BluegrassBulletin.com

What Would The TEA Party Say About Women's Rights?

We are constantly being told that the GOP is struggling to win votes among American women.  This suggests that the democrats have a better reputation among women voters for women's rights.  Now we hear of a shocking answer by Secretary of State John Kerry to a female reporters question on his trip to Saudi Arabia.

Following recent news of a Kuwait woman being arrested for driving her ill father to the hospital, in violation of the law there that prohibits women from driving cars, a reporter asked Kerry where he stood on the issue of the Saudis having the same rules in the larger context of women's rights.  Here was Kerry's response:

“It’s no secret that in the United States of America we embrace equality for everybody . . . [but] it’s up to Saudi Arabia to make its own decisions about its own social structure.”

As one commentator pointed out:

[T]he response was immediately noted by civil libertarians as coming off as remarkably relativistic and restrained. Yet these responses are clearly scripted on diplomatic trips. Women’s rights is not a question of “social structure.” That is how the Saudis view it. It is their religion and social structure that is cited for the medieval treatment of women. Equality is a human right that by definition transcends “social structures” and national preferences. Otherwise, racial and religious discrimination would be simply a matter of cultural tastes. [Turley]

I want you to re-read that again.  It was "civil-libertarians" who objected.  Aren't the "civil-libertarians" a big part of the TEA party?  And isn't the Ron Paul influenced TEA party decidedly "non-interventionist" when it comes to foreign policy?

So why would civil libertarians feel entitled to even comment on how another country treats its women?  Moreover, let's not forget that this is a democrat Secretary of State presumably representing our democrat president.  So tell me now, how is it that the democrats can claim the "women's vote" and the civil libertarins can complain like toothless dogs on a short heavy chain barking with no chance of biting, but the GOP with its strong record of standing up for women's rights is the party that has problems winning the women's vote?

Oh, yeah, I forgot.  The GOP thinks the government shouldn't pay to have baby girls suctioned apart or burned alive with chemicals or pulled out of the womb and stabbed in the brain.  It's all about that abortion thing isn't it?  You know, the FIRST civil right, the "right to life".

NSA Is Spying On Everyone, Everything

Day by day the world is learning that the United States Government is spying on everyone and every little morsel of information no matter how insignificant you might consider it to be.  In otherwords, nothing you do, at all, is private anymore and probably hasn't been for a long, long time.

When Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, sat down with President Obama at the White House in April to discuss Syrian chemical weapons, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and climate change, it was a cordial, routine exchange.

The National Security Agency nonetheless went to work in advance and intercepted Mr. Ban’s talking points for the meeting, a feat the agency later reported as an “operational highlight” in a weekly internal brag sheet. It is hard to imagine what edge this could have given Mr. Obama in a friendly chat, if he even saw the N.S.A.’s modest scoop. [NY Times]

Even the president is not exempted from spying.

Weeks before he was sworn in, President-elect Obama was given an extensive briefing on the secret operations of the nation’s spy agencies, as well as a warning.

“You need to give up your BlackBerry,” Obama was told, according to former officials familiar with the meeting. “If you use that phone, you are not just subject to monitoring, you will be monitored.” [Washington Post]

But what about the Fourth Amendment requirement that such searches and spying only be conducted under a judge approved warrant?  The government is clearly ignoring all claims that the Constitution created any "right to privacy".  And that isn't something you should take lightly.

Considering all of the data the government could be collecting and the immense power it has through various agencies the people of the USA are increasingly living in fear, and of course fear is the tool of tyrants.

So why is the NSA spying issue of such critical importance?  Because it is causing widespread fear and fear is itself a powerful force that destroys liberty.

Thomas Massie's Goose Egg Cost America A Bunch

Here's what you get when a bunch of angry neophytes get elected to Congress with the help of anarchists and think that their only job is to throw a wrench in the gears of government as they act out their temper tantrums to the delight of a news media which is using their antics to splinter the GOP and help Obama.

The recent government shutdown and confrontation over the federal debt ceiling gained the Republicans nothing, at best – and may have cost them politically as a party. But it slowed the economy and undermined confidence in public finances in a way that will have a significant negative impact on future budgets of the United States. None of this should make for an appealing strategy, but Tea Party Republicans are giving every indication that they want to do the same thing again early next year. Their more moderate colleagues need to take a firmer hand.

On the political gains from recent tactics, it is hard to find any good news for the Republican side as a whole. Representative Thomas H. Massie, Republican of Kentucky, got it right when he said, “Goose egg, nothing, we got nothing,” in terms of policy changes. And opinion polls moved more sharply against Republicans than some had expected.

The shutdown and debt ceiling brinkmanship did real damage to the economy. The immediate and direct costs are nicely summarized in a blog post by James H. Stock – an academic economist on the president’s Council of Economic Advisers. His assessment is that the effect is a

0.25 percentage point reduction in the annualized G.D.P. growth rate in the fourth quarter and a reduction of about 120,000 private sector jobs in the first two weeks of October (estimates use indicators available through Oct. 12th).

Members of the Tea Party movement express concern about the longer-run federal budget – and the potential negative impact of future debt levels. But their tactics are directly worsening the budget over exactly the time horizon that they say they care about.

The major long-term issue the United States faces is rising health-care costs (not just the part that the federal government pays for), but an important part of our projected future deficits is interest costs, i.e., what the government needs to pay holders of its debt.

The United States dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency and safe haven; the asset that major investors, such as central banks and big international companies, actually buy is United States Treasury debt. In the short term, when Congress acts in a crazy and irresponsible fashion that makes the world feel more unstable, investors “seek safety” and actually buy American government debt, pushing down yields (bond prices and yields move inversely to each other).

Over a longer period of time, of course, investors get the message: United States Treasury debt is not so safe and cannot be trusted as in the past. They should look for alternative assets. The euro may bounce back. The British pound, Swiss franc and Japanese yen have all been contenders in the past. And the most real threat over the next 20 years is probably the rising international role of China’s renminbi.

In the American system, with its carefully conceived checks and balances, an organized and well-funded minority can do a lot more damage – as we have just been reminded. The only force that can rein in Tea Party extremism – and get the nation off the road to fiscal ruin – is resurgence among Republican moderates. [NY Times]

It is clear that reckless behavior like that of Massie, Amash, Cruz and others is doing harm to the United States.  Oh it might make you feel good to hear somebody echo your disdain for Congress, but in the end, which is better for you, a doctor who tells you what you want to hear or one with the skill and commitment to do what is required in order to save your life?

Shutdown Was Planned A Long Time Ago

I received an email yesterday that made a pretty good point.  I have no idea if the author was ever really a government employee, but that doesn't matter.  The email says makes a solid case that the government shutdown had to have been planned months in advance.  Here's what it said:

"I have worked in thegovernment on and off for 40 years. During that time I became quite familiar with requisitions, bidding, awarding contracts etc. It is a time consuming process with bean-counters and pencil-necked bureaucrats every step of the way. The simplest request takes months not days or hours. In less than 8 hours of the shutdown, miraculously, professionally printed 3X4 foot signs appeared all over the country in the tens of thousands saying-“this [park, facility,etc. with custom logos] closed due to government shutdown. There has not been a government shutdown in 17 years. These signs were designed, specifications were determined, signs were then requisitioned, bids were posted and vetted, government contracts were awarded. The materials were then ordered and the signs manufactured then distributed by U. S. Mails or freight companies. This shutdown was orchestrated and planned well in advance at least 6-8 month ago. Millions of tax dollars were appropriated and spent in this process. There is a paper trail a mile long leading directly to the White House. "

Remember folks, I've been telling you this for years and years now, if anything happens in politics you can pretty well bet that somebody planned it that way.

Something bigger than a shutdown is afoot.  Be very alert.

It's Backwards, People Fear Their Government

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson

Well, it looks like Obama wants the people to fear the government.  Take Dr. Ben Carson for example.  You will remember that the Johns Hopkins surgeon gave a great speech with Obama present at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year.

Dr. Carson says that a few months later he had his first encounter with the IRS.

Carson says the Internal Revenue Service started looking into his real estate holdings following his comments against the White House at the National Prayer Breakfast in February.

Carson says he had never had a problem with the tax-collecting agency until he spoke out against the president.

Eventually, the IRS conducted a full audit against Carson and found no wrongdoing, he said.

When asked directly by O’Reilly if he was targeted because of his anti-Obama stance, Carson responded, “Well, whether that was the case or not, the fundamental issue here is that the freedom of our citizens is being threatened.” [FOX]

In another incident a park ranger was criticized by a Congressman for not letting WWII veterans into the WWII memorial.  He told her she should be ashamed of herself.  She says she was not ashamed.  Then Vice President Biden tweeted that he was proud of the ranger.  In otherwords, government agents are now being emboldened to take orders from their superiors which go against the grain of what most Americans would consider the proper course of conduct.

So now rewind your mind.  Remember the house to house searches in Boston after the bombings?  Remember the worry that new laws affecting private gun ownership (such as the new UN treaty) might be enforced against citizens?  Remember how many law enforcement officers said they would not enforce those laws?

The White House is now encouraging armed officers to follow orders even if it means doing what every liberty loving person in the nation considers to be wrong.

They are trying like hell to make every one of us live in fear of the government.  Remember what I said, a long time ago now.

EDITORIAL: What If The GOP Was Wrong On Obamacare?

EDITORIAL

There are many reasons why Obamacare is a bad idea, not the least of which is that despite what the US Supreme Court said, I believe it is unconstitutional to order people to buy medical insurance or be fined by the government if they don't.  And there are other compelling reasons why Obamacare is a bad idea.

It looks like it will hurt the job market and turn many employment opportunities into "part time" positions so employers can avoid paying fines for not providing insurance coverage.  The cost of buying insurance will be disproportionately higher on young people who may opt for paying the fine instead of buying costly insurance thus defeating the actuarial calculations which make some coverages cheaper for older citizens.  In the long run, rates will have to be altered to accommodate reality.

Coverage options may not be as favorable as the what are currently available due to the requirement that pre-existing conditions be covered.  This could force a lot of uninsured, very ill people into the marketplace, subsidized with government money, and put a tremendous burden on the system.  To prepare for this many companies are requiring very high deductibles and pretty high premiums for many classes of enrollees.

These are some of the arguments being advanced by the GOP in opposition to Obamacare.  But what if they are wrong?

What if people actually go onto the exchanges and find that acceptable coverage will be available to them at a lower cost than they are currently paying?   What if many young people without insurance who would otherwise default in paying their occasional medical bills, find that buying a cheap policy with the help of government credits is responsible and desirable.  Could the expectation of medical care providers that they will not go unpaid as often eventually lower the cost of services?

What if some insurance companies adapt to the new system rather than lobby heavily to crash it and find a way to make a profit?  Might that eventually result in lower premiums and even cheaper coverage?

I know, the GOP and many others are convinced that the system is set up to fail, that acutuarialy it will never work because younger people aren't likely to pay the higher premiums which are necessary to fund the program. And I know that if the system fails then we are headed to a "single payer" system, which is shorthand for "government provided and funded" universal health insurance, a totally socialist program which we cannot afford.  And I know that if we get to a single payer system taxes will go up beyond belief and could crash our entire economy.  I know all this is possible, but what if it works?

Then we are left with the argument that it is unconstitutional and little else.  What might Congress do if the whole thing works out but the purists will never accept the law and continue to protest?  They could remove the individual and employer mandate and let people continue to use the system voluntarily once they found out it was a good idea, if ever that day comes.

Right now, without doubt, the biggest opponents of the system are insurance companies who do not want to let go of their total control of the industry.  They are the ones lobbying Congress the hardest, and it is their bidding that opponents of Obamacare are doing.

I still don't like it, I still think it is unconstitutional, I still think it is a trap set for all of us designed to fail and hurt the economy, but I also have great faith in the ingenuity of American business, the adaptability of the American people, and the process of elections which have made Obama a lame duck president and the people more aware, informed and engaged. 

In otherwords, my hope lies in change.

John Kerry Signed UN Arms Treaty, Signed Away YOUR Gun Rights

I am just going to re-post this from Gateway Pundit because the absolutely despicable act of Genghis Khan John Kerry needs to be seen by every American for exactly what it is, treasonous.  Oh, and to my protest frenzied TEA party friends who just HATE the republicans, take note, not a single 'R' voted for it.

Secretary of State John Kerry has officially signed the U.N Arms Treaty, many countries have signed the treaty but it will not take effect until 50 nations have ratified it. On March 23, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced an amendment to prohibit the U.S. from entering into such a treaty. The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 53 to 46. But since Kerry has officially signed the treaty it can be called up for future Senate votes to accept or reject a resolution of ratification. If ratified, the treaty could lead to a national and international gun registry for Americans. Fox News has more on the story. The following is a list of the 46 Senators Who Voted to Turn Your Gun Rights Over to UN:

Secretary of State John Kerry has officially signed the U.N Arms Treaty, many countries have signed the treaty but it will not take effect until 50 nations have ratified it. On March 23, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced an amendment to prohibit the U.S. from entering into such a treaty. The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 53 to 46. But since Kerry has officially signed the treaty it can be called up for future Senate votes to accept or reject a resolution of ratification. If ratified, the treaty could lead to a national and international gun registry for Americans. Fox News has more on the story. The following is a list of the 46 Senators Who Voted to Turn Your Gun Rights Over to UN:

- See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/#sthash.5NnrWTsU.dpuf

POLITICO Makes My Point EXACTLY

I've engaged in a number of debates over the past several days regarding the antics of Ted Cruz and others on the stage set for the arrival of Obamacare and the government shutdown.  The point I was trying to make was that marching around waving the flag is far different than the kind of warfare that gets things done.

Today POLITICO echoes my sentiments.

Cruz allies say the senator has long been prepared to go down fighting in an impossible effort to block funding for the ACA. In fact, that was the whole point of his crusade, which was never really expected to function as a legislative strategy.

The question for Cruz, as he weighs the next steps in his rapid political ascent, is whether all this has worked as a political strategy despite the consensus view of him in official Washington as a deeply annoying publicity hound.

“He’s hurting himself with the D.C. establishment in order to help himself with the base in Iowa and elsewhere. D.C. is interested in whether something is going to be effective. Conservative caucus activists aren’t concerned about that,” said Republican presidential strategist David Kochel, Mitt Romney’s former top Iowa adviser.

The downside to the Cruz approach, Kochel said, it’s that “he looks like it’s all just complete grandstanding to no effect whatsoever except to call attention to himself. It’s not like the Rand Paul filibuster, which actually did affect public policy and start a real conversation. The conversation on Obamacare was already had and is still being had.” [POLITICO]

But, as I also commented over the past few days, Cruz did design a strategy which appeals to his politically immature base which behaves more like spoiled children throwing a tantrum if they don't get their way than the more mature educated and politically skillful heroes among the "founding fathers" they admire so much.

The Cruz eye-rollers had plenty of occasions to roll their eyes — perhaps no senator has caused so many colleagues to mutter under their breaths in his first eight months in the world’s greatest deliberative body — but the conservative grass roots stood up and cheered. They are desperate for gumption and imagination and, above all, fight, and Cruz delivered all three during his long, bleary-eyed hours holding forth on C-SPAN2.

We should stipulate upfront, of course, that he is not going to defund Obamacare. As a legislative strategy, the defund effort is farfetched to the point of absurdity. The theory is that on the cusp of or after a government shutdown, pressure becomes so intense on Democrats that Reid buckles and passes a measure defunding Obamacare and Barack Obama signs it.

Let’s put aside for the moment that Democrats believe — probably rightly — that Republicans will be blamed for any shutdown. Why would a little downside political risk over a continuing resolution move them? We’re talking about a party that spent decades trying to pass something like Obamacare and a president who was perfectly content to lose his House majority over it.

So, no, some phone calls to Capitol Hill offices aren’t going to make Democrats dump their prized health care law. [POLITICO]

As the piece concludes, despite what the fawning groupies in the TEA party might think, Cruz was merely playing an outside game.  It wasn't about defunding Obamacare.  His speech was about establishing Cruz as a darling in advance of the 2016 presidential race.

How do you feel now my protest minded friends?

How "Liberty" Crowd Talks To Each Other

EDITORIAL

I spent a good part of the day yesterday watching several videos of "liberty" candidates and leaders speaking to their comrades.  While the leaders demonstrate a very clear understanding of the political processes in the United States, the candidates and the audiences they address are far more radical.

For example, having consulted on a number of campaigns over the years I frequently amuse myself during the initial candidate interview by asking the office seeker if he/she knows what it takes to win an election.  The answers are often a signal of how much training the candidate is going to require.

If the candidate says something like "Money" or quotes a random figure, or the candidate says "Getting the party behind me" then I'm pretty sure they are clueless about the process.  Of course the right answer is "one more vote than you opponent".  The political process is simply a mathematical calculation of who gets the most votes.

This kind of lecture to "liberty" folks is a good idea.  They tend to be idealogues.  In fact, when listening to the audience during one such lecture captured on videotape, the only time they cheered or applauded wildly was when the speaker criticized "the government" or the people holding office who were not "liberty" candidates, and in those cases displayed angry disapproval.  Or the audience cheered and applauded whenever Ron Paul or Rand Paul were mentioned.

I also have monitored a number of "liberty" websites, forums and email chains.  I have several folks who belong to these sites who regularly take screen shots of things being discussed and send them to me.  What I am witnessing is a dangerous devotion to a concept which is disconnected from reality.  In psychology that behavior comes close to the mental condition referred to as schizophrenia.

The concept of "liberty" has concrete manifestations not the least of which is demonstrated by the fact that "liberty" folks gather and openly discuss "liberty" and by the fact that they publish articles, blog posts and discussions about "liberty".  What makes them appear to be crazy is their use of these forums to complain that they are being denied liberty, or must "restore" their liberty.

In one recent speech by Thomas Massie to a group of young "liberty" folks he spent most of his time establishing himself as a rogue who is proudly "bucking the system" and denigrating the House of Representatives, other elected officials and his own party.  The audience seemed delighted to hear him boast how he rejected the concept of party unity.

But then of course he requested that the audience send more people to help him thus revealing the flaw in their thinking.  Obviously they want like minded people to band together, become the majority and take control.  It's not really that they object to the process, just the people who are currently in charge.

But these audiences are never treated like thinking adults, they are more often whipped into a frenzy of discontent with "the system" and those "other guys".  Every radical departure from the current institutions of governing is, without rational explanation required, their apparent goal.

Yes there are any number of big monied interests driving this movement, but that fact is lost on the college students and politically expatriated adults who tend to cheer the loudest at these gatherings.  What exactly is the "liberty" they want to restore?

The answer is a hodgepodge of things such as demanding that the government balance the budget immediately and at the same time lower taxes.  The fact of how the government is set up, what must be paid and what is discretionary is lost on them.  The government's finances are a mess, upon that we can agree, but those finances cannot be crammed into an immediately balanced budget without deep cuts, raising taxes or both.  Anybody who leads you to believe otherwise is either lying, stupid or both.

"Liberty" crowds are ready to take pitch forks and torches to Congress over things like the NSA spying issue.  They act as if they own that issue and that everybody else is okay with the violation of civil rights and privacy.  The truth is that nobody is okay with the NSA spying on innocent citizens and the "we versus them" mentality of the "liberty crowd" being fomented by some of its leaders is a sneaky way to carve out and claim a constituency for themselves by using divisive tactics.  The audiences are being fooled into the corral.

It would be well worth your time to find and listen to how the "liberty" crowd is talking to each other.  They are seething with anger, distrustful of everybody except their own kind and unfortunately becoming the same kind of blind loyalists they claim to oppose.

They are well intentioned for sure, but it is time for reason to prevail.

Understanding The Weird Ted Cruz

I snagged this from HotAir because if you are like me, you are a little confused why Ted Cruz would have pushed the House to pass the continuing resolution with the "de-fund Obamacare" provisions in it and then be planning on a filibuster in the Senate to keep the bill from getting to the floor.  Maybe this will help.

Everyone understand why Cruz has been forced into this position? It goes back to the procedural quirk that Byron York wrote about last night and that I excerpted at length this morning. When Reid first introduces the House’s “defund” CR, it’ll face a cloture vote on whether to proceed to a debate about it. That requires 60 votes, but that should be no problem. Republicans will vote yes because they support defunding O-Care and Democrats will vote yes because they know it’s a necessary step to passing their own “clean” CR that includes funding for the law. Once that vote is over, though, Reid can strip out the “defunding” part of the House bill and then pass the new “clean” CR with simple majority votes. Thus, the only opportunity the Cruz/Lee contingent will have to stop Democrats from passing their own CR is by opposing the initial cloture vote on the House bill — even though that puts them in the singularly unusual position of trying to block a measure that was passed by their own party, which they themselves cheered all the way through passage in the other chamber.

Now, serious question: Why would Reid care whether the House bill is filibustered? We’re headed for deadlock here between the House and Senate one way or another. If Dems succeed in invoking cloture on the House bill and then strip out the O-Care funding, just as everyone expects will happen, then the ball is back in Boehner’s court. Either he can hold firm for awhile and risk a shutdown or he can cave and pass Reid’s “clean” CR. If, on the other hand, Cruz and Lee succeed in filibustering the House bill, then the Senate will pass nothing and … we’ll still be facing a shutdown. Except now, instead of simply blaming Republicans for it, Democrats will add the curious detail that Republicans in the Senate ended up blocking their own party’s bill in order to make it happen. Even worse, a successful filibuster would mean that red-state Dems like Landrieu and Begich who are up for reelection wouldn’t have to take a very tough vote in favor of funding ObamaCare as part of their party’s “clean” CR. If you’re going to go to the mat and shut down the government over ObamaCare, at least make vulnerable incumbents from the other party sweat through it.

Oh, and in case you were wondering why the adults in the GOP were not in favor of this method of de-funding Obamacare, it might be due to the fact that they understand how the process works.  The "young Turks" don't seem to care about that.  They just like to see themselves throwing tantrums on TV or in front of a bunch of "liberty" lovers.  And by "liberty" in this context I'm speaking of those Discordians who favor "No Rules!".