Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Via Drudge, from Real Clear Politics:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) mocked Second Amendment rights activists while announcing his support for a ban on assault weapons and limits to high-capacity magazine clips on the Senate floor today.

REID: In the 1920s, organized crime was committing murders with machine guns. So Congress dramatically limited the sale and transfer of machine guns. As a result, machine guns all but disappeared from the streets. We can and should take the same common-sense approach to safeguard Americans from modern weapons of war.

Starting from the end of this statement and working back, modern weapons of war aren’t legal (without a lot of licensing) precisely because of the National Firearms Act of 1934 that Reid is alluding to.  But wait, you say – the National Firearms Act came out in 1934?  Yes, yes it did.

Organized crime became an issue in the 1920s because of a great early Progressive idea to make people better: Prohibition.  Prohibition was so important to those who “know what’s best” that the government went out and poisoned US citizens intentionally:

Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.

Although mostly forgotten today, the “chemist’s war of Prohibition” remains one of the strangest and most deadly decisions in American law-enforcement history. As one of its most outspoken opponents, Charles Norris, the chief medical examiner of New York City during the 1920s, liked to say, it was “our national experiment in extermination.”

Early progressives had decided that intemperance needed to be squashed, even if it meant murdering some 10,000 citizens who drink by having government poison them.

The 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition in 1933, and just like that, the revenue stream for bootleggers and organized crime evaporated overnight.  Coupled with the beginning of the Great Depression exacerbated by FDR’s policies impacting the entire economy, organized crime wasn’t making the same kind of money and thus it wasn’t the same threat it was in the 1920s.

Reid continued saying he’d vote for Feinstein’s “Assault” Weapons Ban:

That is why I will vote for Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons ban – because we must strike a better balance between the right to defend ourselves and the right of every child in America to grow up safe from gun violence. I will vote for the ban because maintaining law and order is more important than satisfying conspiracy theorists who believe in black helicopters and false flags. I will vote for the ban because saving the lives of young police officers and innocent civilians is more important than preventing imagined tyranny.

There is no “balance” as you move towards tyranny, even if you mock those who warn of tyranny.  There can be no right to grow up safe.  These are wonderful abstract concepts that are high-minded, but impossible.  You cannot “grow up safe”.  The world cannot be made into a safe place.

“Maintaining law and order” would mean enforcing laws first.  Obama doesn’t even enforce gun laws.  Mocking people who oppose the bill as conspiracy theorists just means you don’t have an argument.

The Obama administration has actively engaged in a conspiracy against the Second Amendment by shipping guns to narcoterrorist cartels in Mexico.  You can read all about it.

Lastly, Reid claiming to want to save the lives of young police officers by destroying the Second Amendment they swear an oath to – as part of the Constitution, just means that he cares about protecting organs of the state but not about the rights of the people – the same rights that cop swears to uphold.

As to “saving the lives of innocent civilians” being more important that “preventing imagined tyranny”, scroll back up and read about the Chemist’s War.  The US government actively poisoned people in order to push its Progressive “good idea” of Prohibition, whether people wanted it or not.  The same time that the Senate was looking at banning machineguns, the same government was poisoning people.  Also in the early 1930s, not only was the government banning the right to own machineguns “for the greater good”, they were also infecting black people with syphilis as guinea pigs in the Tuskegee experiment.  There were also forced sterilizations and such going on in the name of eugenic racial improvement, another Progressive idea, all “for the greater good”.

Reid, just like politicians at that time would’ve, is arguing that people should surrender their rights for their own good because government really wants to help them… It wants to help them so much it murders them for their own good – from poisoning people to support Prohibition to sending guns to narcoterrorist cartels to kill people to support gun control.

There is no “imagined tyranny”, there are just increasing levels of tyranny.  With history as our guide, we know we need to stay well-armed to stay safe, and we know that a government that mocks us ultimately means us harm.  They aren’t by, for, and of the people.

Harry Reid is also indulging in the Broken Window Fallacy.  The complaints he makes today about protecting children and cops are ones that are visible.  The tyranny that others warn against isn’t here yet, and takes time to materialize.  But this isn’t some Manbearpig fantasy, we have all of human history to see the repetition of tyranny as Innocents Betrayed illustrates above.  We know what happens when governments get powerful.  We have seen the US government in the last four years send guns to narcoterrorist cartels and hush it up afterwards.  We have seen the US government poison over 10,000 people just to push Prohibition.

There is no imagined tyranny.  It exists, creeping, always encroaching, and always there.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Nice to see that it’s being reported a bit more.

LAPD Spree Killer’s Supposed Full Manifesto Shows Support For Gun Control And President Obama

Police asked a Los Angeles Fox affiliate to remove the manifesto, originally reported to be that of alleged gunman Christopher Dorner, shortly after publishing.

The request from police indicates media outlets have been distributing and reporting on a highly edited version of the manifesto.

What’s missing are all the pro-leftist and pro-progressive talking points, already noted here and here.

Sooper Mexican has the whole thing (minus a bit of personal info).  He notes that there are a lot of sections that disappeared from the mainstream media’s reporting.  Some interesting highlights:

Mr. Vice President, do your due diligence when formulating a concise and permanent national AWB plan. Future generations of Americans depend on your plan and advisement to the president. I’ve always been a fan of yours and consider you one of the few genuine and charismatic politicians. Damn, sounds like an oxymoron calling you an honest politician. It’s the truth.

Hillary Clinton. You’ll make one hell of a president in 2016. Much like your husband, Bill, you will be one of the greatest. Look at Castro in San Antonio as a running mate or possible secretary of state. He’s (good people) and I have faith and confidence in him. Look after Bill. He was always my favorite President. Chelsea grew up to be one hell of an attractive woman. No disrespect to her husband.
Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA, you’re a vile and inhumane piece of shit. You never even showed 30 seconds of empathy for the children, teachers, and families of Sandy Hook. You deflected any type of blame/responsibility and directed it toward the influence of movies and the media. You are a failure of a human being. May all of your immediate and distant family die horrific deaths in front of you.

Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Pat Harvey, Brian Williams, Soledad Obrien, Wolf Blitzer, Meredith Viera, Tavis Smiley, and Anderson Cooper, keep up the great work and follow Cronkite’s lead. I hold many of you in the same regard as Tom Brokaw and the late Peter Jennings. Cooper, stop nagging and berating your guest, they’re your (guest). Mr. Scarborough, we met at McGuire’s pub in P-cola in 2002 when I was stationed there. It was an honor conversing with you about politics, family, and life.
If you continuously followed me while I was walking at dusk/night I would confront you as well. Too bad Trayvon didn’t smash your skull completely open, Zim.
He also has an entire section basically dedicated to making himself into a martyr for gun control (sentence breaks added, some crap removed to make it clearer):

If you had a well regulated AWB, this would not happen. The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives. Why does any sportsman need a 30 round magazine for hunting? Why does anyone need a suppressor? Why does anyone need a AR15 rifle? This is the same small arms weapons system utilized in eradicating Al Qaeda, Taliban, and every enemy combatant since the Vietnam war. …

All the firearms utilized in my activities are registered to me and were legally purchased at gun stores and private party transfers. All concealable weapons (pistols) were also legally register in my name at police stations or FFL’s.

Unfortunately, are you aware that I obtained class III weapons (suppressors) without a background check thru NICS or DROS completely LEGALLY several times?  I was able to use a trust account that I created on quicken will maker and a $10 notary charge at a mailbox etc. to obtain them legally. Granted, I am not a felon, nor have a DV misdemeanor conviction or active TRO against me on a NCIC file. I can buy any firearm I want, but should I be able to purchase these class III weapons (SBR’s, and suppressors) without a background check and just a $10 notary signature on a quicken will maker program? The answer is NO. I’m not even a resident of the state i purchased them in. Lock n Load just wanted money so they allow you to purchase class III weapons with just a notarized trust, military ID.

NFA and ATF need new laws and policies that do not allow loopholes such as this. In the end, I hope that you will realize that the small arms I utilize should not be accessed with the ease that I obtained them. Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!

Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”

Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family. That has become cliche’ and meaningless. Its time for action. Let this be your legacy that you bestow to America. Do not be swayed by obstacles, antagaonist, and naysayers. Remember the innocent children at Austin, Kent, Stockton, Fullerton, San Diego, Iowa City, Jonesboro, Columbine, Nickel Mines, Blacksburg, Springfield, Red Lake, Chardon, Aurora, and Newtown. Make sure this never happens again!!!

In my cache you will find several small arms. In the cache, Bushmaster firearms, Remington precision rifles, and AAC Suppressors (silencers). All of these small arms are manufactured by Cerberus/Freedom Group. The same company responsible for the Portland mall shooting, Webster , NY, and Sandy Hook massacre.

So he thinks he’ll be the madman that goes off and kills a whole lot of people to prove that if you trust anyone with guns, there will be murders.  So because he decided to be a madman, a martyr for the cause, then the government must crack down on everyone.  He complains about the LAPD being corrupt, but then decides to go on a murdering rampage… so he can make the LAPD more powerful.  He’s a nut.

All it proves is you can’t trust cops or even military officers with guns, because they might go on some crazed manifesto-driven rampage and murder all kinds of people out of spite.

Whole thing can also be found at CrimeFileNews.

Update: He’s also got supporters now, who love that he went out and killed the daughter of his old captain… because murdering people who’ve done you no wrong is how the weakling powerless Sandy Hook shitbags of the world deal with their problems.  Like Dorner, and like these assholes on Twitter.

He also notes he likes George W. Bush’s neocon-ness.  So he’s a progressive, as well as a leftist race-card playing “I’m a victim” murdering shitbag who lashes out in a temper tantrum like Adam Lanza or Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold or any other of the petulant spree murderers he thinks he’s nothing like.

From Pravda writer Stanislav Mishin:

Pravda newspaper front page (around 1950s). Th...

Pravda newspaper front page (around 1950s). The head article title says: From the Soviet Leadership (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

…it (gun control) is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question.

The gentleman from the former Soviet Union has it spot on. Control is the issue. Think about this for a few minutes. If the second amendment falls, what of the others? Free speech, illegal searches and seizures (already happening to some in the name of “security”), having a national guardsmen in your home,  and the right to not incriminate yourself just to name a few. A further look at amendments and the constitution suggest that if the 2nd amendment falls that it would also be possible for the 22nd amendment to be ignored as well. Think on the ramifications of that, a president seeking a third term….

Mr. Stanislav’s article discusses the disarmament of the Russian population, particularly the former members of the tsar’s army:

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Trust politicians much? I don’t. Again the idea of the slippery slope applies. If we give up our right to bear arms, what recourse do we have as, “The People,” if some or all of our enumerated rights disappear? I would go into unenumerated rights but Senator Fienstein just wouldn’t be able to comprehend my argument or I would have to direct her to John Locke if she knows who that is.

And now for the Soviet Union’s slippery slope:

… the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle.

Sounds like fun doesn’t it?

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” – Thomas Jefferson

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

This story has already been making the rounds of gun forums across the internet, but it’s worth noting:

Mayor Bloomberg has snubbed Borough President Markowitz’s impassioned plea to bring the National Guard to Hurricane Sandy-scarred Brooklyn — arguing that approving the Beep’s request would be a waste of federal manpower and turn the borough into a police state.

“We don’t need it,” Mayor Bloomberg said on Wednesday during a press update on the city’s ongoing Hurricane Sandy cleanup. “The NYPD is the only people we want on the street with guns.”

It’s now making the rounds of regular news sites, and even HotAir picked it up.

Folks focus on the sheer insanity of a mayor who would leave his city in ruins because he wants all the guns controlled by him.  The peasants already know that there are few or no cops to be found, and that they’re on their own.  Some have rediscovered self defense, even though it’s illegal.

That’s not New Orleans, that’s Long Island, NY.

The specific thing about what he said is that he doesn’t want a police state… yet he wants only his police to have guns.  He wants to ban foie gras, 17 oz sodas, tobacco, guns; he sends his police across state lines in violation of federal law to try and interfere with lawful commerce so he can push for gun bans nationwide, and he decides it’s time for a marathon in the middle of a natural disaster because f*** you, peons!

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of a police state is this:

a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures

Political, economic, and social life control through arbitrary exercise of police power?  Check.  Secret police who go across state lines to interfere in other states, circumventing the law?  Check.

It’s not that Mayor Bloomberg just hates guns, it’s that he doesn’t want a threat to his personal police state.

It should be noted that gun control isn’t ultimately about guns.  It’s about control.  Former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Hupp’s quote still applies here:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

And Bloomberg very much feels that way.  He’s gone so far as to demand cops stop working until the people have their rights taken away.  He’s a tyrant with a police state.  Of course he doesn’t want anyone to threaten that, least of all the heroes in the National Guard.

Usually the term “Monopoly of Force” is used, but as “Monopoly of Violence” was the chosen term back when socialism began, that’s worth noting.

From David Codrea at Examiner.com:

“The concept of a ‘monopoly on force’ might sound foreign or even frightening to Americans that take great pride in our revolutionary beginnings,” Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz wrote in a Huffington Post citizen disarmament advocacy piece, “but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States.”

“To back up this assertion,” I explained in a GUNS Magazine Rights Watch column, “he cites, ‘German political economist and sociologist Max Weber.’”

“What he doesn’t cite,” I elaborated, “is Weber’s support for approving Article 48 into the Weimar constitution, establishing “emergency powers” to bypass Reichstag consent, and allowing Adolf Hitler’s rise to unchallenged power. Not to mention the attainment of a ‘monopoly of force,’ although Weber preferred the term ‘violence.’”

It’s not Godwin’s law when they down that path.  But it’s interesting to note that even progressives from back in Wilsonian days of progressivism disputed the idea.

…Louis Brandeis, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Courtnominated to the high court by Woodrow Wilson, and a leading proponent of “progressive” causes in his day.

Kopel cites another quote (ST: of Brandeis), referencing The Brandeis Guide to the Modern World by Alfred Lief, and which you can find ( in context) for yourself in The Words of Justice Brandeis by Solomon Goldman:

It is not good for us that we should ever lose the fighting quality, the stamina, and the courage to battle for what we want when we are convinced that we are entitled to it, and other means fail. There is something better than peace, and that is peace that is won by struggle. We shall have lost something vital and beyond price on the day when the State denies us the right to resort to force in defense of a just cause.

Interesting piece, worth reading the whole thing.

Austrian Part 1 and Part 2.

Originally posted on AR15.com by user “Austrian”.  Note that in part 1, he’s in the US.  By 2 and 3, he’s moved to Switzerland, and explained the economic reasons why.  His guide to understanding Occupy came out later, and I misplaced or lost the link.  Searching for Austrian there comes back with a lot more Glocks and STG58s than posts on economics.

Austrian
CHE CHE
Posted: 11/13/2011 9:26:11 PM

So back in September I clearly had enough wine to pen one of my raving missives, as I woke up the next morning and discovered this post over my signature: Reasons Why I Sympathize With Occupy Wall Street

I’m pretty sure it was me, because I remember collecting the photos, but that’s not important right now. What is important, at least to me, is trying to find a reasonable answer to the question:

What the fuck are these people doing?

As I pointed out in my last time-waster on “Occupy” there never was much hope of any real political “victory”, out of the movement. That would pre-suppose a defined goal. Or a defined leader. Or a defined… well… anything. But it surprises me the degree to which Occupy [This] has turned into a frightening, dangerous defeat for just about everyone concerned. When you add it all up there’s more than enough Fail to fill everyone’s quota for the next decade and a half (or one Obama term). And in this I mean even beyond the obvious observation that many Occupys have turned violent. As of this writing I think we were on three fatalities at various Occupys nationwide. Two of which were from gunshot wounds, one of which seems to have been the result of a fight over a bag of drugs.

So as a finance dork, I spent some time thinking about what Occupy means. If the United States is in for a full blown Marxist revolution, I should probably try to see that coming a little earlier than, say, Czar Nicholas II. Right?

So, for what it is worth, I pondered things for a while and came up with some trite and useless observations. Given that no one else will listen to me anymore, not even “The Girl,” I am doing the natural thing: sharing them with ARFCOM.

So shut the door. Sit back. Get some hard liquor. Turn on the text-to-speech feature (I sound best with the Victoria personality on OS X) while I present:

Austrian’s Guide to Understanding Occupy [Catchy Noun Here]

The first step in understanding the causes behind the slit trench that is the Occupy movement is to understand that while everyone is busy making the analysis complicated, there is a single insidious factor that runs though the entire sordid mess:

Envy.

This is both simpler and not as simplistic as it sounds. Critically, I did not say “jealousy,” as the two are often confused. A treatment of their distinctions could consume an Austrian-sized post in itself, so for now let us just distinguish envy (the resentful emotion involving the desire to possess or to deny to others what one does not, have) from jealousy (the fearful emotion involving the desire not to lose what one does already have).

This is a critical component of the so-called “anti-elitism” that has been bubbling up in Western culture for a couple of decades, and now seems to be boiling over in Zuccotti Park.

But it’s easy to pick a tag line and use it over a wide swath of degenerate behavior. One has to back this claim up and explain why it is helpful to the analysis. In this case, we have to go back quite a ways. Not quite to the Johnson Administration, but close.

Having run our way-back-machine through sufficient prior years we find that the individual most responsible for Occupy Your Street is one Gale Cincotta.

Gale Cincotta was a mother of six and one of the first “community organizers.” She hailed from Austin and Oak Park, Illinois, just outside of Chicago, and was an unlikely political activist until, in the 1960s, she cut her political teeth fighting school overcrowding. But the straight-from-the-bottle vodka drinking, profanity slinging housewife (she was often called “a star pupil of the Saul Alinsky hell-raising school of community organizing”) quickly scouted bigger game: banks and mortgage lenders.

Her New York Times obituary called her “plain spoken,” which in Grey Lady Speak apparently translates to “the woman who once nailed a rat to a Cook County Alderman’s door and pioneered the tactic of dumping dozens of protestors on the front lawn of bank CEOs suburban homes Sunday morning at 8am.”

Today we marvel at the pure insidious evil of the EPA giving grants and other funding to groups that then turn around and sue the EPA and settle out “consent decrees” for regulations and rulings that never would see the light of day in a transparent political process. But this particular tactic is not new. Cincotta shamelessly used regional offices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to attack its sister department the Federal Housing Administration as far back as the 1970s.

The lobby group she founded in 1972, the National People’s Action group, proceeded to push for various pieces of lending legislation. They are still active today, a decade after Cincotta’s death. See if any of their goals sound familiar to you:

Society should be organized on the basis of mutual responsibility, cooperation, and community self-determination achieved through political and economic democracy.
NPA fights for policies that:
Take back our power to use the government as our tool to promote the common good, correct the injustices of the past, and redistribute resources equitably and sustainably.
Democratize the market to put people above profits.
Enforce fundamental human rights standards that prevent exploitation of people and the environment.
Take action to ensure racial, gender, economic, and immigrant justice in all social and economic systems.

Right on, man!

Whatever they sound like today, they sounded good to both Gerald Ford and then Jimmy Carter in the 70s. Ford signed the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (which required banks to publish zip-code and geographic statistics on their lending) in 1975 mostly as a result of the NPAs in-your-facism. Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 with a lot less resistance, and Gale Cincotta was standing right next to him for the photo op when the ink hit the parchment.

As you might expect, today the NPA seems to mirror a lot of the mainstream media coverage of Occupys. At the moment their website includes a “Wins for the 99%” section and a blurb for their “Make Wall Street Pay” campaign. But I digress.

The Community Reinvestment Act takes a lot of flack from conservatives and provokes aggressive knee-jerk defenses from progressives when critiqued. Most people you hear mention the Act, however, have no idea what it says or does. Let’s fix that for you:

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act isn’t particularly offensive. Even libertarians may grudgingly agree that one of government’s uses is as a clearing house for data so that consumers or voters or citizens can make informed choices. True, requiring banks to make line-by-line disclosures that tend to expose their strategies to competitors is a bit heavy handed, but the basic premise of sunshine as a disinfectant was a good one. This is particularly true when one wants to enforce socially unpopular norms that fall short of illegal conduct. The natural response to anti-social behavior that falls short of outright illegality is generally ridicule and social banishment. Don’t like a bank’s policies? Take out your deposits. Don’t like the membership rules of a private club? Don’t join. But unlike the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Community Reinvestment Act went much further.

As is the habit of Congress in passing legislation, a finding as to the need for the law is defined. The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act outlined this one:

The Congress finds that some depository institutions have sometimes contributed to the decline of certain geographic areas by their failure pursuant to their chartering responsibilities to provide adequate home financing to qualified applicants on reasonable terms and conditions.

One must remember that urban decay of the time was severe. One must also remember the source of that urban decay: Government housing policy which amounted to an absurd price-discrimination regulation. Specifically, at the time the maximum amount anyone could pay in rent for public housing (at the time all projects were government built and run) was 25% of his or her income. This, of course, meant that anyone in the growing middle class would be better off using the same rent for more expensive private housing. Housing that was increasingly in the suburbs as “white flight” took hold. In addition, because projects were government developed, built and run, it was generally already poor and blighted areas that were selected for public housing sites. Our good friend “eminent domain” became to see renewed use in this period and eventually became an entrenched bit of government policy. Finally, increasingly progressive local housing authorities stopped screening applicants. At all. For anything.

Let’s just stop for a moment and think about that. So regulators and legislators enact policies that concentrate low-income housing in already blighted areas. Then they mandate a sliding pay-scale that assures that no one of even moderate means will have any cause to live in these areas once they rise even a little in income. This is because the law causes rent payments to rise for tenants who see income improvements. Then they cease screening applicants in any fashion. And after applying all these screws they turn around and claim:

…that some depository institutions have sometimes contributed to the decline of certain geographic areas by their failure pursuant to their chartering responsibilities to provide adequate home financing to qualified applicants on reasonable terms and conditions….

Of course, what was being attacked here was the practice of “redlining,” or blocking out entire neighborhoods and reducing or halting all lending in that area.

Redlining sounds a bit harsh doesn’t it? Sure, a bank should be able to pick its clients, but mortgage-nuking an entire Zip Code is pretty extreme, no? Well, even if you don’t quite think so, you can see why it would send progressives absolutely screaming into the darkness with rage. Here’s the thing:

Redlining was invented by the Government in the first place.

Yep.

And no, not by Nixon’s FHA. (Good guess). It was a New Deal agency that came up with the idea. Yeah, you heard me. The progressive hero FDR.

The Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (an FDR invention) started by publishing “residential security maps” which were later used by the Federal Housing Administration and picked up by private lenders.


Here’s one for Philly

At this point, lots of progressives make noise about rampant discrimination that was already an endemic part of the private lending market. And, of course, this was true. An unmarried couple was probably shit out of luck in 1968. So was a single mother. So was a black man. But when your regulator or the agency most responsible for your policy burden publishes, updates and promotes such a document, how do you ignore it? I mean, what are you going to tell the shareholders when you lose your shirt lending to a neighborhood the FHA tells you is dangerous for collateral recovery? How do you not get sued? Let me show you how:

Cincotta up and rams the Community Reinvestment Act down everyone’s throat which says:

“Hey banks! See these areas that government policies have assured will have awful property values for decades? And which are subject to policies that push out anyone who starts to make a little money, assuring that gentrification will probably never lift the area out of slum status? And which concentrates tenants in an environment where the government is the undiscerning landlord of last resort? And which your own regulator has warned you comprises a dangerous security / collateral risk? Yeah well, fuck you, you’re lending here. What? Higher interest rates? Nope. Congress sez: ‘provide adequate home financing to qualified applicants on reasonable terms and conditions,’ and that’s part of your ‘chartering responsibilities’ you know. Look, says so right here. What’s ‘reasonable’? Who’s ‘qualified’? What is ‘adequate home financing’? Oh, believe me, you’ll find out. About 60 seconds after we dump 75 people on your front lawn.”

(Everyone should read: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs at this point. I’ll wait).

Done? Great. (Good read eh?)

It may seem that we’ve come quite a bit afield of Occupy, but, in fact, we’re smack dab in the middle of it. You see, the Cincotta and the Community Reinvestment Act (and a host of legislation that followed) began the wholesale “Drunken Relative” trend of social justice in the Untied States. Allow me to explain:

Certainly, everyone has that one relative, a Father, an Uncle, a crazy Aunt (since this is ARFCOM you probably ARE that one relative), seen most often on family holiday get togethers… Thanksgiving, Christmas, the anniversary of the passing of a particularly hated Mother-in-Law… whatever. They start with the egg nog and before you know it, they have transformed into one of those belligerent, loud and angry drunks, irritated that Cousin Cindy won’t give them “just one little kiss.” And it takes until they’ve careened around the table twice, groped Cousin Cindy four times, knocked over a pair of chairs and one centerpiece, spilled three drinks, including one on the new carpet for everyone to act to stop the madness by… just looking away with an embarrassed grimace and hoping the problem will just go away on its own once it gets cold enough outside.

You wimps.

Don’t think the belligerent drunks don’t know it either. Sure, perhaps not in a form they can articulate into words (or slurs), but they know it. They depend on it. Your acquiescence. Your indulgence. They are manipulating your inability to act. They are using your fear of being the asshole who finally says something. You, my friends, are enablers.

And behind the blackouts, the explosions of profanity and rage (and vomit), underneath the broken dishes, appliances, windows and the frayed nerves, is our old friend:

Envy.

Envy that “everything comes so easy to you.” Envy that you “have a beautiful home.” That you “are so lucky.” That you “have everything a woman could want.” That “you have a REAL job.” And, since that’s not enough, Uncle Bob “Jack Daniels” Smith is seething with the desire to fuck it all up for you, screaming metaphorically with every visit:

“You might have a nice house, a beautiful wife, and polite kids, boy-o, but one night a year, I’m going to inflict pain on you and there’s nothing you can do about it, and your kids will see that life’s not so fucking easy, and your wife will know you’re really powerless, because if you don’t invite me, or if you kick me out, or call the police like last year, the guilt will haunt you for months, and everyone will see you for the callous, greedy republican you really are Mr. civilized family man!”

But there’s a difference we haven’t yet accounted for. In this case, we were the ones who introduced Bob to his bookie and the pleasures of Tequila in the first place.

Let’s face it, the Baby Boomers completely hosed the rest of us. Literally. No, not you, random Baby Boomer who is reading this. Not you personally. You, Baby Boomers. You the collective and aging electorate. Again, not you, Boomer. Them. The Boomers. They have spent every dime of their own money and now, like some sort of Jurassic parasite, they’ve spent everything the X generation has, and are in the process of pillaging what’s left of the savings bonds grandpa left to the Millennials and using the coupons as collateral for payday loans. No one has the courage to stand up to them because they vote, damn it. Like hotcakes.

Seriously. Even while the United States conducts two rather serious foreign adventures, entitlement spending is twice military spending today. Paying for the mortgage on the Miami condo along with all the diabetes supplies, hip replacement surgeries, Depends, Rascal scooters, bath tubs with doors, LifeCall and Centrum Silver Boomers are going to be scarfing down in a few years time will consume all tax revenue, every single dime, by 2049 (and that’s the bullshit figure from the CBO too). That’s just to keep treading water (assuming the rest of the planet doesn’t get tired of lending to those old farts any time soon).

It’s actually even worse than that.

If you calculate the present value of unfunded liabilities just in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, you come up with over $100 trillion. That’s not a typo. That’s the figure you would need to contribute to pay all this stuff off and it is in ADDITION to the payroll tax.

At the same time realize that the sum of all private wealth in the United States is something like $59 trillion in 2011 (sez the Fed anyhow) and you realize that some asshole (and it was a boomer, I can tell you for sure) promised the boomers all your payroll tax until you die (but in the next 15 years), AND the total sum of all the wealth in the country. TWICE.

But here’s the thing. All the while that it has been sucking down every thin dime and borrowing 3 pennies besides, society has been telling the nimrods now searching for lice combs “You better study hard and get into college, or you are going to end up serving french fries to your friends. Try this: ‘Would you like that in a pump? Or a loafer?’” Of course, what society MEANT was: “Better get productive soon because you already owe me $2 for every dollar you will ever earn and, damn it, how am I going to play golf with the guys if I can’t get my titanium hip replacement surgery and pay for my 30something girlfriend’s tits when Viagra has gotten so damn expensive?”

But even that’s not all.

Somewhere along the line someone decided that, even though they needed these kids to slave away like some Dickensian version of Dr. Douglas “Doogie” Howser, M.D., (oh, and by the way, did we tell you we are moving in to your place?) they would instead encourage them to pursue a Women’s Studies degree in graduate school and join the Peace Corps. Seriously?


What the fuck are you standing around for?
You need to work another 193.5 hours this week to pay the vig.

It’s the sort of insane hypocrisy that prompts Michelle Obama (who graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School to go immediately on to Sidley Austin, one of the preeminent law firms in the country) to tell the graduating class of George Washington University:

You’ve watched unimaginable devastation and suffering in the aftermath of a tsunami; a hurricane; an earthquake. You’ve felt the wrath of a recession that’s changed your towns and even your families. Now, that’s a whole lot to bear for any generation. So, no one would have blamed you had you chosen to hunker down and turn inward; if you had simply focused on making sure that your own lives were secure. But so many of you have done the exact opposite. Instead, you’ve dived in. You’ve reached out. You have volunteered and applied to organizations like Teach for America and the Peace Corps in record numbers. In fact, this year is the second year in a row that GW led universities of this size in the number of undergraduate alumni serving in the Peace Corps. (Applause.)

Go be an idealist honey. And then come home and start cracking to pay pay pay me.

And really, hasn’t society completely defrauded the X generation and the Millennials in other ways?

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I was promised flying cars, damnit. Seriously. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang? What was that, 1923? The Man With the Golden Gun had a fucking AMC PACER that sprouted wings and flew away for the love of all things innovative! (Ok, I think it was actually a Matador, but one pile of rusty excrement looks pretty much the same to me as another nowadays). Hello? Blade Runner? That takes place in 2019, people. Better get cracking on that! (We’re looking at YOU, General Motors. NASA is government subsidized too but I actually see them put stuff in SPACE every once in a while. Ok, well, not recently, but you get the idea). And Space 1999? Want to guess what year that took place in? They had a base on the MOON for crying out loud. With whooshing cylinder subway transports. Vertical take off and landing space eagles. SPACE EAGLES people.

What a rip off.

But here’s the thing. Just because you got gypped, doesn’t necessarily lead to Envy, and doesn’t necessarily mean you act on that by fucking up dinner for everyone else. And this is where we have Cincotta to thank. See, because even though the West is filled with representative democracies, where the means to express yourself is though free and fair elections or putting your capital somewhere else, it’s now ok for a small minority with a idea to legislate “fairness” to “promote awareness” by disrupting the lives of everyone around, stopping traffic, banging a paint bucket for 12 hours a day and conducting probing activist attacks on every productive establishment you can march to until you find one that causes more grief than the rest and eventually it is easier to just buy you off than to keep earplugs in all day shouting “WHAT? WHAT?” at your girlfriend like you are the parents of a 3 year old again.

I would love to meet the spineless sea cucumbers posing as bank executives at First National Bank of Chicago, Harris Bank and Northern Trust that first settled with Cincotta and her extortioners for $185 million back in 1970whateveritwas. That was it. The first negotiation with the terrorists. We’re all still paying for it.

But still, what no one seems to be talking about is that the authorities (and that word sounds sort of like a joke in this context now doesn’t it really?) have quite literally ceded public order to these people, ceded their very municipal sovereignty to enable Uncle Bob “Jack Daniels” Smith to shit on the family station wagon. And all to avoid causing “a scene.”

The real irony is if the Occupiers tried this anywhere but in the middle of the most developed, advanced societal infrastructure in the modern world they would all have been dead of dysentery weeks ago. It’s precisely the great success of capitalism (and the free riding they are doing on the local police department) that keeps them alive and (mostly) healthy. Lice, TB, Zuccotti Lung? That’s small change for the kind of squalor and mano-a-mano predation a tent city of this kind in Mexico would result in. And Mexico is in the damn G20! In a way its pathetic. With all that infrastructure their ideal society is still are slowly devolving into a third world rape camp. Too many “Social Justice” majors running the railroad, I guess. The kind that think requiring a 90% supermajority is giving a voice to “everyone.”

Duh.

But there’s no end in sight. When you subsidize something, you get more of it. For years the West has told everyone they are special, that all the children are above average, that everyone is entitled to 8% equity returns. Always. (Sue if you don’t get them). That asset values will always go up (except for oil, power, and insulin and food… but maybe we’ll make an exception for Sugar, because ADM asked so nicely, and corn cause you know… well… Iowa). That it is your cosmic right to build on a Florida shoreline, and to pay no more in Hurricane insurance than customers in Alaska. In short, that you are owed, and that you respond to Envy by making it impossible for anyone else to enjoy life until you are granted your “fair share” by the justice fairy.

Occupy is a pack of envious children. This is why their target is the 1% (hey, folks, that guy you once heard about who is $1 below the “poverty line” in the United States? He’s in the top 8% for global income. You THINK you want fair, but trust me, you don’t. The average annual income for a person on the planet earth is $850 a year. You want unfair. Seriously. “Fair” will make Zuccotti Park look like a Trump Hotel. Ok, bad example).

But, like Uncle Bob, so long as no one does anything before he collapses on the new oriental rug in a pool of his own vomit and urine, he’ll keep coming back every year.

My advice to Bloomberg is: stop enabling the drunk. Send him home and don’t invite him back.

My advice to Occupy is: Refuse to pay the Boomers $100 trillion. You do this by shutting the fuck up, going home, getting to work and electing a fiscally responsible legislature with the stones to tell everyone that the entitlement party is over. (Good luck with that after all the Blue you’ve stuffed in the ballot boxes- no rehab center will even take you anymore, Bob, but that’s not really my problem, is it?)

But I doubt anyone will take my advice. At least not until Uncle Bob starts stealing the family silver, or accidentally kills the family golden retriever. Short a dead Natalee Holloway, or some other pretty, white co-ed, it’s just not worth the scene to clean things up. But that means you’re asking for trouble.

It pays to remember that one of Cincotta’s biggest crowd pleasers was always the line “They’ve got it. Let’s go get it.” The mob always loves the taste of meat once it gets hungry enough.

HT HotAir, this piece via LiveScience:

Conservatives Losing Trust in Science, Study Finds

Politically conservative Americans have lost trust in science over the last 40 years while moderates and liberals have remained constant in the stock they put in the scientific community, a new study finds.

The most educated conservatives have slipped the most, according to the research set to appear in the April issue of the journal American Sociological Review. The change in conservative attitudes likely has to do both with changes in the conservative movement and with changes in science’s role in society, said study author Gordon Gaulet, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

“There’s been this need to cultivate conservative ideas in reaction to what is perceived as mainstream culture, which a lot of conservatives would suggest is biased toward secular liberalism,” Gaulet told LiveScience. “Part of what being a conservative means is looking for alternatives for mainstream ideas and bases of knowledge, and science and the media are those.”

No, not quite.  Science has gotten away from observation of natural phenomenon and looking for empirical data and turned into Climategate, medical ethicists that push for infanticide, and again constantly pushes for discredited global warming, and the push for any pseudoscience that further pushes a leftist agenda.  Watermelon environmentalism (green on the outside, red on the inside) keeps pushing for this same crap over and over – with the intent always being the same – control of the individual.

Of course, according to “Science”, non-leftists are dumb anyway.

Meanwhile, science has changed, too. Research used to be done under the auspices of NASA and the Department of Defense, Gaulet said. Both of these agencies seemed far-removed from daily life. However, over the decades, science has become more intertwined with everyday policy. The Environmental Protection Agency is a “poster child” for science informing real-world regulation that some conservatives oppose, Gaulet said.

“It’s almost a contradiction,” he said. “We use science because it has this objective point of view or credibility to figure out which policy to use … but by doing that it becomes politicized.”

Except that’s backwards.  The politicians figure out what they want based on their sociologial theories, then they use “science” to get it.  They use the delta smelt to kill California’s Central Valley, they use the California Condor to go after citizen’s gun rights, and they use fake climate studies to destroy US energy.

Manbearpig has been busted, yet they still push the same dogmatic faith as “science” when it isn’t.

And then there’s things like this, from the same source – LiveScience:

Engineering Humans: A New Solution to Climate Change?

So far, conventional solutions to global warming — new government policies and changes in individual behavior — haven’t delivered. And more radical options, such as pumping sulfur into the atmosphere to counteract warming, pose a great deal of risk.

There may be another route to avoid the potentially disastrous effects of climate change: We can deliberately alter ourselves, three researchers suggest.

Human engineering, as they call it, poses less danger than altering our planet through geoengineering, and it could augment changes to personal behavior or policies to mitigate climate change, they write in an article to be published in the journal Ethics, Policy and the Environment.

“We are serious philosophers, but we might not be entirely serious that people should be doing this,” said Anders Sandberg, one of the authors and an ethicist at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. “What we are arguing is we should be taking a look at this, at the very least.”

Here we go again.

Their suggestions

In their article, they put forward a series of suggestions, intended as examples of the sorts of human engineering measures that people could voluntarily adopt. These include:

-Induce intolerance to red meat (think lactose intolerance), since livestock farming accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions.

-Make humans smaller to reduce the amount of energy we each need to consume. This could be done by selecting smaller embryos through preimplantation genetic diagnosis, a technique already in use to screen for genetic diseases. “Human engineering could therefore give people the choice between having a greater number of smaller children or a smaller number of larger children,” they write.

-Reduce birthrates by making people smarter, since higher cognitive ability appears linked to lower birthrates. This could be achieved through a variety of means, including better schooling, electrical stimulation of the brain and drugs designed to improve cognitive ability, they propose.

-Treat people with hormones, such as oxytocin, to make us more altruistic and empathetic. As a result, people would be more willing to act as a group and more sensitive to the suffering of animals and other people caused by climate change.

So, the focus of “science” is control of the population.  It’s force, it’s control, it’s eugenics, the same Malthusian crap that Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren has been spouting for decades.  Mainstream “science” is taking a decidedly leftist bent, intent on telling us how bad we as humans are, how we’re all guilty of original sin against Gaia, and how we need to make people “smarter” so there will be fewer of us, how we need to inflict suffering and sacrifice on the masses of people for the good of “all mankind”, making us more “empathetic” while simultaneously hurting us as a species, as a race, and as individuals.

If “science” weren’t proposing the same leftist Malthusian “New Man” progressive garbage that they’ve been recycling since Margaret Sanger started saying we need to kill black children for their own good and generations of failed eugenicists and mass murderers throughout history have spouted – maybe we wouldn’t be so skeptical of those calling themselves “scientists”.

They’re the damned eco-daleks blowing up kidsAgain and again.

Karl at HotAir has this piece today:

The Obamacare Echo Chamber

at another New York-based outlet, NYT columnist (and former editorial page editor) Gail Collinsemotes:

I can’t believe this might be overturned. How can this law not be constitutional? The other alternatives are forcing taxpayers to cover the cost of the care in emergency rooms for people who don’t want to pay for their insurance, even if they can, or letting human beings just die on the side of the road. I can’t believe fiscal conservatives think either of those options is a good idea.Really, I have my hands over my ears. Not listening.

Liberals and liberaltarians are increasingly fond of claiming the right lives in an echo chamber. It is said — sometimes even on the right — that the right’s successes in the past few decades has made them intellectually lazy, unable to engage and overcome progressive arguments and attacks as they did in the halcyon days of Buckley and Reagan. However, when it comes to Pres. Obama’s signature achievement, and a major step toward socialized healthcare, the progressives’ experts and top-shelf pundits display the judgment, rhetorical skill and logic of toddlers. The liberal echo chamber has a long history, exemplified nicely in the apocryphal quote attributed to New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael: “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Having started with John Podhoretz, we come full circle with his account of the real quotation, which may be even worse.

Years ago there was a column in the Wall Street Journal that illustrated lefty bias wherein a New York leftist type was quoted as saying “I don’t know how Reagan won, I don’t know anyone who voted for him”.  Apparently, there were quite a few saying this.

This is very telling.  I strolled through the comments section of that NYT column and found it astonishingly, mindnumbingly, (to borrow from Jonah Goldberg) bone-snappingly stupid.

One commenter:

Did I hear David correctly: he’s just heard about how almost every other major industrialized postwar nation on earth has shown that assured healthcare for all has passed all the crash tests, is environmentally friendly, is a poster-child no-brainer? And, every country with universal healthcare has a very active private healthcare sector selling value added perks like hot-cakes to the one-per-centers— why not?

“Obamacare” is admittedly clever, and mindless buzzwords work until people get sick (?) of being shot at with ‘powerpointed’ arrows.’ The Phd in communications counseling who laid that one must have seen the danger of leaving an association linking “Obama” to ‘caring.’ The neurons are synapsing, n’est-ce pas! Are those sirens I hear coming for me, and do they care? I suppose the alternative to ‘Obamacare’ would have to be ‘Abominablecare’, if the right side of the isle continues as before. Look, that’s the mob on gateway into the Health Casino, where the roll of the dice for staying healthy offers the kind of chance-taking real gamblers with hair consider about as enticing as shooting fish at the ER.

Yes, David, the Swiss do a lot of things well besides building cheese and watches. Do have a look, by all means. It’s never too late.

Aisle, not isle.

Every country with universal healthcare has a very active private healthcare sector selling value added perks like hot-cakes to EVERYONE who can afford them.  Not the left’s mythical boogeyman 1%, but everyone who can possibly afford it.  It’s why you can get veterinary treatment quickly, but health care slowly.  Steven Crowder went over this crap at length:

Y’know what else the Swiss do?  They steal from people.  They have harsh immigration laws for citizens.

And Canada, the health care system leftists so desire to emulate?  Claude Castonguay, the Canadia politician who started it, has called it a dismal failure.

After another commenter:

I believe that i read the Swiss insurance system is a mesh of non profit insurance controled by the state. Several countries in Europe use that approach, which costs something like 8 to 10 % less than US healthcare. however, republicans dis like everything termed not for profit, so forget about it.

Also, that Porche, at least here in Colorado, would have mandatory insurance to protect that blind person walking out into traffic and struck. Mandatory health care. So, if you are poor, get hit by a car in Colorado and chance are good that that person is insured and their insurance will take care of what ails ya. all hail the republican answer to health care.

Another failure here.  US healthcare costs are what the consumer will pay.  If you decide that it’s important to spend your life savings to keep yourself alive, you can.  If you decide you really need an ambulance in state-controlled health care, you die on the phoneJust like with police protection, you’ll find you don’t have a right to health care.  The government has an obligation to “the people”, not the individual.

Remember that when the president says to “take a pain pill”:

After another commenter:

The congress could have implemented a tax on everyone to pay for a healthcare program, and then provided a fully offsetting tax credit for those that buy healthcare insurance. Properly designed the effect could be constructed to be equivalent to the healthcare mandate.
I assume this would be unquestionably constitutional. So if the congress has the power to create an exactly equivalent effect – it is therefore the method not the outcome that is really at issue.

And another:

Absolutely, the penalty is in effect a TAX and those that don’t pay the penaly because they have insurance effectively are getting the tax DEDUCTION in advance and not having to list it on their IRS form- probably would have been better to have a line-in and line-out on the tax form and just call the penalty a tax – Perioid- would have prevented this whole farce

So there’s a tax on everyone, taking from everyone, and a “tax credit” for those that buy insurance.  So those who don’t want health insurance pay a penalty, but it’s really a tax that they aren’t getting a tax credit for, so it’s not a penalty.

So if you buy insurance, you only pay a small tax.  If you don’t buy insurance, there’s a “tax” that’s not really a penalty that’s designed to coerce you into buying insurance.  “Just call the penalty a tax!”  Brilliant!  Next we can pass bills of attainder by saying they’re really just taxes, so that makes it legal!  Yeah!  That’s the ticket!  It’s a penalty, but we’ll call it a tax, so it’s not a penalty.  See how easy that is?

Even Elena Kagan didn’t buy that crapSotomayor doesn’t buy it either.  It doesn’t even hold up to scrutiny by the leftists on the court – you can’t call a penalty a tax and magically make it not a penalty – especially when it’s intended to be a penalty.  You’re forcing people into commerce via a penalty.

Another commenter:

It should be obvious that the conservative members of the court have all along planned to overturn the entire Affordable Care Act.

As Scalia stated, they have not read the law nor have the desire to read the law before they rule on the law.

Shouldn’t the court be required to be familiar with the actual material on which they are going to judge? They made up their minds based on their own political views before the hearings ever started and not on the content of the law.

The law is over 2000 pages.  The Democrats who passed it didn’t read it.  Leftist propagandist Michael Moore made a big point of his movie Fahrenheit 9/11 talking to congressmen who didn’t read Joe Biden’s Patriot Act.  Hey, isn’t that guy in Michael Moore’s clip kinda familiar?  Almost like he didn’t read the Obamacare bill…  Remember how this thing was passed?

And more stupid comments:

Why is being forced to buy insurance so strange? I have to buy auto insurance or I cannot get the plates renewed or the annual inspection sticker without it.

The inner state commerce issue is one designed to protect consumers. We have to pay for the bills charged by those who don’t have health insurance so the requirement is protecting us from those high costs.

And justifications for those stupid comments:

The (bogus) answers to your question are: 1) Only car drivers are required to buy auto insurance, and no one forces you to buy a car 2) The requirement to buy auto insurance is a state, not a federal requirement. My answers to those replies are 1) In fact essentially everyone does have to buy a car in modern society. This is a trivial difference. 2) The Civil War is over, and there is no reason to grant any powers to the states that are denied to the feds. Also 30 to quote Robert in St. Paul “The congress could have implemented a tax on everyone to pay for a healthcare program, and then provided a fully offsetting tax credit for those that buy healthcare insurance.” The ACA is essentially identical to this already, and the Supremes should acknowledge that the different paperwork would make no difference.

Except the answers are that only car drivers are required to buy auto insurance.  No one forces you to buy a car.  Berkeley’s bogus “replies” are easily rebutted. 1)

People who live there don’t all own cars.  They use public transportation.  Where I live, most people do own cars – but there’s no reason that a New Yorker who rides the subway everywhere should have to buy car insurance to subsidize my part of the country, or Berkeley’s.

2) The 10th Amendment is there for a reason.  The Constitution itself limits the power of the fedgov.  If we are a nation of men and not a nation of laws, then Berkeley is correct.  If we have laws, then he is woefully incorrect.  His further expansion on the “pass a tax, pass a credit” doesn’t change that you’re instituting a penalty.  It would be the same as California, Texas, Florida and other driving states going after New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts citizens to force them to subsidize our car insurance.  Saying “you lost the civil war” disregards the law, and is overall flippant and stupid.  Furthermore, auto insurance is only required if you’re driving on state roads.  If you have your own private roads (of which there are a very few), or you have a vehicle that you keep on your ranch or your farm and that doesn’t drive on public roads, you don’t need insurance.

And another comment from the same string:

Don’t we also have “buy” social security, which is nothing but an insurance policy that pays out if you live long enough. Aren’t there numerous examples going back more than 50 years of Congress “creating commerce” through mandates in order to regulate? This particular instance is not really a precedent, is it?

Yes, there are.  And they’re unconstitutional, too.  Arguing that wrongs are still being done justify more wrongs is like arguing that since the ATF did Fast and Furious, we should just cut out the middleman and have the ATF start gunning down Mexican citizens,  US citizens and US law enforcement like some kind of third-world paramilitary death squads.

And another comment:

Mr. Justice Kennedy (as an officer of the court I’m obliged to use his formal title) mused during arguments that if the mandate is eliminated but the rest of the ACA were to stand, then “how could this be fair to the insurance companies?”

News flash, Mr. Justice (and your conserva-reactionary colleagues): how could it NOT be “fair” to consumers? Whose constitutional interests are more important: a few dozen artificial persons or 300 million living, breathing individuals? What is a more important governmental function: preserving absurdly high profits of these few artificial persons or preventing total impoverishment of the millions who make up this nation and elect the Presidents who appoint you to your lifelong jobs?

I’ve said it before (and in different words, so has Ms. Collins): among all commodities, systems and markets health care is sui generis. Everybody needs it; at present, everyone currently subsidizes it for both those unwilling and those unable to acquire insurance coverage. It is the only sector of the service economy in which the primary mode of payment (by far!) is not direct cash payment by the recipient of the service but payment by a third party filter which redistributes the premiums that had been originally paid to it by recipients regardless of whether they sought or received that service when paying said premiums. Every other market is primarily directly paid for by recipients of the goods or services: auto repair, cellphones, broccoli…….

300 million living, breathing individuals work for those insurance companies, and purchase their products by choice.  Health care is not sui generis, it is not a beautiful and unique snowflake.  Everybody doesn’t need it.  Those unwilling and unable to get insurance often don’t need it.  Auto repair is a stupid comparison, because auto repairs is very often made by a third party filter – the auto insurance company.  Whoever is covering your vehicle is who’s going to pay, after you pay your deductible.  They redistribute the premiums that are originally paid by the customers just the same.

The only difference is that mandates by government make it so that employers and government get involved in what would otherwise be a similar endeavor.  You pay your premium, and if you get ill enough to require treatment, the company covers it.  If you get sick a lot or represent a risky demographic, you pay more (just like males 18-25 pay a lot more for car insurance).  If you work towards making yourself healthy (gym memberships, etc.) health insurance might be reduced, just like for driver’s training.  An insurance company has a vested interest in making sure you are well – so they don’t have to pay out.  Plus, that’s what you pay them for.

The other arguments – cellphones, broccoli, etc. – mock SCOTUS’s points.  Among all commodities, food and water are necessary.  You don’t need a cellphone.  You need food.  Andrew Wilkow is fond of noting that there are other things that come first in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

Yet another stupid comment, but one with an interesting response afterwards:

Health care is a fundamental human right. Excellence in pre natal and post natal care, maternal, child and indeed family health is central to the wealth of this nation. We ignore that fact at our peril.

The very rich can afford whatever health insurance and care they want. Those who are eligible for Medicaid may be able to get by. I’m a recipient of Medicare–one of the largest single payer health care systems in the world. The vast middle struggles in an essentially unregulated market, to meet premiums and deductibles that are often catastrophic.

Until this nation joins the community of nations that recognizes the need for universal health care, we will founder, slipping lower and lower in rates of infant mortality and shortened span of life.

I am revolted by the image of partisan bickering over this issue, by the millions of dollars spent by the health care and associated industries lobbying member of Congress while filling the campaign coffers of politicians.

Asking the most vulnerable among us, including our children, to climb the health care mountain takes us far from the center of excellence in health care we pretend to have.

And the voice in the wilderness response, by a rational mind:

The only problem is that everything you say is wrong. Human rights are freedom from abuse, like freedom of religion, speech, assembly, so on. Healthcare is a service that you (or someone) has to provide. That costs money. Next, health care, especially the bloated monster which government has fostered in this country, is not central to the wealth of the country, actually it is a giant drain. Think about it. Without the healthcare megalopolis our country grew like gangbusters from 1800 to 1960. Only since then have we slowed down. Look at China. Not so good health care, rapid growth. Look at Europe, viewed as the model of health care system heaven by the Democrats. It is mired in slow growth and deficits.
Nurtured by the government our bloated wasteful system is bankrupting us.

This was about the only contrary comment I could find, and about the only one that hits the nail on the head.  Healthcare, or anything else “provided for” by government, has to come from somewhere else.  Government cannot give anything that it does not first take from someone else, and legitimate government holds the monopoly on force in a society.  If you don’t pay taxes (or penalties that are called taxes), they can imprison you.  If your neighbor doesn’t return your lawnmower, you can’t hold trial in the kitchen and then lock him up in your basement.

The groupthink just wading through the comments is mind-numbing.  It’s astonishing to see so many people who fancy themselves intelligent can be so incredibly wrong, over and over justifying their wrongness by pointing to other wrongs, demanding that more wrongs be done, and dismissing any arguments to the contrary.

One last one:

The decision by Kennedy quoted here has a problem: it equates relations between individuals (I do or do not have a duty to rescue you) with relations between government and an individual. The two are inherently different: government is supposed to consider the common good of many individuals, which may mean actions to the detriment of some individuals. Government does things to individuals (execute them, for example) that individuals are not permitted to do each other (except in limited conditions of self-defense).
Today’s broccoli comparison and now this. These justices apparently like to reason by analogy, and they’re just not good at finding accurate analogies!

The government is supposed to do what’s outlined in the Constitution, nothing more.  Considering “the common good” at te detriment of some individuals is the argument of tyrants.  Government only executes people who have committed crimes; the same crimes that a citizen can prevent being visited upon himself via use of force.  Absurd.

US government does not exist for the majority to tyrannize the minority (though European governments famously often do).  Any argument in favor of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few rapidly turns into an argument to prey upon the minority for the good of the mob, whether it be the 1%, the Jews, the blacks, the whites (they’re the minority many places), the Poles, the Irish, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Amerinds, or any other group that happens to be the minority in any given region or area at any given time.

The broccoli comparison is that you need to eat and that the government can create commerce, so must the government provide food or force you into eating something, mandating what you eat.

Oh, but wait, a Canadian earlier argues for that:

And we lack incentives for healthy living; we don’t tax junk foods, for example, to subsidize fresh greens and make them available in low income neighbourhoods. But this will come — just like taxes on alcohol and cigarettes — where we know there is a future health-care cost to their use.

So it’s not a mandate, there’ll just be a tax to create an incentive, and you’ll get a tax credit for broccoli, but if you don’t buy it, it’s not a penalty targeting you, it’s a tax.

That’s enough groupthink.  It’s almost like they’re using The People’s Progressive Truth Generator.

Progressives are always out to make the world how they think it should be through the force of law and with the government’s gun pointed at the citizen.  Progressives brought us Prohibition, moral equivalents of war, and now Santorum shows his Progressive side again.

From Santorum’s website:

Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced.  “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.

I proudly support the efforts of the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition that has tirelessly fought to get federal obscenity laws enforced.

Vigorously enforcing morality codes at the federal level is absurd.  If you have a local community that decides they want to live a certain way, whether it be upright SLC puritanical or San Fran sodomite, that’s up to them.  There are very, very few federal authorities that have anything to do with it, or should.  Legal guru Eugene Volokh was asked about some of the aspects of this story at The Daily Caller.

The Obama Administration ran weapons to the Mexican drug cartels and killed US and Mexican citizens and law enforcement officers.  They’re worthless to begin with – condemning them for not enforcing what amount to morality statutes that are broadly unenforcable is as silly as worrying about dirty pictures when the government is arming narcoterrorists in an effort to destroy American rights to self defense, and then concealing its criminal activities.

What sticks at the end of that is the notion of favoring pornographers over “children and families”.  Well, children are part of families.  They have parents.  It’s their parents job to nurture, raise, and develop their children’s attitudes towards culture, and that includes introducing them to the birds and the bees, and what is and isn’t culturally acceptable in their own households.  If a parent doesn’t want their child looking at porn then they’ll have to ensure safeguards against it in their own home.

There are a myriad of free market solutions already out there.  Programs like NetNanny (the first one that comes to mind – there are plenty of others) have been around for quite a while, and block access to websites parents don’t want their children viewing.  Or, take a more direct approach and move computer usage to family rooms.  Parents can block cable channels they don’t want their children seeing, and they, as parents, having the final say, generally have all the authority needed to keep their children away from things they don’t want them exposed to.

Ultimately parents should know that they can’t keep children safe from the world forever, and as such, it’s up to the parents to develop a mindset in their children that helps them deal with certain elements of the human condition so that they can handle those aspects of life that they encounter as adults.  If parents don’t want their children becoming porn addicts as adults, don’t want them developing unhealthy body image issues, don’t want them developing negative or self-destructive attitudes towards relationships and sex, don’t want them getting involved in “the industry”, then it’s up to the parents to instill their values and virtues on their children.

It’s no more the province of the federal government to tell you not to look at nudie pictures than it is for the federal government to tell you what to eat.

As a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, my radar starts picking up on anyone who says legislation is “for the children”, or who has to cover their personal crusade by saying they’re only going after “illegal” things that are actually legal.  Just like how NYC dictator Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” is against all guns, so too is Santorum’s “War on Illegal Pornography” coalition ultimately against all porn – because to both of them, everything should be illegal.

Remember, this is how Santorum thinks:

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

That is exactly how traditional conservatives view the world.  They don’t get the government involved in personal issues.  If they are traditionalists in their morality, they get churches, parents, and community groups involved in cultural issues.  They leave the government out.  Their concern exercised persuasively rather than through governmental force ultimately helps the individuals make the right decisions for themselves.

America is a radical individualist culture.  And it does succeed as long as government stays out of individuals’ lives.

Leave her alone and let her live her life.

She makes her own decisions.