A Divergent View

One of the problems Clinton the Inevitable is having is some rumbling from her base. This is not surprising, given that Clinton is a hawk, a favorite of Wall Street, an ardent supporter of the surveillance state and an opponent of drug legalization. I suspect, in the end, it won’t matter. The Democrats will vote for Hillary anyway. But to appease them, she’s having to embrace parts of their progressive agenda, including expanding Social Security.

Seriously:

Progressives have a few such priorities in mind. First, they want Clinton to embrace an expansion of Social Security benefits. It’s an idea that seemed unthinkable during the period of fiscal austerity from which Congress has slowly been emerging, but it has gained steam among Democrats in recent months. Championed both by Warren and by the significantly more conservative Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the proposal earned support from all but two Senate Democrats when it came up during last month’s budget vote-a-rama. “She says her focus is on economic security. There’s no question Social Security is a key part of economic security,” said Nancy Altman, co-director of an advocacy group dedicated to boosting the public-pension system. “So it’s hard to understand why she wouldn’t do it.

Their other goal includes eliminating college loans in favor of a free education. Because, apparently, what this country really needs is another multi hundred billion dollar entitlement that will massively hike the cost of college. Oh, and they also want a pony and an action man figure and toy train.

The progressives know these ideas won’t get anywhere with Republicans in control of Congress. But they are tired of the Democrats being “cautious” (i.e, somewhat responsible) and want them to be “bold” (i.e,. stupid).

I can attack any part of this agenda, but let’s take on Social Security expansion, which I’ve addressed before:

Only an idiot would ignore that Social Security is already running a primary deficit and its “solvency” through 2033 comes from a trust fund that consists of nothing but IOU’s. Only an idiot would ignore the problem that massive retirement guarantees have created in Europe — plunging fertility rates, slow growth, waves of early retirement, even less personal savings. And only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would propose tripling this problem.

Even if you ignore the political aspects, you’re talking about a massive tax hike which the government will, as it has done with Social Security, loan to itself and spend, leaving us in an even worse situation. Instead of having a Social Security Trust fund with $5 trillion fictitious dollars in it, we’ll have one with $10 trillion. I haven’t seen a proposal this stupid since Algore said he would shore up Social Security with the money we were borrowing from it.

The wealthy in this country are already paying an effective tax rate in the high 30’s. As Mcardle points out in a series of rebuttals to progressive talking points, this is a historic high. Contrary to the claim that Reagan and Bush 43 put the rich on easy street, the current tax code is just as onerous as it always was:

In 1986, in the face of a persistent budget deficit of roughly 5 percent of GDP, the Reagan administration undertook a massive tax reform that lowered marginal rates but also got rid of most deductions, which actually ended up raising effective taxes on the highest-income groups; the total average tax rate for the top 1 percent jumped from 24.6 percent in 1986 to 30.3 percent a year later. That’s why you could lower the top marginal rate to 28 percent from 70 percent and only see effective tax rates decline by five percentage points over that period.

But even that didn’t last. The George H.W. Bush administration did a big budget deal that raised taxes. The Bill Clinton administration raised them again, and the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent peaked at 35.3 percent in 1995, slightly higher than it had been at the previous peak in 1979. Even after the Bush tax cuts, the effective tax rates of this top group ran somewhere slightly north of 30 percent, or about where they’d been in 1981, before Reagan’s tax reform took effect. They only dipped back into the 20s under Barack Obama, because of the lasting effects of the recession.

Most of the tax relief of the last thirty years has come in the form of eliminating income taxes on the poor and drastically reducing for the lower middle class.

Progressives cling to the fantasy that we can simply raise taxes on the rich forever. “Hey!” they think, “we’re only taking 35.7% of the rich’s income. We could take another 5-10% easy!” Even assuming it were fair or even possible to take half the income of the “rich”; even assuming this wouldn’t damage the economy, we are already committed to spending that money. We already have trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Obamacare. We already have hundreds of billions committed to interest on the debt and maintaining Obama’s (and soon Hillary’s) wars. We already have a time bomb of public and private pensions that our government may end up bailing out. You can’t just spend money and hope the tax revenue will materialize. You can’t raise taxes on the rich forever. Eventually, you are going to have to raise taxes on the middle class. And eventually, you are going to run into a fiscal wall.

Now, by contrast, Chris Christie this week laid out his plan for Social Security. It includes tapering benefits to people with incomes over $80,000 and raising the retirement age. In the link, Yglesias makes the reasonable point that this hurts poorer seniors the most, who often retire earlier and don’t live as long as wealthier seniors. That’s true, but we still can’t sustain the current system. Maybe you can step the retirement ages a little differently or up the benefits for the most needy seniors. But at least Christie’s plan acknowledges the fiscal realities of the 21st century. At least it’s not based on the pie-in-the-sky belief that we can just raise taxes on the evil stinking rich and pay for … everything.

Contemplating this issue and the opposing views this afternoon, I became a little more optimistic about the 2016 election. A lot of people see the broad Republican field as a weakness. But, in some ways, it’s a strength. Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz … these guys have a very diverse array of views on foreign policy, economics and budget issues. They’re all conservative, in their way. But we’re looking at a real debate about where this country needs to be headed. We’re getting a fairly broad and somewhat sensible palette of ideas from the Republican slate. And that becomes really obvious when you compare it to the toked-up-college-dorm-bull-session ideas emerging from Clinton’s base.

The question, as always, will be: do the American people prefer conservative fact or progressive fantasy? I guess we’ll find out.

Star Wars Trailer 2

We’re back after some technical issues. The good news is that we may soon be getting some more technical help from my brother, who does this professionally.

To celebrate, here is the new Star Wars trailer:

I don’t want to be optimistic but it’s hard not to be.

I’ll have some more posts tonight and tomorrow on Iran, taxes and how stupid our media is. And this weekend will see the first Science Sunday

State-Sanctioned Kidnapping

For a long time, I’ve been writing about the growing government obsession with helicopter parenting. We’ve seen parents get threatened and sanctioned for such things as letting kids play in the street in a safe neighborhood.

A few months ago, I started following the story of the Meitivs:

In December, Danielle and Alexander Meitiv let their 10-year-old son, Rafi, and his 6-year-old sister, Dvorah, walk 1 mile home through Silver Spring, Maryland, alone. The kids got picked up by the police, who then turned the case over to child protective services. The Meitivs, as it happens, are “free-range parents” who have a very coherent philosophy about giving children more independence. They had let their children walk home alone that day only after practicing and felt the kids were ready.

In the letter to the Meitivs, dated Feb. 20, CPS says that it has closed the investigation. But a charge of “unsubstantiated” is not quite as definitively closed as “ruled out.” (The third option is “indicated,” the equivalent of guilty.) Danielle told the Washington Post she felt numb when she first opened the letter and then told her husband, “Oh my God, they really believe we did something wrong.”

CPS officials did not say they would keep an eye on the Meitivs. But now they have a charge of child neglect in their file, which puts them in a precarious position. They believe strongly that children should be able to roam the neighborhood unsupervised. But they no doubt believe even more strongly that they don’t want to be at any risk of having their children taken away from them for a second charge of neglect. Why on earth should the state have any right to put them in that predicament?

Emphasis mine. And lying … theirs:

The children of Danielle and Alexander Meitiv were taken into custody by county police at a park about 5 p.m. and turned over to the Child Protective Services agency, said Capt. Paul Starks, the county police spokesman. The children’s mother said they were released to the couple at 10:30 p.m. Sunday.

The parents said the children, who are 10 and 6 and have been described as “free-range children,” had been expected home at 6 p.m. Sunday. When that time passed, the parents said, they began looking for them.

“We have been searching for the kids for hours,’’ the mother said in a Facebook posting. They learned of the children’s whereabouts about 8 p.m. The mother said they later spent about a half-hour at the CPS offices in Rockville without being allowed to see them.

Starks said police were dispatched after a stranger saw the unaccompanied children in the park near Fenton and Easley streets. He said police took the children to the CPS office.

(Lenore Skenazy has often talked about these stranger reports. She makes a good point: it’s appalling that someone’s first instinct on seeing two kids walking home from the park is to call the cops. Not to ask the kids if they’re OK (which, to be fair, can be construed by the panic-minded as predatory); not to be familiar with their neighborhood so that they know the kids are fine. Their instinct is to call the police, a decision that by law starts a CPS investigation.)

You can follow more on Lenore’s awesome blog. There does seem to be a bit of vindictiveness here. CPS took their kids and didn’t tell them for three hours. That is, every parent’s fear was realized only it wasn’t strangers kidnapping the kids, it was the state. After keeping them for another two-and-a-half hours, the Meitivs had to sign a temporary safety plan where they agreed not to let the kids out of their sight.

This boggles the mind. CPS is claiming that they simply responded to the report of a stranger and followed standard procedure. Even if that’s true, even if they didn’t specifically target a family that made their overzealousness a national story, it’s still insane. CPS’s defense of their actions is that is standard procedure to take into custody a 10-year-old and a 6-year-old who are walking unaccompanied in a safe neighborhood during daylights hours, not notify the parents for three hours, holds the kids for five-and-a-half hours and only release them if the parents agree not to let the kids out of their sight.

To be fair to CPS, they claim Maryland law is on their side. The law says that no child under eight can be left in a building without someone over age 13 accompanying them, which sounds crazy to me and would have gotten my parents jailed. But it does not apply to kids walking home from school or a park, where the law asks the CPS to judge the situation. If the facts in this case are as the Meitivs allege, then I think the Silver Spring CPS has too much time and money on their hands and not enough abuse and neglect to keep them busy.

Hillary In

Well, it’s official. Hillary has announced her candidacy. I know that’s a shock. Personally, I think she should go with this slogan:

The 2008 election was very fun to blog because so much was uncertain. Hillary seemed inevitable but then Obama beat her. McCain was declared dead but roared back. It was completely unpredictable. 2012 was fun, in its way, but we all knew it would be Romney in the end.

I’m dreading this election because what is there to say? We’ve had 24 years to see how corrupt and petty the Clintons can be and yet there are enough kool-aid drinkers to make this happen. Our only hope is that some even more massive corruption is found (always a possibility with these people). But even then, I think the Democrats will go ahead and nominate her. She could club baby seals and they’d still nominate her. She could throttle orphans on TV and they’d still nominate her. Hell, she could announce that she’s a Republican and wants to bust unions and they’d still probably nominate her. The thought of 4-8 more years of the Clintons may be enough to get me to vote Republican for the first since 2000.

I don’t, however, think Clinton’s ultimate election is unavoidable. To quote me:

What the hell is Hillary’s campaign going to be about?

Seriously. What issues is she going to run on? She can’t run on Obama’s record since it isn’t that hot and Obama is unpopular. But she can’t run against it without splitting the party.

Healthcare? That used to be her issue but we have Obamacare and that’s quite enough, thank you. Foreign policy? The economy? None of those are winners for her. In the end, I suspect Hillary’s campaign will come down to “it’s my turn” and I just don’t see the voters jumping on that. They didn’t with McCain in 2008. Or Dole in 1996.

As I see it, she has two options. One is to hope that the economy is doing great, the world is settled down, the scandals blow over and Obamacare becomes popular. Then she can run on a campaign of continuing those policies. And also doing something about all the pigs flying through the air.

The other option … and I suspect that given the realities of Obama’s tenure, this is where she’ll go … is Republicans Be Crazy. She’ll attempt to portray them as deranged lunatics who want to end Medicare, take away your health insurance, crash the economy and start a war. She’ll rally the various parts of the Democratic coalition and try to isolate the Republicans to only representing old white Christian men. Such a campaign would be nasty and divisive but I strongly suspect this is the road she’ll take.

Because, that’s the other reminder in this story. The Clintons talk nice when they have nothing to gain or lose. But when it comes to something they want — be it a plea bargain or the White House — they will scorch the fucking Earth to get there.

It will require a tremendous and concentrated effort by the Republican Party to derail her train, but it can be done. Especially as I think a lot of people are contemplating Clinton II with the same dread I am.

Right now, the only official Republican candidates are Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. I don’t think either of them has much of a chance. While the GOP may flirt with outsider candidates, they always end up nominating someone mainstream: Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush II, McCain. Romney was so sensible you could have marketed him as a floor wax.

But that may be a strength this year. The Democrats and their allies are so busy portraying Cruz and Paul as crazy nutjobs that when the Republicans end up nominating someone sensible like Scott Walker or Jeb Bush, what are they going to say? I know what they’ll say but why would people listen?

(This was a similar dynamic to 2012. The Democrats kept telling us that Newt was crazy, Caine was crazy, Santorum was crazy, Bachman was crazy. So when Romney won the nomination, they were out of ammunition. Romney lost, of course, but he did outpoll the Republican Party nationally and was even leading for a while. And I don’t see Clinton as having Obama’s political guile.)

Gun to my head, I would say the GOP candidate is most likely to be Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. Rick Perry could surprise as could Rick Santorum. But I keep getting this sneaking suspicion in my gut that the future GOP nominee is someone we’re not talking about right now.

Election 2016 is still dull and a long way away. But it could get exciting fast if the right Republican comes along.

(Possible thread for the comments: put out your own dark horse GOP candidate and how you think he’d do.)

Revising Finders Keepers

Much like the death penalty, asset forfeiture laws have been mangled, compromised, bastardized and manipulated to the point that they are unrecognizable to original intend. And as such, much like the death penalty, something I supported until its current application made it unworkable and a mockery to anything remotely resembling justice, asset forfeiture laws (AFL) have been abused to the point of being an enemy to individual civil liberty, and also a mockery of justice. Too bad, since the original intend was both noble and just, namely to deprive convicted criminals of their ill gotten gains, and who could argue with that? If a meth dealer was stopped on the highway for speeding, carrying several pounds of the illegal drug along with 50 grand in cash, the idea was that if the property (the cash and his brand new Benz) could be linked to the crime (say he hasn’t held a real job in 3 years and has been living on public assistance), then upon conviction he loses these items, tough luck sucker. But alas, greed and laziness came in to the picture, police agencies would seize property, anything they could grab, upon arrest (not conviction) even with a tenuous link between property and crime. Innocent people were getting screwed because cash starved public agencies wanted their stuff and had a legal avenue to steal it.

Enter the top choice (so far) for the VP slot on the next GOP presidential ticket, NM governor Susan Martinez, who just grabbed some low hanging fruit and made herself even more relevant;

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez signed a bill to abolish civil asset forfeiture Friday.

She signed just before the noon deadline that would have pocket vetoed the legislation.

“As an attorney and career prosecutor, I understand how important it is that we ensure safeguards are in place to protect our constitutional rights,” Martinez said in a letter announcing her decision. “On balance, the changes made by this legislation improve the transparency and accountability of the forfeiture process and provide further protections to innocent property owners.”

Civil asset forfeiture is a practice where police can seize your property and keep it even if they don’t convict or charge you with a crime. Then, you must go through the difficult, and often unsuccessful process to get your property–whether it’s a vehicle, cash or your home–back from the police.

No, she is not abolishing the entire practice, nor do I think she should, just bringing it back to the original intent. Even the ACLU is on board (wait a minute, maybe we should rethink this).

Requiring demonstrable facts linking the crime to the property (no more, “Well, he was in the vicinity, good enough”) independently reviewed by an Appeals Board before anything can be seized, then holding said property in “Trust” until any convictions, yes, we are getting closer to what the law as actually written to do.

No doubt many would like all AFL abolished in toto, anymore end arounds or subverting intent and we just might go that route.

AFL, like the death penalty, should be used judicially and sparingly, under the spotlight of public review, both serve a purpose. Guys like that turd Tsarnaev and Maj. Hasan, I want them dead. And not 25 years from now dead. justice delayed in justice denied, a year appeals max, then give them the cocktail.

It Is What It Is

Two months ago I wrote a series of posts in an attempt to resuscitate what I believed was a dying blog. “Collaboration Is Needed’, “Suggestion Box”, and “Entering Hard Hat Area” were all written to provide the impetus for some needed change, change that would give us more eyeballs and make us more relevant. Aside from the structural problems of posting, we needed a fresh face, more updated features to attract new commenters , but most of all we needed a path by which new members could sign up and join the community. Many of the regulars provided what I thought were some really good ideas, workable stuff that would make us more vibrant.

Some movement did happen. We got JimK to surface, to voice his apathy with the blog and his desire to abdicate and turn the car keys over to someone else. Thrill stepped up and volunteered to handle admin duties. I thought this was fortuitous since he has experience at blog running and a desire to improve the blog. Both Alex and Hal also stepped up, saying they would collaborate and share admin duties. That was indeed a time of optimism, a time where I thought we were on our way to being part of something that, well, we could really be proud of.

Knowing Rome was not built in a day and that you have to walk before you can run, I expected fits and starts, some wheel spinning. We even had one day where the site went down entirely, still not sure what happened there.

So where are we now, two months later? JimK never got back to Thrill and updated his “admin” status, so he is basically still flapping in the wind. And it appears that the other admin guys are happy with the status quo, despite all the changes we had talked about, some new buttons or features on the home page,some easier functionality on posting comments, and the fact that still no new members can sign up.

In different posts through out the years I have often said ,”You get the government you deserve”, as one explanation for our convoluted chaotic government and the typical low information voter that facilitates their power grab. You also get the blog you deserve. If everyone is happy with the status quo, the one or two posts every other day with less than a handful of comments, well, that is what we have now. I think we can do better but am also reminded of that idiom of pissing in to the wind.

Paul Officially In

Rand Paul has officially thrown his hat into the Presidential ring, unveiling his agenda and opening up a website. I don’t think Paul has much of a chance of the nomination or the Presidency, given some of his unorthodox views. And, for obvious reasons, I’m a little dubious of half-term senators running for President. But I do like having him out there. He’s another voice outside the GOP establishment. He brings to the fore a number of issues — mass incarceration, the War on Drugs, NSA surveillance, aggressive foreign policy — that the GOP needs to confront.

And … he drive the Left Wing absolutely berserk. Today’s stories have alternated headlines of “Paul’s no different from other Republicans” to “Paul is a crazy far out Republican”. They’ve been putting up factually challenged rants about how he wants to return us to the 19th century. They’ve been accusing him of being sexist based on a testy interview with Savannah Guthrie. The Left Wing has a lot invested in the idea that all Republicans are sociopathic, racist, sexist shitlords who only care about rich people. Paul is one of the biggest challenges to that.

But there’s something else I’m picking up on. One of my favorite responses to Paul’s candidacy has been from whichever semi-literate intern wrote Paul Krugman’s column today. He puts up an idiot’s version of the World’s Smallest Political Quiz and then claims, based on no data whatsoever, that there are no libertarians1. Everyone in America is either economically and socially liberal or economically and socially conservative. Because apparently the polls showing a large libertarian center don’t exist.

Why is American politics essentially one-dimensional, so that supporters of gay marriage are also supporters of guaranteed health insurance and vice versa? (And positions on foreign affairs — bomb or talk? — are pretty much perfectly aligned too).

Well, the best story I have is Corey Robin’s: It’s fundamentally about challenging or sustaining traditional hierarchy. The actual lineup of positions on social and economic issues doesn’t make sense if you assume that conservatives are, as they claim, defenders of personal liberty on all fronts. But it makes perfect sense if you suppose that conservatism is instead about preserving traditional forms of authority: employers over workers, patriarchs over families. A strong social safety net undermines the first, because it empowers workers to demand more or quit; permissive social policy undermines the second in obvious ways.

And I suppose that you have to say that modern liberalism is in some sense the obverse — it is about creating a society that is more fluid as well as fairer.

This is mind-bogglingly stupid. 40% of self-described Republicans now support legal same-sex marriage, including 60% of young Republicans. 60-70% of independents support same sex marriage. And despite claims by liberals, actual polls show that a clear majority of independents and the vast majority of Republicans oppose single-payer healthcare. So this “actually very few” people who support same sex marriage and oppose single-payer health is approximately half the electorate.

Mankiw:

Similar to Krugman, I would define a libertarian voter as one who leans left on social issues (such as same-sex marriage) and right on economic issues (such as taxes and regulation). I certainly put myself in that camp, and I don’t think I am as lonely as Krugman suggests. I meet lots of students with similar views (though, admittedly, Harvard students are hardly a representative sample of voters).

I also meet a lot of students with similar views at my big state university. Mankiw also reminds us that far “challenging traditional hierarchies”, the Democrats supported them up until about last week:

Many libertarian voters I know (including those students) often vote for Democratic candidates because they weight the social issues more than the economic ones. I usually vote for Republican candidates because I weight the economic issues more than the social ones.

One reason is that I don’t view the Democratic Party as a leader on social issues. Remember that Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Barack Obama was against same-sex marriage when he ran for President, and then he “evolved” (aka flip-flopped) on the issue. On this social issue and many others, our elected leaders are really followers. The leaders are the American people.

Why are so many liberals freaking out about Rand Paul? Why are so many reduced to sheer hysteria by the prospect of a “libertarian moment”? Because libertarianism and libertarian-conservatism put the lie to the liberal conceit, espoused above by Krugman, that Democrats are mavericks who challenge traditional hierarchies. I couldn’t imagine anything further from the truth. Democrats were the party of slavery. Democrats were the party of segregation and Jim Crowe (especially progressive hero Woodrow Wilson). Democrats support massive government power, including the surveillance state and Obama’s wars. They have only supported social change when forced. They bomb countries, they violate civil liberties, they jail people by the millions and they always, always seek to expand the scope and power of our government. That’s not being a maverick and challenging social hierarchy. That’s being a conformist. It was, in fact, progressive hero Woodrow Wilson who said, “Conformity will be the only virtue. And every man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty.”

Rand Paul isn’t a dangerous loon. And he’s not the antichrist. What he is is a heretic, challenging the religion that is Progressivism. We should be grateful they’re not calling for him to be burned at the stake.

Yet.

Paul says he is not a libertarian and his views would be best described as conservative. But he draw enormous support from libertarians and libertarian-conservatives.

Double Standard

Following along the same vein as my previous post about Indiana’s new Religious Freedom law, and Hal’s followup, I found this interesting.

Jack, of Castle Rock, Colo., is making national headlines over an experiment he conducted in the wake of attacks on Christian business owners who refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages.

Last year, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple who wanted a wedding cake. Jack Phillips, the owner of the cake shop, is a devout Christian, and his attorneys argued that to force him to participate in the gay wedding would violate his religious beliefs.  The Civil Rights Commission saw it differently.

So if Christian bakers who oppose gay marriage are compelled under law to violate their beliefs – what about bakers who support gay marriage? Would they be compelled to make an anti-gay marriage cake?

 Jack, who is a devout Christian, asked three bakeries to produce two cakes – each shaped like an open Bible. On one side of one cake he requested the words, “God hates sin – Psalm 45:7.” On the other side he wanted the words, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin – Leviticus 18:22.”

On the second cake he asked them to write another Bible verse: “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us – Romans 5:8” along with the words “God loves sinners.”  And finally, Jack wanted the bakers to create an image – two grooms holding hands, with a red “X” over them – the universal symbol for “not allowed.”

Now if you read the national news accounts of Jack’s experiment – you would’ve read that he wanted gay slurs written on the cakes. But that wasn’t true.

According to the commission’s own report, there’s no mention of Jack using any gay slurs – unless you consider Bible verses to be gay slurs.

Mark Silverstein, the legal director for Colorado’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, accused Jack of wanting obscenities written on the cakes.  “There’s no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it,” he told the Associated Press.

Does the ACLU consider the Bible to be obscene?

As you probably guessed, the bakeries rejected Jack’s request for what some would call “anti-gay” cakes.  “If he wants to hate people, he can hate them not here in my bakery,” Azucar Bakery owner Marjorie Silva told 7NEWS. She called the writing and imagery “hateful and offensive.”

So Jack filed a discrimination complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission – just as the gay couple did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.  Using the commission’s logic – if a Christian baker is forced to violate his beliefs, shouldn’t all bakers be forced to violate theirs, too?

Absolutely not, says the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  It ruled that Azucar did not discriminate against Jack based on his creed. It argued that the bakery refused to make the cakes because of the “derogatory language and imagery,” The Denver Channel reported.

Seems like a pretty clear double-standard to me.  One cake maker was forced by the government to defy their beliefs.  The other cake baker was not forced by the government to defy their beliefs.  Because one was for religious reasons, and the other wasn’t, that makes it OK somehow?  The freedom of religion is guaranteed in the US Constitution.  Shouldn’t that make it even more sacrosanct in this regard?

 

The left is not just permeated by stupid: it has a lot of evil too

Real life has been kicking my rear end and I have been busier than a one legged man at an ass kicking contest. That has limited my participation here as of recent. There has been a lot going on these days and I figure that I should drag up an oldie but goody that explains all the “bad luck” the last 6 years of “Progressive Libertopia” have been causing us. One of my favorite reality checks is the interview Yuri Bezmenov, as Soviet Defector, gave back in 1984 to G. Edward Griffin. Listen carefully to what he talks about and note the parallel with the shit we have been going through for the last 6 or so years.

Now contrast that with all the crap in the news today. The left, in these last 6 years, most of it with them controlling the levers of power exclusively, has gone beyond my wildest fantasies and predictions of idiotic crap and destructiveness, and it shows. When the idiotic shit they believe in and practice fails miserably, it’s everyone else’s fault. They are pissed people are focusing and pointing out that the facts don’t back up their narrative, and it shows. That’s why we had the kangaroo court proceedings and scandal after scandal – all ignored by a complicit and compliant media – exposed as such, be explained away as nothing important, or even more baffling, as falsehoods perpetrated by people with the facts.

Lies, lies, and more lies!

They don’t even realize the parody of their own making. You can’t make up this level of stupid. And no, it isn’t incompetence – even though there is so much of that going around by default when credentialed leftist elite morons are involved – but all by design as that interview with Yuri, over 30 years ago, clearly illustrates. The old Soviets must kick themselves daily when they see that hanging on just another 2 or 3 decades would have given them complete victory due to all the useful idiots looking for free shit that permeate our crumbling society today.