The sadly obligatory Pete Stark video post

What is up? Dean here again filling in for B-Daddy as he is spending time with the family Down Under.



This does qualify for Nancy's Nuances: a journey of discovery (things we're finding out about ObamaCare after ObamaCare has passed (Letting the Mask Slip sub-set)) not only based upon chronology but also on the merits of Stark's justification for passage of ObamaCare: We won.



Great points all, made by this young lady as it's readily apparent that she is talking at a level way above Stark's pay grade as he has no concept nor interest in understanding how the 5th, 10th and 14th amendments would prevent you from being compelled to sign up for health care just as it would prohibit the confiscation of goods and services from others as is the case when you declare particular goods and services a right.

Stark is a thug. There is simply no other way to put it.

Another memo to our goo-goo (good government) liberal friends: Sure, you would like to see the government play an active role for good in society but does Pete Stark's vision of a Thomas Friedman-esque totalitarianism look like your view of liberalism? Does what Pete Stark is saying sound anything remotely like, "Keep your laws off my body?"

The Democratic Party, which has for years been informed by notions of the limitless power of government dared not actually say it, until now. The passage of ObamaCare has proved to be truth serum to its authoritarian acolytes who now attend town hall meetings and impassively tell their constituents:

I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from (making) rules that could affect your private life.

Well, shoot-howdy, that doesn't sound like the bra and draft card burning Democratic Party of dear old Mom and Dad, now does it, gang?



If they can do this, what can't they do?


P.S. We have no idea who the young woman in the video is, however, her identity along with other private details of her life will no doubt be exposed by the Wasilla Dumpster Diving Posse.




This has been cross-posted over at Beers with Demo.

About That Third Party

I have seen some discussions about conditions being favorable for a third party in the United States to rise up and challenge the Democrats and Republicans. Much is made of the rise of Nick Clegg and Britain's perennial third place finishers, the Liberal Democrats. Miscues by the Tories and Labour's Gordon Brown, who famously called a long time Labour party voter bigoted, would seem to have put the wind at the back of Mr. Clegg, who performed well in televised debates. Additionally, references are made to Ross Perot, and his self financed campaign that garnered just under one fifth of the vote in 1992 and may have cost George Bush the election.

However, I think the results that are coming in from Britain, and Mr. Perot's efforts show what an uphill battle it is for a third party to make enough in roads to be more than a bit player. The Lib Dems seem set to place a distant third in these elections despite polling very close to 27% of the popular vote in the run up to the elections. They may yet be part of a coalition formed by the Conservatives, but if so, will be a very junior partner.

What is the lesson? I think that the Tea Party can be very effective at driving the direction of the debate and adding energy to politics, but forming an independent political party actually fritters away our strength. By shaping primaries and forcing politicians to cater to our concerns, we have more influence than through actually electing candidates. I think Sarah Palin has missed the boat on this by endorsing Carly Fiorina. We should use our influence to move all politicians in our direction. I know that Temple of Mut is disappointed by Sarah's endorsements. But when the general election comes around we need to unseat liberal Democrats, even with moderate Republicans. Look at how Nancy Pelosi passed Obamacare with Blue Dog votes. I think fears that Carly won't be Republican enough if she wins the nomination aren't well founded.

Click here to stay up to date with electoral returns from "across the pond."

The Triumph of Hope n Change Over Reason

Dean's article about faith based science sent me on this little rant.

The head of GM is a former telecomms guy who admitted knowing nothing about cars.

The Obama climate czar, Carol Browner, has zero scientific background (degrees in English and Law).

Math curriculum development teams have no actual mathematicians on them.

And it turns out that the scientists, like Phil Jones of the CRU, advising the UN on climate change, have written some emails that reveal them to be more like this guy below than you might have thought.




Say goodbye to the Age of Reason; welcome to the Age of Politics.