sidewalk outside the restaurant.

We personally find the wings at Hooters to be fairly pedestrian, but their New Orleans Shrimp dish is really quite scrumptious.  We're sure those pupils enjoyed the same prompt and attentive service we receive when patronizing that establishment.

From the Department of Glaringly Obvious Headlines

"'Limousine Liberals' Report Shows Government Limo Fleet Swelling"

The number of peasant-funded luxury cars is now 412, up from 238 during George W. Bush's presidency.  What a curious development from Dear Leader's administration, which is always so quick to tout its putative "fiscal responsibility" at every opportunity. 

It all adds up, you know, Mr. President.  But then again, what's a few hundred extra Cadillac DTS's (the apparent vehicle of choice) when the country is already trillions of dollars in debt?

Our government does indeed require a limited number of such cars to shuttle around elected officials with security needs (the president, VP, Secretary of State, etc.) as well as a few VIP's from other countries here on official business.  That being said, there's absolutely no way we need that many of them.

Busy

Apologies about the lack of posts the last few days.  Rest assured we aren't being lazy; a large final project for graduate school unfortunately took precedence.

New content should be up later today.