Where the wacko birds roost

I've grown tired of Leftists (and some Republicans) complaining about "right-wing extremists" and warning about some supposed takeover of the Republican Party by purists who refuse to accept compromise on issues.

Of course, it isn't just the Left who seems convinced that anyone who pushes back against the "Progressive" march of our country to bigger, more intrusive government is a "wacko bird."

All the while, the real monomaniacal, uncompromising purists of extreme positions are pretty solidly from the Left.

The NYT reports that Leftist lobbyists and senators are chaffed at a deal Obama made to get a political crony through the judicial nomination process.

"When Democrats changed Senate rules last year to limit the filibuster against White House nominees, it raised hopes among some liberals that President Obama would use his new power to reshape the federal judiciary. Now, just over three months later, some Democrats and progressive groups are instead trying to stop two of the president’s latest nominees to the federal bench on the grounds that they are too conservative.

Black lawmakers, civil rights advocates and abortion rights groups are challenging two Georgia nominees put forward by the White House under an agreement with the state’s two Republican senators. The two Republicans were given a say in picking candidates for district court in exchange for allowing a stalled nominee to a federal appeals court to advance."

This sort of deal making with senators is as old as the Republic. But, of course, there is no honor among the Progressive thieves infesting Washington today, so the prospect of Democrats reneging on the president's deal is very real; even probable. And the president will object to that even less than he did to the Russian re-conquest of the Ukraine or al Qaeda re-conquest of Fallujah.

The Democratic Party is run part and parcel by true believers who will accept no deviation from the "Progressive" vision they have set before themselves for the country. Look at the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Nearly a majority of Democrats in Congress are members and almost all of the leadership. Then look at their platform. Look at what the caucus leadership has said and the sorts of things they want to inflict on this country. Then tell me that Ted Cruz is an extremist wacko bird.

Who doesn't love a list?

An article listing the 10 Worst Cities to Visit in the United States on the website, escapehere.com caught my attention.

The introduction to the list tries its best to put lipstick on these pigs: "major urban centers can have their share of crime, poverty, and traffic dangers, which have earned the following American cities a bad rap that are not really justified."

For instance, the #1 Worst City on the list is Detroit. "This once celebrated center of the American automobile industry did experience an influx of poverty, crime, and exodus of city residents from 2008 to 2010. However, the Detroit of today is experiencing a million dollar revitalization, with abandoned buildings undergoing commercial real estate developments, young couples, community gardens, and new businesses breathing new life into the area."

See? It's not as bad as Flint, and they are razing some of those thousands of abandoned buildings. I'm not sure, however, how escapehere considers declaring bankruptcy and an inability to perform basic essential services is "breathing new life into the area." I guess that's what they call being on life-support without a pulse.

Here is escapehere.com's list. Maybe we can identify some trends:

Rank	City	Party Control	2012 Vote
1	Detroit, MI	Democrat	Obama 85.2%
2	St. Louis, MO	Democrat	Obama 79.9
3	Reno, NV	Republican	Romney 52.9
4	Cleveland, OH	Democrat	Obama 82.8
5	Chicago, IL	Democrat	Obama 87.2
6	Camden, NJ	Democrat	Obama 65.1
7	Memphis, TN	Democrat	Obama 78.3
8	New Haven, CT	Democrat	Obama 62.6
9	Stockton, CA	Democrat	Obama 57.8
10	Oakland, CA	Democrat	Obama 87.5

http://www.escapehere.com/destination/10-worst-cities-to-visit-in-the-united-states/10/

NB: Party Control determined by history of Democrat mayors as recorded by Wikipedia. 2012 vote for congressional district as reported by dailykos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163009/-Daily-Kos-Elections-presidential-results-by-congressional-district-for-the-2012-2008-elections)

Maybe a picture will help those who don't like lists:

The Wall Street Journal did a similar listing of the 10 most dangerous cities. Here is that list:

Rank	City	Party Control	2012 Vote
10	Cleveland	Democrat	Obama 82.8
9	Baltimore	Democrat	Obama 76.0
8	New Haven	Democrat	Obama 62.6
7	Birmingham, AL	Democrat	Obama 72.4
6	Stockton, CA	Democrat	Obama 57.8
5	Memphis, TN	Democrat	Obama 78.3
4	St. Louis, MO	Democrat	Obama 79.9
3	Oakland, CA	Democrat	Obama 87.5
2	Detroit, MI	Democrat	Obama 85.2
1	Flint, MI	Democrat	Obama 60.7

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-10-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-2013-06-22

The statistics for Flint, MI give you an idea of what it takes to come in #1:

Violent crimes per 100,000: 2,729.5

Population: 101,632

2012 murders: 63

Poverty rate: 40.6%

Now, I know that coincidence does not prove causality, but the correlation between suckiness and Democratic party affiliation is pretty difficult not to notice.

It doesn't take much thought to see through through this one

One article amidst the Leftist caterwauling about voter ID laws is this one in the Atlantic: "The Republican Push to Make it Harder to Vote"

Linda Killian writes,"Texas residents will now have to show a state- or federal-issued form of photo identification to vote. The list of acceptable forms includes a concealed-handgun license but not a state university student ID. The omission suggests it is not voter fraud but voters unfriendly to the GOP that Abbott and other Texas Republicans are trying to thwart."

Well, if 'voters unfriendly to the GOP' means people who are not eligible to vote in Texas, then she is correct. Perhaps Ms Killian doesn't have a CHP so she doesn't know that proof of residency is one of the required documents to obtain one. Perhaps she didn't attend college, or attended a local college so she doesn't realize that some students attend class in other states where they are not permanent residents. and thus are not eligible to vote there.

Probably not. Her objection suggests that it is not eligible voters but Democrat voters, dead, alive or whatever that Killian are trying to defend.

Actually, I really am in favor of making it harder to vote. Sure, every citizen who meets the eligibility requirements of age and residency should have the right to vote And there should be no unreasonable obstacles to their exercising that right. But voting is equally a right, a privilege, and a responsibility. It is a right held by citizens of the United States. It is a privilege reserved to citizens only and only those who are not prohibited (felons, minors, etc.) and it is a responsibility that ought not be taken lightly. 

YouCut bumpkiss

The myriad scandals besetting the administration have put sequestration and budget battles on the back burner for a little while. But as federal employees actually begin to see their pay cut, and as the news cycle clears up a bit, the budget butter battles will begin again.

When they do, the Administration and their apologists for Big Government will once again bleat about grandmothers thrown from Head Start and children denied their arthritis medicine and undocumented workers losing their free cell phones and Native American Transgendered Women's Studies majors being denied their subsidized student loans.

Every government expenditure is vital to this country's prosperity.

And if you believe that, you are a Democrat.

Or maybe a Republican.

Truth is, the one place where bipartisan agreement can be found in Washington is in the avoidance of real spending cuts - or even tangential, largely symbolic cuts to programs that everyone knows are superfluous, wasteful and counter-productive.

The House Repubs have been running a gimmick called YouCut. You get to pick the wastful government expenditure that will be introduced to oblivion. It seems to play on the human characteristic of baseless hope.

Many months ago, the then-new House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor introduced YouCut with great fanfare.

You may have missed the launch, if you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Post or Orlando Sentinel, etc.

In a nutshell, the YouCut web page invites people to vote on which of three federal expenditures ought to be cut. The winner is then introduced as a bill in Congress.

This week, the three candidates for the 32nd week of the 112th Congress are:

Reduce U.S. Contributions To The United Nations By 10 Percent. Potential Savings over 10 Years: $4Billion

Terminate Environmental Protection Agency Grants For Community Organizing.  Potential Savings Over 10 Years: $10Million

Eliminate Federal Agency Purchases Of High-End Office Chairs. Potential Savings over 10 Years: $1Million

I think all three are more than worthy of implementation.

As of today, there are 58 expenditures listed. As best as I can tell, none of them have passed Congress and become law. If they had, we, the beleaguered taxpayers would be saving

$259,673,000,000 over the next ten years. Nearly $26 Million per year, every year, for the next 10 years. And remember, that's only one of three choices presented each week. Given that every expenditure nominated is as worthy of cutting as the three presented this week, the real questions are:

1. Why aren't we looking at $779,019,000,000 in proposed savings and

2. Why have NONE of these blindingly obvious examples of unconscionable waste been cut?

Here is the list:

112th Congress, 2nd Session		Potential 10 year savings ($millions)
Week 29	Eliminate the Department of Energy's Vehicle Technology Program	2,800
Week 28	Terminate Federal Payments for the District of Columbia Public Defender's Service	372
Week 27	Terminate the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation	5	Introduced
Week 26	Eliminate the Energy Star program	627	Introduced
Week 25	Terminate a program that funds community organizing among tenants of public housing	100	Introduced
Week 24	Reduce the number of TSA agents by increasing the efficiency of airport security screening	1,000	Introduced
Week 23	Reduce Census Bureau data collection that is beyond the Constitutional mandate	2,400	Introduced
Week 22	Terminate loan guarantees for speculative alternative technology ventures like Solyndra	380	Introduced
Week 21	Reduce funding for poor performing grantees in the Community Services Block Grant program	3,200	Introduced
Week 20	Terminate a Department of Labor office that focuses on labor problems in foreign countries	665	Introduced
Week 19	Reduce the number of non-essential vehicles purchased or leased by federal agencies	500	Introduced
Week 18	Terminate a program that pays farmers for making conservation improvements on their land	10,600	Introduced
Week 17	Stop mine cleanup payments to states that have already completed the cleanups	4,200	Introduced
Week 16	Stop rewarding States for recruiting additional Food Stamp recipients	180	Committee
Week 15	Terminate Federal Programs That Pay People to Volunteer	11,500	Introduced
Week 14	Terminate HUD's HOPE VI Program	1,000	Introduced
Week 13	Suspend Federal Land Purchases	2,300	Committee
Week 12	Terminate the Weatherization Assistance Program	2,100	Introduced
Week 11	Terminate the National Science Foundation Grants for Arctic Research	250	Introduced
Week 10	Eliminate the Ready to Learn Television Program	273	Introduced
Week 9	Enforce Restrictions Excluding Illegal Aliens from Refundable Tax Credits	40,000	Passed by Committee
Week 8	Eliminate the Science to Achieve Results Program	650	Introduced
Week 7	Repeal the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program	2,500	Introduced
Week 6	Eliminate Cell Phone Subsidies in the Universal Service Fund	5,000	Introduced
Week 5	Refocus National Park Service Spending on National Parks	157	Introduced
Week 4	Terminate Funding for So-Called Comparative Effectiveness Research at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality	1,000	Introduced
Week 3	Reduce the Number of Federal Employees by 10 Percent Through Attrition	139	Passed by Committee
Week 2	Terminate the Federal Railroad Administration's Funding of High-Speed Rail Projects	3,800	Introduced
Week 1	Terminate U.S. Contributions to the United Nations Population Fund	400	Passed by Committee
	Total Savings Over 10 Years ($ Millions)	98,098
112th Congress, 1st Session	For some reason there is no dollar amount or status for these items.
Week 6	Repeal The $17 Billion "Prevention And Public Health Fund Created In The 2010 Health Care Law	17,000
Week 5	Reduce Printing And Reproduction Budget By 10%
Week 4	Terminate The Neighborhood Stabilization Program
Week 3	Obtain Refund Of Funds Owed To The U.S. By The U.N. Tax Equalization Fund
Week 2	End The Presidential Election Fund
Week 1	End Duplicative Government Printing
111th Congress
Week 13	End Taxpayer Funding Of National Public Radio (Tens of Millions of Dollars)	45	Voted on House Floor
Week 12	End The TARP Program Prohibiting Any Additional Bailouts (Several Billion	7,000	Voted on House Floor
Week 11	Reduce Government Employment To 2008 Levels	35,000	Voted on House Floor
Week 10	Require Collection Of Unpaid Taxes From Federal Employees	1,000	Voted on House Floor
Week 9	Bipartisan Proposal To Terminate Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit AEITC	1,100	Voted on House Floor
Week 8	Prohibit Sleeper Car Subsidies On Amtrak	1,200	Voted on House Floor
Week 7	Prohibit Stimulus Funding For Promotional Signage ($10s of Millions)	30	Voted on House Floor
Week 6	Taxpayer Subsidized Union Activities	1,200	Voted on House Floor
Week 5	Prohibit Hiring New IRS Agents To Enforce Health Care Law	15,000	Voted on House Floor
Week 4	Sell Excess Federal Property	15,000	Voted on House Floor
Week 3	Reform Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac	30,000	Voted on House Floor
Week 2	Eliminate Federal Employee Pay Raise	30,000	Voted on House Floor
Week	Cut The New Non-Reformed Welfare Program	25,000	Voted on House Floor
Total Savings over 10 Years ($ Millions)		161,575
Total Total Savings over 10 Years ($ Millions)		259,673

		259,673

Senate Republicans getting schooled

Sitting here listening to the Senate hearing on the  Benghazi attack.

Sec State Clinton is man-handling the Republican senators. Occassionally, she lets them talk before patiently explaining to them that who attacked and why isn't important right now - preventing it from happening again is what's important.

Seems like a reasonable person might conclude that understanding the who, what, where, when and why of an event might inform efforts to prevent it from happening again.

The fact that Benghazi participants were present at the Algeria attack using Libyan weapons and led by an AQIM subsidiary who was reacting to AQIM engagements in Mali might be of some interest to the U.S. Secretary of State.

Meanwhile the Democrat Senators are helping her to run out the clock and change the subject.

Demographics and "Comprehensive...reform"

I'm slowly weaning myself back into following political news. There was no way I could have stomached the gloating of the MSM and their clown clones like Bill Maher.

Now the trial balloons and foreshadowings are beginning to emanate out of Mordor on the Potomac. Meanwhile, wobbly Weepublicans (David Frum eg) are doing their best to throw Conservatism under the bus.

One of the most popular themes is that Conservative principles are doomed by demographics. Well, yes. When the Leftist policy is to promise targeted goodies to those who are stupid enough to vote for free stuff, the side that doesn't promise goodies to specific voting blocs may not fare well. The David Frums of the world forget that the side that promises a conservative amount of goodies doesn't fare any better.

The demographics predicted to destroy the Conservative movement as a political force in this country will also destroy that which the movement wishes to conserve (cf. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, U.S.).

But the tactical advantages of appealing to narrow interests is apparent. And of course, if you agree with Barrack Obama that "words mean things," then you can use words and phrases in vague ways to lead potential voters to believe things that may or may not be true. "Comprehensive...reform" is tailor-made for the Masters of Sophistry.

Leftist, Conservatives and even people who get their news from Jon Stewart can agree that this country is in dire need of reform: the health care industry, the tax code, regulation, the financial industry, the education establishment and on and on.

But when a Leftist says "comprehensive...reform," s/he means a comprehensive list of favors to client interest groups. When a conservative says it, he means addressing as many of the facets of the problem as possible.

In regard to immigration, when a Leftist, President Obama for instance, says he will work towards "comprehensive immigration reform," he knows his potential donors and votors understand him to mean:

• Free ride amnesty for those who have already violated the immigration rules and sovereignty rights of this country
• Free education for them and their children
• Complete access to the social services provided by the taxes of legal citizens and resident aliens
• Low cost labor for businesses
• Enhanced returns for investors and bankers who invest in those businesses
• A sense of compassionate self-affirmation for 'caring' folk who care enough to force someone else to do something
• New clients for the minions of the bureaucratic state and their lampreys in the special interest industry
• New voters (where Democrats run the elections) for the Leftist candidates

and so on.

What does this Conservative think of when considering Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

• Secure the U.S. border. I'd consider signs every 36" reading: "No tresspassing. Violators will be shot." That may be too extreme for American sensibilities. So, how about: No tresspassing. Violators will be immediately returned to the country from which they crossed the border. Or shot if they attempt to evade or resist.
• Rationalize the legal immigration system and reform the INS bureaucracy. We have a choice as to who we permit to reside in our country. We should make immigration attractive and as painless as possible for healthy, employed or employable, educated, skilled people from all over the world and nearly impossible for others.
• THEN address the existing illegal aliens in this country. All of them have broken US law. None of them should get off Scot free. Criminals are evicted immediately. Return will land them in internment camps in Alaska or West Texas or some other inhospitable place. Free-riders are the next priority. They will be given the opportunity to enjoy the social services of their country of origin. Return will cause them to be treated as criminals. Productive, law-abiding illegal aliens won't be actively pursued until the more immediate threats in their population have been dealt with. Nor will they get any preferences or breaks until the border is secure and the criminals are addressed. They may be given a break, but not a free pass. Certainly no illegal alien should get any preferrence over a legal immigrant. Fines and probation as a pre-condition to giving them an opportunity to normalize their immigration status would be appropriate. Any illegal aliens found after the above steps have been taken will be treated as criminal illegal aliens - evicted or interned.

Of course, after a time, it will become clear that the demographic problem isn't that Hispanics are naturally Leftists but that a large percentage of immigrants have been inclined towards being clients of the welfare state. When a larger proportion of Hispanics are productive self-employed, employees or employers with property and aspirations to save and invest and help their children look forward to a stable, prosperous country they won't be Leftists. The problem isn't the race of the immigrants. The problem is their relationship with the government.

"Civil" Debate or Civil War?

Stephen Prothero commented on the CNN Belief Blog about the existence of Catholic politicians on both of the major party's presidential ticket: "A century and a half ago, Americans engaged in a collective conversation about the Bible and slavery that was both civil and informed. Is it too much to hope that an intelligent debate about Christianity and the economy is now in the offing? If so, we will likely have Ryan (and Romney) to thank."

A century and a half ago, "Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith begins an invasion of Kentucky as part of a Confederate plan to draw the Yankee army of General Don Carlos Buell away from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and to raise support for the Southern cause in Kentucky."
The unspoken corollary to this is of course, that the Democrats who made the conversation uncivil in 1862 in order to defend their power over living souls will once again turn the debate uncivil in 2012 in order to defend their power over living souls.

Voter ID Duplicity

Drudge bounced me to an article in the American Prospect entitled: You Can't Beat Voter ID with Facts

Jamelle Bouie (who probably needed photo ID to get into his place of employment, to obtain a driver's license to get to his place of employment and....well, you get the idea) opines that "Liberals tend to offer evidence for their policy positions, but what they need is a competing vision."

He fails to realize that, in the instance of merely wanting to limit voting to those actually eligible, Liberals have neither facts nor vision.

He posits: "So far, liberals have devoted their time to showing the rarity of in-person voter fraud—the kind ostensibly prevented by voter ID"

It seems the American Prospect is unaware of the Acorn scandal of a few years ago. Perhaps the editorial staff was busy at the time filling out voter registration forms in the name of dead people, cartoon characters and irregularized residents.

UPDATE: Liberals can devote their time to something else. They cannot show the rarity of voter fraud, because it isn't rare. Now, to be fair. Jamelle's attack on voter ID hinges above on the alledged rarity of 'in-person voter fraud'. The 31 ballots in question in the Miami case were absentee ballots. So, what he's saying is, there's no sense in trying to stop one type of voter fraud because there is an easier and more popular one that you aren't trying to stop.

He goes on, "Conservatives benefit from the the fact that their position sounds reasonable—if identification is required to buy beer and drive cars, then why isn’t it required for elections? Everyone agrees that voting is one of the most important things you can do as an ordinary citizen, and the conservative argument is that we should make it more secure from fraud." Of course the position sounds reasonable is because it is, in fact, reasonable.   He continues, "Debunking the myth of voter fraud doesn't address the normative point that we ought to protect the integrity of the vote, regardless of whether fraud is likely."   Of course, failing to debunk the possibility, let alone the reality, of voter fraud doesn't help the Liberal argument either.   Here's the crux of his argument (such that it is): "Simply put, voter-ID laws limit the number of voters who are able to vote.  Unless you have loose laws for identification, there will be some people who won’t have the paperwork or resources to prove their identity at the ballot box (registration is no longer adequate).  If you see voting as an important act of citizenship, then this is unacceptable; we should be more concerned with maximizing the franchise, not restricting it.     "Even more so when you consider that many Americans struggled and died to expand and protect voting rights."