Democrats and Civil Liberties

Pardon any minor errors, I am not pleased at the moment. This is a rant, not a policy paper.

This 100% Democrat run county has decided it has the power to make the drug pseudoephedrine prescription only, because as liberals they don’t have the gonads to just tell their own children not to make meth out of it. I’m fairly certain that’s an interference with interstate commerce far beyond the legitimate power of a county government. Considering that an hour after taking the “PE” version, I now can’t breathe through my nose at all it may also qualify as denying me life or at least liberty without due process ($10,000 for denying civil rights under color of law, last I checked). I’m considering which is cheaper – a trip to the emergency room for a prescription at several hundred dollars *with insurance* or a trip to federal court for injunctive relief. The latter would certainly be more satisfying and just as likely to offer relief given the general incompetence of the medical profession that we pay so highly.

While there, I might also have to file something for the ridiculous city ordinance that requires all renters to submit to a background check by the city, regardless of the wishes of renter or landlord. Let’s talk interference with contract, regulatory taking, violating the privileges and immunities of a citizen (the right to take up residence anywhere in these United States being the main confirmed meaning of that phrase, even if it was in dicta).

Democrats and their utter disregard for civil liberties never fail to amaze.

Missouri voters say no to…wait for it…

Romneycare.

Yesterday Missouri voters passed Proposition C, amending Missouri statutes to prohibit the government from requiring people to buy health insurance. While the GOP has made much noise about this being a provision of the national health care law passed by Reid, Pelosi and Obama, those GOP officials and conservative pundits would do well to remember that this was the centerpiece of Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts healthcare reform.

A good pick

It should probably come as no surprise that I was glad to see that General James Mattis was picked to take over US Central Command. Five and a half years ago I was glad to learn that he liked his job killing “guys who slap women around for five years.” Now he’s been picked to do a job that’s previously been done by guys like Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf, Tommy Franks and David Petraeus. Unless there’s been an excess of sensitivity training in the intervening years, this guy should have no trouble filling those shoes.

So, I’m just thinking…

A few thousand shrimp boats that can’t catch shrimp.

19,000 barrels a day of oil for the taking at $73 a barrel.

Cost of barrels, significantly less than $73.

Cost of pumps, low enough to put on Mastercard.

A marine salvage expedition on an unprecedented scale: Priceless.

Okay, maybe it’s slightly more complicated than this, but it lies somewhere between that simple and rocket science and with Houston and Florida both in the path, one would think that even the (soon to be unemployed) rocket scientists could get involved in needed.

End Rant.

new Guards for our future security

when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Rand Paul
Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The slippery slope to bland

The American Academy of Pediatrics “is issuing a new policy statement calling on the government and manufacturers to implement a food labeling system warning parents” of the risk that their kids may choke on a hot dog. File this one under “cures worse than the disease”.

Labels urged for foods that can choke kids

Think that they intend to stop with labels for hot dogs? Think again. This is the same liberal group that concluded that “the absence of guns from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents.” And undoubtedly it is merely a matter of time before these jackasses decide that “the absence of tasty food from children’s homes and communities is the most reliable and effect measure to prevent choking in children and adolescents.” Sorry docs – hot dogs don’t kill people, not chewing kills people.

Seriously, with an obligatory nod to Judge Lowell A. Reed, perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if the right to eat hot dogs, which they will with age inherit fully, is chipped away in the name of their protection.

Frankly, this constant whining by pediatricians, activists, pundits and parents unable to take care of their own children makes me think that every two year old should be inoculated against such idiocy with a serving of hot dog fried in peanut oil.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

That “split” in the conservative movement: The Mt. Vernon Statement

Remember all that noise about 4 years ago about the “split” between economic and social conservatives. Back then I opined that:

Life issues may not be core to conservativsm, but Constitutional issues are and intellectual honesty puts both social-conservatives and libertarian-conservatives in agreement…The real threat is not to the conservative movement, but rather that both halves of the movement may abandon the spendthrift GOP Congress like we abandoned Bush the Elder in 1992 when he broke his tax pledge.

That second part did, fortunately, come to pass. Now, with conservatives of both stripes thoroughly fed up with out of control federal power, leaders of the movement have come together with a new statement of conservative principles geared to unite all stripes of conservative around Constitutional, limited government principles,

The Mount Vernon Statement

Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.
These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?

The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

* It applies the principle of limited government based on the
rule of law to every proposal.
* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
politics and life.
* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
end.
* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.

We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

February 17, 2010

%d bloggers like this: