Activist judges

It is clear that there are judges that just ignore the law and rule according to their proclivities. We need not a one of them actually sitting on the bench, anywhere.

However, every time a ruling goes against your position on issues is not evidence that a judge, or judges are being activist.

I have read both the California Supreme Court decision overturning the ban on gay marriage and I have read the Iowa Supreme Court decision. The rulings are significantly different.

The California case: was it constitutional have a a civil union system for same-sex couples and a marriage system for opposite sex couples if they were fundamentally the same system, just called something different. This is the 'separate but equal' issue that is well established to be unconstitutional at the federal level, and the California court found it was also unconstitutional at the state level. There is no activism necessary to find that position. It is clear cut. The California Court did address other items that makes it an important part of the Iowa decision which went right to the issue of denying gays the right to marry because their choice of partner was same sex.

The County seeks to undercut the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim by asserting the plaintiffs are not similarly situated to heterosexuals. The County references this threshold test in this case and asserts the
plaintiffs are not similarly situated to opposite-sex couples so as to
necessitate further equal protection analysis because the plaintiffs cannot
“procreate naturally.”

Therefore, with respect to the subject and purposes of Iowa’s marriage
laws, we find that the plaintiffs are similarly situated compared to
heterosexual persons. Plaintiffs are in committed and loving relationships,
many raising families, just like heterosexual couples. Moreover, official
recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining their
fundamental relational rights and responsibilities, just as it does for
heterosexual couples. Society benefits, for example, from providing samesex
couples a stable framework within which to raise their children and the
power to make health care and end-of-life decisions for loved ones, just as it
does when that framework is provided for opposite-sex couples.
In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to
bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and
their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every
important respect, but for their sexual orientation. As indicated above, this
distinction cannot defeat the application of equal protection analysis

But both Courts make an assumption that those opposed to gay marriage seemingly refuse to consider:

The County initially points out that section 595.2 does not explicitly
refer to “sexual orientation” and does not inquire into whether either
member of a proposed civil marriage is sexually attracted to the other.
Consequently, it seizes on these observations to support its claim that the
statute does not establish a classification on the basis of sexual orientation
because the same-sex civil marriage ban does not grant or withhold the
benefits flowing from the statute based on sexual preference. Instead, the
County argues, section 595.2 only incidentally impacts disparately upon gay
and lesbian people.
The County’s position reveals the importance of accurately and
precisely defining the classification in analyzing all equal protection
challenges. The manner in which a classification is defined impacts the
utility of an equal protection analysis as a means of revealing discrimination.
Therefore, it is critical that a court reviewing the statute identify the true
nature of the classification.
It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and
lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,
it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of
marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex
is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person
of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian
person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or
lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a
committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation,
and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute.

The Court recognizes that at the core, sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of people and creating laws based on the characteristic is constitutionally flawed.

Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the
statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 441. The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class. See Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 583, 123 S. Ct. at 2486, 156 L. Ed. 2d at 529 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (reviewing criminalization of homosexual sodomy and concluding that “[w]hile it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such
circumstances, [the] sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”). The Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996), supports this conclusion. Romer can be read to imply that sexual orientation is a trait that defines an individual and is not merely a means to associate a group with a type of behavior. See Romer, 517 U.S. at 632, 116 S. Ct. at 1627, 134 L. Ed. 2d at 865–66 (holding an amendment to a state constitution pertaining to “homosexual . . . orientation” expresses “animus toward the class that it affects”).

By purposefully placing civil marriage outside the realistic reach of gay and lesbian individuals, the ban on same-sex civil marriages differentiates implicitly on the basis of sexual orientation. See Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 431 n.24; Conaway v. Deane, 932 A.2d 571, 605 (Md. 2007). Thus, we proceed to analyze the constitutionality of the statute based on sexual orientation discrimination.

Recognizing the situation as presented is not activism, it goes to the heart of the issues. Finally, the reasons WHY there is an anti-gay marriage ban were addressed. I hear these reasons all the time and the court addresses them well.

The County has proffered a number of objectives supporting the marriage statute. These objectives include support for the “traditional” institution of marriage, the optimal procreation and rearing of children, and financial considerations.
The first step in scrutinizing a statutory classification can be to determine whether the objectives purportedly advanced by the classification are important. “The burden of justification is demanding and it rests entirely on the State.”

I am not going into the Court's reasoning, in every case it is straight forward and clearly points out that the objectives are not met in any way by the law as written. In the most fundamental way, the Court asks the question: does the gay marriage ban protect or promote traditional marriage. The answer is clearly no to anyone that is willing evaluate consequences. Does the gay marriage ban encourage more people to marry? No. Does the gay marriage ban encourage more people to have children? No. Will gay marriage cause straight couples to avoid marriage? No. Will gay marriage cause straight couples to have less children? No. These are obvious to anyone willing to consider them.

My issue is always individual rights. Infringe on my rights to protect others. The gay marriage ban does not do that. The ban does not protect the rights of others. Gay marriage does not stop straight couples from marrying; gay marriage does not prevent straight couples from raising children. And arguments that gay marriage does not support the growth of healthy children ignores that many marriages - gay and straight, do not have children as a goal.

If you support bans on gay marriage, show me where the infringement of my rights is necessary to protect someone elses rights. Please, do not start with the argument that there is no Constitutional right to marriage. Your ignorance would be clear.

Leading Role

Our current President, 'in a leading role of a lifetime' continues to act poorly without the script right in front of him. To wit:

In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world.

I must ask the question...actually, the statement BEGS the question: What leading role is Europe playing?

Economics? Nope.
Military? Nope.
Security and defense? Not even for itself.
Relief? Nope.

Well, maybe as a garden for cowards and ass-kissing girlie-men.

Neither in innovation, nor exploration.

Obama thinks Europe, I guess, is a unified nation, acting as one big offset to American hegemony. Put Germany, France and Great Britain in the same room and see what kind of...oh yea, we kinda did that this week and we saw outstanding leadership from...no one.

I can't think of a single thing that makes me think, "Europe does that so well, we should be doing that too!". Nothing. Obama of course thinks Europe does lots of things well - I guess. Ask him to name something Europe leads in and I can guarantee that a super-majority of Americans will say "and more power to them...no thanks!".

You know, come to think of it, if we HAD to have an 'actor' playing the leading role of President of the United States, we could pick from just about anyone that has played that part in the last 10 years and get lines delivered better and with more authority than the current understudy...

I have often been told this position is wrong, but experience says different. Leadership is an inherent quality - it can be nurtured, trained and directed, but it can not be taught or learned. Apparently, it can't be scripted on a teleprompter either.

Tea Party Focus

There is much discussion going on all over the place concerning the focus of Tea Parties - I brought up the issue in last night's radio show.

1. Tea Parties got their start on the anger over the Stimulus Package size and the amount of pork AND the absolute uselessness of it to actually address the issues facing the economy. Therefore, government spending in general, and pork/stimulus spending in particular need to be a primary focus. But Congress can either tax or demand printing for any amount of spending they want to do so just focusing on the spending is not enough.

2. Three things:
a. Freeze government spending at 2008 levels. Any extra spending necessary comes out of next years budget
b. Taxes: A one year moratorium of Federal taxes. Then, a flat tax (I don't have a problem with the just announced GOP plan of two versions)
c. A movement to replace every Congressperson that voted for the bailouts (2008 and after) and/or the Stimulus bill regardless of party.

3. The above addresses spending, income and the judgment displayed (or failed to be displayed) in matching the two.

4. Two of the items have immediate actions (Freeze and moratorium) and long term planning actions: tax code change and elections.

Let's go.

Pragmatism or Populism

I am sick and tired of one or both of the above coming from Conservatives - WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

Let me backtrack and lead you by the chin to the basis of my current disgust....

Last year, the financial markets began to crumble. The process was foreseen by those willing to look and ignore the anti-deniers ("You are just trying to talk down the economy. Look at the numbers, across the board the economy is strong and getting stronger.") No matter how much the voices in the wilderness suggested the foundation was rotten, cracked and sinking, the anti-denier argued the doom and gloom was unwarranted.

"The Washington Post had even run a column the day before Lehman's collapse ridiculing those who were making negative comments about the state of the economy."

Bear Stearns should have been allowed to fail. The die was cast and the 'moral hazard' argument won, too late though for the lesson to be correctly applied. Lehman Brothers was let fail and the repercussions scared the Politicians (probably the Fed too) into worrying that systemic failure would cause financial and structural collapse of the world economies. That belief is short-sighted and naive. Coming from the Fed and the Treasury, it can not be reassuring - and it is not.

With the failure of Lehman, no further failures would be allowed. Moral hazard was something that was 'academic', the Powers were dealing with real financial systems and real economies. Moral hazard lost it's ability to impose a check on improper behavior.

AIG. There are enough lessons for 20 or 30 books but the most important ones - from my perspective - are being ignored by many. I have said that freedom is messy. Bankers don't like messy. Especially when it comes to risk and any 'respectable' entity that tells them they can make risk less messy, more controllable is going to get a long look. AIG was offering financial managers a way to 'diversify and distribute' risk and this was paired with products that gave the illusion of AAA, almost Treasury safe, leveragable returns. How much AIG was involved with we will learn some time into the future, but my guess is somewhere around 45 TRILLION dollars of products/derivatives. With an exposure of .1 to 10% depending on the product, AIG had the potential to lose $450billion to $4.5 TRILLION. Obviously it did not have the ability to cover those losses and so their counter parties and clients would except....except. The Clients were people that were not free participants of capitalism. Most bankers are not and the financial markets have learned that they too dislike capitalism. See, capitalism can have winners AND losers. Win/win is not the normal of capitalist events. Risk means that there is a chance that investments fail. And despite AIG, failure was not only an option, but coming like an avalanche.

Who were the clients? Sovereign funds, hedge funds with 'serious' clients like Princes and National Banks. They couldn't lose...that was unheard of, and I think the Fed and the Treasury got a long lecture after Lehman about the viability of the American way of life if large holders of American Capital products in Europe, the Middle East and Asia were going to take big losses.

So, AIG would be unwound. It had to be done slowly, and the money would have to be given to make sure that AIG counter parties didn't get burned. The problem was, how much money? I am sure that AIG and others said that the markets were just disrupted and pricing products too harshly. If the markets could be calmed, the unwind could be done slowly with minimal losses...maybe less than a $100 billion. And if the economy had held on, that might have happened. But moral hazard has a dark side. It is bad enough to be caught violating it, it is much worse to be caught hiding that you might have violated it (regardless of the truth). The politicians and the Fed and the Treasury oversold the issue: imminent collapse, financial Armageddon. People shut down. The financial markets were houses of cards, one bankruptcy (AIG) away from disaster. People know people one paycheck away from disaster, they don't like to think of their national ECONOMY in the same position.

Like a tornado warning well heeded, people shuttered the windows, bolted the doors and headed for the cellar. Big ticket items died first as small stuff was stocked up on. What the financial markets feared was losses, what they got was rug pulled out of the economy.

How much of AIG is left is irrelevant. The multiple dips into the public trough put lie to all the claims that the situation was contained.

Now this is where I got pissed.

The Fed and the Treasury should never have bailed out AIG. Yes, I DO understand what the potential was, IS. YOU probably DON'T. 600 TRILLION in derivatives. The systemic failure of every major bank, most small COUNTRIES and a financial system a smoking ruin. Instead, we are going to burden the American People with bailing out anti-capitalists that believed they had a right to a free lunch - no risk.

And most conservatives are letting them get away with it.

AIG.

Should never have been bailed out. But was. And that did NOT give us the right to interfere private enterprise. If I borrow $20 from you, you do not get the right to check my pantry for expensive soup, or publicly call me out for my spending choices. Our agreement for the $20 is the extent of your involvement.

I don't care about AIG bonuses AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU. It is NONE of your business and take that 'but it is our money' crap and stick it. Shareholders do not get a say in the day to day running of a business and the capitalistic system is either an all in, or get out choice. Since the 1930s, we have been trying to have it both ways and the more it is tried, the worse the situation is getting.

Capitalism, like freedom is messy. Too many conservatives have forgotten and have looked at their 401ks and home values and quietly, hopefully, they have encouraged the Obamas and Geitners and Bernakes to succeed so that they will not have to suffer from the risk THEY wanted to benefit from, but also be protected against.

Choice has consequences. Demand to be protected from those consequences and you lose the freedom of choice.

Too many are seeking protection and I am damn tired of it.

Step One

Suspend all federal tax collections. No income tax, no business tax, no social security/medicare tax.

For one year.

At the end of the year, the Federal Government assesses each state the following:

$1.74 per acre
+ .35 per acre for debt reduction (not interest, principle)
-----
$2.09 per acre

Credit to be given for all federally owned lands in each state.

No new taxes, no new income rates. $2.09 per acre. That's all.

Punch Drunk or....

I watched part of the interview of Barak Obama from 60 minutes and it almost seemed as if there was a smile ready to break out at every serious moment. Steve Kroft began to wonder about the state of mind of Obama, I am only wondering at what he was/is taking to 'take the edge off'. We know he smokes, the question I have is, what?

After the latest foreign affairs gaff, there is ONLY on question left concerning Obama's Administration and our President himself: Dumb, or Dumber?

Yea, what he said

Ok, regular readers (yea, right) know that I don't link too often. First off, I am too small a site to make any noticeable dent in someone's visits, but the primary reason is that I write here, for me. If people find it interesting, great.

Well, I have been saying for a long time that the gay community is it's own worst enemy and the Prop 8 issue in California is showing that in spades. In comments all around the blogosphere, you will hear gay people lamenting the activist gays apparent attempts at self destruction (self loathing?).

The idea that gay activists could stand up for Palestinians in the form of Hamas is so stunningly stupid that you have to wonder if it is actually alien provocateurs leading the community! No really. How could a gay activist support a group that would KILL THEM the second it got it's hands on them???

So, that said, I read a 'mainstream' blog today with a post that has said all that I have said, said it well, and gave it a big audience. So, you two over there, go read this.

Repose

My youngest brother died yesterday. Eddie just turned 45 in January. It'll be a couple of days or so before we know why - but I had expected that when my Mother called, it would be to tell me he took his own life. It doesn't appear to have been that.

Eddie got a raw deal early and it haunted him. When he was 12 or so, he was taken to the doctor because he complained his legs hurt all the time (he was in Little League). Our family has a history of Muscular Dystrophy and doctor jumped to conclusions - it would be 2 years before things were straightened out but by that time the damage was done. Knowing what my parents did about MD, the later it hits, the more destructive it is - this was a death sentence for Eddie. For the next two years, he was given leeway to be/do almost anything - and he took advantage of it - as teenagers are prone to do. At 17 Eddie checked himself into rehab. More or less, things never really improved much from that point on. Shortly after that, his girlfriend got pregnant and both families tried to talk them both out of marriage. They got married and within a year moved to Austin where Eddie got a job from Diana's father. When his second son was born, there were complications and Eddie's response was to attempt suicide. His son was ok, Eddie survived a lame attempt.

A year or so later, they moved back to Chicago and Eddie got a good job and was very good at what he did (electrical construction). But it was rocky and Diana and he eventually divorced. As is normal for my family, Diana remained an important part of our family gatherings and the boys were regulars at my parents. Eddie struggled with addictions of one form or another and despite that, his employer stuck with him - he was just that good - when he was there, which was most, but not all the time.

Eddie met and eventually moved in with Cyndi. In many regards she was good for him, others, not so. Eddie abused the relationship and Cyndi hung on. Eddie would go to sleep and with minor bathroom breaks, sleep for days on end. He was delusional, psychotic at times. He got treatment, but didn't like taking the meds. When he went off them, it would 8 days of sleep out of 10, 2 days of delusional rantings. Through it all, Cyndi stayed with him. The boys got out of school - they are doing great.

Over the last year or two, things had improved, some. But it was always a fragile thing. I would hear that he was coming over to help my parents, but later learned he 'was down' and never made it. HE DID help Mom and Dad, a lot. He tried and when he was ok, we could enjoy a repartee that I had with no one else. He helped me when I built out the lower level - driving all the way here, worked for hours, and drove home again. Cyndi joined him and it was good.

So, it was a matter of when with Eddie, not if. He walked an edge with one foot almost always over it. Dad called him one of the finest electricians he ever worked with. He was outgoing, friendly, always willing to help. But his demons always seemed to lurk just below the surface.

Two days ago, he fell off a ladder. It didn't seem a big thing. Cyndi went out yesterday, Shawn noticed he was not very attentive. It looked like Eddie was 'going to be down' for a day or two. Shawn went out and Cyndi came back in the early evening to find him sprawled on the bed.

The demons probably didn't do it. Accidents happen. Eddie burned the candle at both ends for many years and he was physically much older than his years. Unlike the raw emotions I had with Billy, Eddie's death is a little like relief - certainly not for us, for Diana, or Cyndi, Shawn or Matt, or my parents. For Eddie. I am very glad it did not appear to be at his own hand. That will not give much comfort but it does mean that Eddie persevered. He didn't give up. No matter the demons, no matter the trials, he faced them.

Eddie got a raw deal and it finally caught up with him. I take no comfort in his death - I will miss him. But, he and Billy can get along and keep each other company. They both died way too early, but long after they were expected to.

Rest my brother. This time, it will be a good sleep.

Speed of Change

For many years I have held the notion that change is a good thing - that without change, life stagnates, that life fails. Obama's mantra of change obviously would resonate with that notion - if I thought for a second he actually meant change in the same way that life changes - grows, matures, evolves. He doesn't. He means that he is going to change what works into something that is more defensible to the elites of Europe. That is not a throw-away snark. Many in Europe - and here in our academic circles believe that 'socialism' style economic and political policies can work provided three things: everyone buys into the change - even if that means forcing those that disagree to adhere; smart enough people are in charge - the right kind of smart; and there is a willingness to spend any amount necessary, from anyone and everyone necessary, to provide the means to establish the necessary changes.

They are wrong. But evidence and facts are insufficient to prove they are wrong. Argue that every attempt at socialism has failed and one of the above 3 items will be used to explain why it failed - but never, at any time, will proponents admit the fundamental flaw with socialism - the need will always exceed the ability.

It would be easy to say that uneducated people will buy into the socialism concept because they are the ones most likely to benefit (they are not), but it more commonly appears among the educated - those that should know better. Maybe they do, maybe they think that the first step, getting everyone to buy into the concept is the most important step. To succeed, they need a majority of voters to give them the chance - Obama asked for that chance, and a majority have said ok.

It is doomed to failure. I know it. Most of the people (all three of us) that read this know it. Most conservatives know it. Not in a general, belief way of knowledge - but in the cold, hard knowledge that comes with viewing the killing fields, the mass graves or the daily news from Venezuela.

Which brings me to today. 45 days after his inauguration, the number of areas where the failures of this President are becoming obvious to even the deaf and blind has reached the point that I have to ask - how much longer can this go on?

Obama and his Secretary of State are proving to the world that the United States will not longer be a superpower. We are going to unilaterally show to friend and foe alike that change has come and a kinder, gentler, pussy whipped, emasculated foreign policy will be laid at the world's feet on bended knee. Someone is going to, in Joe Biden's words "test Obama". The response - clearly from the last 45 days - is going to be painfully obvious to everyone, wrong.

Obama and his Treasury Secretary are acting as if the economy were an economic lesson. Most of you will not understand, so let me explain. When academic economists talk about policy changes and macro-economic behavior, they will begin their discussion such: "If you enact this change, and all other factors remain the same, THIS happens." As an intellectual, academic exercise, it is interesting to note how changes introduced to a system can effect results. You can take a model of our economy and introduce change to one variable at a time and see and tweak the results til you get the situation you are seeking. Unfortunately the real, messy, shifting world does not work like an economic model. Every policy proclamation is reviewed, analyzed and acted upon by millions of economic actors. All the other variables DO CHANGE. Often quickly, sometimes, instantly. So we have a President and a Treasury Secretary promoting economic changes in isolation. This policy will have this result; that policy will have that result. And neither has an impact on 'unrelated' matters. This is why 'the market's up and down gyrations' are not of concern - they are unrelated to the policy pronouncements. It is an academic blindness and it is destroying wealth daily.

To those of us grounded in the real world, we look upon the actions of this Administration and wonder - can they be this stupid? They can't, can they? They don't REALLY want to destroy the country, they can't REALLY think that their plans will work. Obama really, truly believes that his policies will work. I believe that. I believe that he has surrounded himself - loosely and inefficiently - with people that believe his plans and policies are GOOD for the country AND the planet.

They are wrong. Freedom is messy and economic choices and behaviors do not stand idly by as 'variables' are tweaked. But here is where I am starting to get worried. 45 days. In 45 days Obama has done more damage than just about anyone could imagine (I figured he could and would do it, just that it would take most of this year to do so - wrong).

Virtually every action Obama has taken, directly with his words and policies, and indirectly by his Cabinet members actions in their arenas, has made everything worse that it should have been.

I know this - I lived this one afternoon at the radar scope of an Air Force GCA when I screwed up with 6 flights - every action, taken by itself, was correct, legal and responsible. Taken as a whole, I put 14 crews in deadly danger. It was my last day as an Air Traffic Controller.

In 45 days, Obama has set a course of events into motion that is dangerous beyond his, or his advisors, understanding. 45 days. He has over 1400 days still to go. 1400 days. Can ANYONE imagine 1400 more days like the 45 we just had? Can anyone imagine where we will be in 100 days? This is the question that plagued me today - how much longer can we continue AND what happens when what is painfully obvious to many of happens - a crisis where the President, and ONLY the President, can and must act.

President Obama campaigned on a promise of change. The speed at which he is trying to implement his change is dangerously out of control, and he doesn't, or can't, see it. Where we go, and how long it is going to take us to get there, is happening faster than most of us could imagine. Speed kills, and our Country is in danger.

I want Obama to fail

Sent to my Congressional delegation (Sen Kohl, Sen Feingold, Rep Baldwin)this morning:

With all the bruhaha going on about Rush Limbaugh's statement hoping for the failure of President Obama's policy I wanted to make a comment to my Congressional delegation:

Given the policies and plans proposed and supported by President Obama, I hope they fail as they will neither help our Country's current economic situation, nor benefit our Country in the long term. If you support his policies, then I hope you fail also.

Just to be clear. We have heard this before. Remember?

Support the troops, not the mission.

I support my President, not his policies or plans for this country.

40 Days

1. States are threatening tax refund checks - THAT IS OUR MONEY.
2. We are being forced - yes, forced - to pay for a stimulus that takes from private citizens and gives to government entities
3. What happened to tax cuts for US!?

So, here is the plan - IF you normally receive a refund at the end of the year - go to your employer and have them STOP withholding federal taxes from your paycheck for the next 40 days. Three paychecks. It will reduce the refund you get next year - but YOU get a 'stimulus' right now!

The extra money you get is YOURS. Spend it wisely.

And, after Lent, just put your withholding back to where it was. We get a stimulus and the Federal Government learns what happens when American's keep their money for themselves.

Let's give up letting the Federal Government use our money for free for Lent. How about you?

Focus

Obama may

be President,

but he is

still my servant

Your Responsibility

Senators Feingold and Kohl, Representative Baldwin

You own the Stimulus as much as President Obama. President Obama said without the stimulus passed, and passed soon, a catastrophe was in the making. Well, his answer to the coming calamity has been passed and he will sign it. Therefore, calamity averted....NOT.

Things are going to get worse and the stimulus bill will DO NOTHING to stop it, but it will preclude options on how to react in the future. As the economy worsens, you and our President will first ask for patience - let the bill work. But as little of the spending actually occurs in 2009, there nothing in it to work.

So, in about 10-12 weeks, we will be hearing of a second, more aggressive stimulus package that will be, like it's predecessor, useless - unless you are a government employee or hope to be one.

The current unemployment rate here in Wisconsin is 5.6% Every future rise in that number is your responsibility. While Governor Doyle is hoping for a slice of the pie to try and offset his own budget problems, I will be watching to see what use he has for our hard earned money...

Just to be clear

Sent to Senator's Feingold and Kohl and to Congresswoman Baldwin:

I have been remiss. I have given Democrats a pass because as a conservative, my voice is easily ignored here in Wisconsin. But I want you to know Senator, that if you vote FOR the President's stimulus bill, I will use every ounce of energy to lay every single increase in unemployment, foreclosure, bankruptcy and budget shortfall on your doorstep. I will work for ANYONE that seeks to run against you in the future. I will write letters, send emails, talk ears off and blog about how we have spent a trillion dollars to pander to the most base instinct of the mob to 'do something' and the result was a package of pork so large, hog farmers are going to complain of anti-trust actions by the STATE.

This is not a matter of 'doing something', this is abdication of EVERY principle of our Constitution, and the Oath you took when you took the Office you hold.

Tracy Coyle
Chairwoman, Executive Committee
American Conservative Party

Executive Director
Wisconsin Conservative Party

Experience or political connections

Senator Russ Feingold has endorsed Julie Genovese for Circuit Court judge. Why? Because he knows her; she is politically connected. Experienced? Please. She does have more experience than Barak Obama in a court room, but that is saying little.

Experience matters. In the courtroom. Julie Genovese has little experience except as a friend of Russ Feingold. I will admit that FORMER Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Ehlke at least knows what a courtroom looks like. And if we elected judges to a particular court - family court, criminal court, etc - then Ehlke might be a viable candidate for Criminal Court Judge, but we don't. Our judges are expected to handle the full range of court cases and ONLY Charlie Schutze has that experience.

From Charlie's website:

Based on Wisconsin CCAP Charlie has: -More than twice the Courtroom & Trial experience of his two opponents combined -More Diverse Experience:
	Charlie	Stephen	Julie
Divorce & Family Cases(inc. Adoption, Paternity, Custody & Support, GP Visitation)	752	0	0
Civil Litigation/Personal Injury	116	176	28
Criminal Felony cases	64	19* *(Inc. 5 as ADA)	0
Criminal Misd/Traffic/OWI (1st Offense OWI are not on CCAP)	474	1,026* *(inc. 999 as ADA)	0
Estate Probates	27	0	0
Juvenile/CHIPS (Not on CCAP)	101	?	?
Bankruptcy (Federal Court)	704	0	0
Real Estate Matters	65	0	0
Wills & POAs	343	0	0
Business Formations	27	0	0
Current Tax Clients	165	0	0
Other Areas of Law	466	?	?
Charlie has handled Jury Trials in Criminal Felonies & Misdemeanors,Personal Injury, Contract Litigation, CHIPS and TPRs. Almost anything that might come before a Circuit Judge, Charlie has hands on experience in. As a CPA, he understands the financial and tax aspects of cases. Charlie has practiced in: Adams, Columbia, Dane, Dodge, FonDuLac, Iowa, Jefferson, Juneau, Marathon, Marquette, Milwaukee, Rock, Sauk, Sheboygan , Walworth and Washington Counties, Wisconsin Federal Courts and the U.S. Tax Court.

Hey Russ - friends are great to have over for a Superbowl party - but that is not a reason to be judge!

- I'm thinking of one....

For the last year I have spent a lot of time working on helping to build the American Conservative Party. During that time I have spent a lot of time discussing, debating and arguing with 'conservatives' about who is a 'real conservative'.

What I am about to say will piss off a lot of people - which is why I am doing it here - this is NOT official ACP.

The biggest issue among conservatives is: how important are social conservative positions to a conservative philosophy/movement. Head on, the social conservatives are screwing the pooch.

If 6 conservative judges were on the Supreme Court, Roe v Wade would not be arbitrarily overturned. Cases on point would have to make their way through the lower courts and it would have to result in the Supreme Court NOT finding a right to privacy. I like my privacy. I think I have a right to my privacy - certainly from the prying eyes of the government but equally from those that find my lifestyle offensive. Abortion is not a GOVERNMENT ISSUE.

You can make all the arguments you want, I am an adult citizen of this country with rights inherent in my existence. I refuse to give them up because you think they are subordinated to another. The Republican party has had a 'right to life' position on it's platform for almost 30 years and NOTHING has happened. If abortion is your litmus test, YOU are part of the problem in this country.

If abortion is your issue - don't have one. If you know someone that is thinking of abortion and you don't offer to pay for the pregnancy and plan on adopting the child, you are a typical issue bitch.

Don't get me started on gay rights. I live the issue every day and the pathetic, useless and mindless suggestion that I can use written contracts and agreements to get the same rights as married couples is made by stupid morons that haven't a clue of the legal reality. So, if you want to suggest that marriage is a tradition that can't be changed, fine - get the government the hell out of your traditions. I don't accept them, I don't agree with them and your desire to limit my rights because you don't like me exercising them is NO DIFFERENT than some left-tard dressed in pink. If you don't want to marry a gay person, don't.

Every single time a reasonable person looks at conservatives agitating for fiscal conservative principles they run smack into some moron social conservative spouting crap. The more I run into social conservatives, the less I am convinced they are actually conservatives. If you want to keep the status quo, maintain the traditions - then you are a Classical Conservative - something we call liberals today.

Our Founding Fathers were LIBERAL. They despised the idea that government would interfere in the private lives of citizens. Our rights have suffered a thousand cuts til even most 'conservative' - anti government person thinks NOTHING of invoking government involvement.

Let me talk about Republicans. The party is corrupt. Period. I am uncertain if there is ANYONE I would trust running or calling themselves Republican. Here is what I know - if I can see a politician making an excuse or spinning a decision that is at odds with Principles - that person is morally bankrupt and should be scorned. EVERY single Republican that voted for Geitner PROVED their bankruptcy. EVERY SINGLE Republican that voted for the TARP, or votes for the 'stimulus' is a corrupt piece of shit. The Democrats are scorpions, it is their nature and desire to rule our lives so I can not fault their proclivities.

Anyone that buys the idea that we MUST eat the shit sandwiches provided for us by Republicans because the crap from the Democrats is worse, is a moron. "You should thank me for only stealing your wallet, the other guy would take your car too" sounds as stupid when a thief is saying it as when a Republican says it.

So, here we are. I once thought that social conservatives were just a sub-set of Conservatives. They are not. Yes, they might pay lip service to fiscal or security issues - but they would sell a fiscal conservative or security conservative into slavery for their social agenda. And yes, they, just like the radical left, have a social agenda. They want to take us back like Luddites into some dream world of the past where Mom and Dad and their two kids led idyllic lives and all was right in the world. For most people, those bad old days were much more a nightmare than 'pleasant'.

I am done, stick a fork in me. Social conservatives can stick their agenda up their ass. Like the Founding Fathers before me, I despise government intervention in our private lives and consider the current attempt to interfere with the marketplace to be criminal. Let social conservatives go find some party to sing Hosanna's with - right next to the progressives singing kumbiya. There is NO difference between them except with the GOD they seek to appease.

The future is what you make of it. I am taking back my future.

Today, vs well...someday

Half a million on unemployment last month. Half a million more on unemployment this month. In anticipation of President Obama, the economy honored the new President by throwing a million people under the bus. You could even say that the economy's opinion of the stimulus plan was, "we need less employees'.

Ok. So the 'proposed stimulus plan did not stop the economy from contracting. Will it stop another half million from being tossed on their butts next month? To use my favorite phrase, I didn't think so. How about in March? Will the stimulus plan change the flow of employees from outgoing to ingoing? I didn't think so.

If by the end of March two million more people are not working, does ANYONE think that retail sales will be anything but nightmarish? Will the stimulus plan help them? I didn't think so.

President Obama talks about saving two million jobs, but apparently, they have to be allowed to be lost to make that happen. Now I don't have to be a conspiracy nut to think Obama is letting things get bad so he can ride to the rescue. There is little or nothing he can do to prevent the slide that is already occurring, he rhetoric to the contrary. His stimulus plan serves three purposes: it is SOMETHING and people - as stupid as it is - want the government to DO SOMETHING; it is big enough that people can't say he is taking half measures; and it pays off a significant amount of his political base. What it won't do is prevent two to three million from losing their jobs in the first months of 2009. What it won't prevent is further deteriation of the economy. What it won't do is STIMULATE the economy.

But, Congress is going to pass it, and Obama is going to sign it. And then they can sigh and sit back and watch A REAL RECESSION. Federal borrowing is going to crowd out everything - but since it is now the lender of any resort....

We talked about what would really work on the radio show Tuesday: a federal tax holiday of 3 or 4 months. No federal income tax or social security tax collection. Benefit 1: immediate money in consumers pockets; successful businesses will have more money to keep or hire in the face of a declining economy; less borrowing by the Federal Government. Of course, it will not happen. No one in Washington wants to face what will happen AFTER the holiday. If you think people are grumpy after returning to work on Monday, wait till you see how people respond to the re-imposition of tax collection on their paychecks. Congress and the President KNOW that will start a revolution that would make 1775 look like a stern look.

So, the President and Congress COULD stop this train wreck from happening if they were more concerned with Americans than their own power. Do you think they even remotely considered it? I didn't think so.

I didn't think so....

A LOONNNGGGGG time ago, I had a crush on Elvis. Then, it was John Wayne. Lindsey Wagner, then Signourney Weaver. I have ALWAYS had a thing for Phil Collins. But generally, actors, actresses, personalities, not really my thing. Till.....welll....Mira Sorvino, in The Replacement Killers with Chow Yun-Fat. My favorite scene is between Mira and Jurgen Prochnow. He is stalking Mira and says that he is going to kill her, but he suggests that she could save him time and just shoot herself, he would do that for her if he were in her shoes. And, of course, very soon, he is. And she asks:

"Well, are you?"
"I beg your pardon?"
"Now that our positions are reversed, will you shoot yourself?"

He turns and she shoots him dead.

"I didn't think so."

Great! It is a phrase that is repeated throughout the movie, often when someone that says they will do something is called on it, and whimps out.

Barak Obama, great President?

I didn't think so.

You might be a moron...

If you think Hamas is being unfairly bombed, you might be a moron....

If you think Iran deserves a nuke just because we have thousands, you might be a moron...

If you think record snow and record low temperatures are a sign of global warming, you might be a moron...

If you think Obama has a clue on how to fix the economy, you might be a moron....

If you think Caroline Kennedy or Al Franken is qualified to be a senator, you might be a moron....

If you think the only bad government is George Bush, you might be a moron....

If you think only Republicans are corrupt, you might be a moron.....no..wait,

If you think any of the above, you ARE A MORON.

Sow?

When you encourage this:
You get this:

Reap what you sow.