Same ol’, same old.

Some of my readers have asked when I’ll restart my blog. It’s a good question and one that I still can’t fully answer. Call it writer’s block, or call it disgust, or call it boredom of the “same old, same old.”

My politics have not changed. I’m still conservative, much more so than some whom I thought were also conservatives but who turned out to be nothing more than opportunists for personal power. I’m still a Ted Cruz supporter although I like Carson and Jindall, too.

Not much has changed. Trump still leads. Carson, Cruz and Fiorina follow. Jeb Bush continues to crater showing more and more that he’s nothing more than a democrat masquerading as a ‘Pub.

Trump continues to be in the lead. He still continues to be in the lead since his first public denouncement of illegal aliens and open borders. He was right and people flocked to him much to the surprise and fear of the GOP establishment.

Could I vote for Trump? I don’t know. I do not believe Trump has any core values other than the advancement of Trump. But—that is also true of most politicians. Nothing new there. The real question is if Trump’s goals and agendas are sufficiently in sync with ours? If so, great. But I’m still concerned that Trump is nothing more than a supporter of the current crony politics in Washington.

So, what it there to write about? Very little. I did see this piece from FOX News this morning. It could be prophetic.

Carson leaps in N.H. – In a new Boston Herald poll of New Hampshire GOP voters, Ben Carson took second place to frontrunning Trump at 16 percent, a 12 point jump from the Herald’s August poll. Carson also made gains in favorability, topping the GOP pack at 69 percent, a 14 point jump from August.

“I think the question is, whether when people begin to fall by the wayside …where their support goes and whether somebody emerges as the leading alternative to [Donald Trump]. Now, that could be Ben Carson, which would make sense in a way because after all, another constant in this cycle so far on the Republican side has been the enchantment with outsiders. And I don’t mean people who have been sort of outsiders within the system, I mean complete outsiders which is what Trump is. And it’s also what Ben Carson is.” – Brit Hume on “The Kelly File” Watch here.

Brit Hume, whom I once liked, is nothing more than a poster boy for the business as usual GOP establishment. Given that, when he speaks about the growing popularity and power of the outsider candidates, you can tell he’s worried. The establishment (note: lower case ‘e’. I do not capitalize the name of organizations I despise,) is now pushing Rubio as the establishment choice. He’s marginally better than Bush except for his support of illegal aliens and amnesty.

So, the jury is still out whether I’ll return to blogging. If I do, it won’t be with the frequency I once maintained.

Repost: Teddy Roosevelt’s Legacy

All too many today appear to think the left’s attacks on our Constitution and federal republic form of government is recent, something that started with Johnson’s “Great Society” or even earlier with FDR’s “New Deal.” Both answers are wrong. There was nothing great about Johnson’s welfare state society nor with FDR’s attempt to impose a leftist dictatorship by packing the Supreme Court. No, it started much earlier, decades earlier with Teddy Roosevelt and his progressive movement in the first two decades of the 20th Century.

Here is a repost of an article I wrote a few years ago before the ‘Pub 2012 convention in Tampa. Many conservatives denounce the 16th Amendment’s imposition of the income tax. Few give thought to the implication of the passage of the 17th Amendment.

***

The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell made my daily task easy today. It’s a short history lesson on Progressivism. 

If you ask a sampling of High School graduates, or even some college graduations today, the question, “When did the election of US Senators start?” many would give you a blank look assuming that the direct election of Senators was in the original Constitution.  They’d be wrong of course. It started with the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution and Teddy Roosevelt was one of several who helped pass it.

The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912 and was ratified on April 8, 1913. It replaced the appointment of US Senators by the state legislatures with a provision for the direct election of senators.

Text of the 17th Amendment

Section 1.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Section 2.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The push for this constitutional change started in the first decade of the 20th century.  Supposedly, it was to “enhance” democracy.  In reality, it was another step to grow and strengthen the central government at the expense of the States.  The checks and balances in the original constitution balanced power between the States and the Federal government. The original design of our government was almost that of a confederation with power sharing between the states and the central government. The aftermath of the Civil War began the process that upset that balance. The early 20th Century Progressive movement further upset that balance.

Wiki has a reasonably balanced writeup on the 17th Amendment and the history that led to its adoption. Teddy Roosevelt was also involved along with William Jennings Bryan. Roosevelt, along with Taft and Wilson were the three Progressive Presidents between 1901 and 1920 that brought us the 16th and 17th Amendments that has directly led us to our current fiscal crises.

Now we get to today’s Morning Bell from the Heritage Foundation.

Political Convention Drama Begins

This week’s Republican National Convention is already experiencing its own drama thanks to Tropical Storm Isaac, which has postponed most of the events until tomorrow. But this year marks the 100th anniversary of another Republican Convention embroiled in political drama of a different nature.

Unlike today’s conventions, which are little more than multi-day campaign rallies, at the 1912 affair in Chicago, 1,000 policemen stood by to make sure the delegates didn’t get out of hand. Strands of barbed wire lay concealed beneath the bunting on the speaker’s platform to keep disgruntled delegates from charging the stage.

The very nature of our Constitution and our democracy was at stake, as William Schambra explains in a new First Principles essay from The Heritage Foundation.

On one side was Teddy Roosevelt, who ran for President that year aiming to reshape American democracy. He thrashed lackluster incumbent William Howard Taft in the primary contests, declaring, “I believe in pure democracy.”

But his definition of “pure democracy” included upsetting the Constitution. He endorsed “certain governmental devices which will make the representatives of the people more easily and certainly responsible to the people’s will.” These reforms included the initiative, the referendum, the recall of elected officials and even judicial decisions, and the direct election of U.S. Senators.

On the other side were Taft (Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor in the White House just four years earlier) and the Republican leadership, including Senators Elihu Root of New York and Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. They stood for the Constitution. Root and Lodge were great admirers and longtime friends of Roosevelt, but Roosevelt had sent shock waves through the Republican Party. Roosevelt had proposed a dramatic constitutional change that, according to Schambra, “posed the danger of undermining popular confidence in the institutions of government.” Therefore, Root, Lodge, and Taft were determined to deny Roosevelt the nomination at the 1912 Republican convention.

Unlike the typically bland convention keynote speeches designed to smooth feathers ruffled by the nominating contest and unite the party for the main event in November, Root’s keynote was a call to constitutional conservatism.

As Schambra notes, Root grounded the Republican Party in the Constitution, since it had been “born in protest against the extension of a system of human slavery approved and maintained by majorities.” After all, the GOP was the party of Abraham Lincoln, who had declared in his first inaugural address that “a majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations…is the only true sovereign of a free people.” The party’s duty, therefore, was not to reform the constitutional system but to “humbly and reverently seek for strength and wisdom to abide by the principles of the Constitution against the days of our temptation and weakness.”

Preventing Roosevelt from winning the Republican nomination, these first conservatives saved the party from a platform of radical constitutional reform. But it also meant losing the general election. Taft won only two states, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson became President, with Roosevelt coming in second.

“The result of the Convention was more important than the question of the election,” Root later said. Losing the general election did not supplant their “duty to hold the Republican Party firmly to the support of our constitutional system. Worse things can happen to a party than to be defeated.”

Root, Lodge, and Taft sacrificed their friendship with Roosevelt and victory in the general election to save the Constitution from a proposed overhaul. Constitutional conservatism began with saving the Republican Party from Teddy Roosevelt. It continues today with the fight to save America from a deeper descent into progressivism. Members of the Tea Party movement are the intellectual heirs of Root, Lodge, and Taft.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that “it is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor.” In a new essay in Heritage’s Understanding America series, President Edwin J. Feulner explores the ways the American people are bound to preserve our republic.

It is up to us to ensure that we remain a virtuous and free people, Feulner writes, and to make sure our government stays faithful to the principles on which it was founded.

“This is partly a job for the free press and the ballot box,” Feulner writes, “but we will not be able to speak and vote in support of America’s founding principles if we forget what those principles are.”

As we watch the political party conventions, we have a duty to educate ourselves on the constitutional role of government and to compare that with what the candidates are saying. As Feulner says, “we have always an obligation to pass the inheritance of freedom on, unimpaired, to the next generation.”

While the ‘Pubs in Tampa wait out the passing of Hurricane Isaac, contemplate what changes to our government has been inflicted on us by Progressivism and how we might reverse or mediate those impacts.

Take that!

Well…it’s a start. What am I talking about? A US Appeals Court is limited the Patriot Act. Specifically, limiting the NSA authority to collect telephone data without a warrant. No more mass collection.

Top federal court rules against NSA’s phone records program

By Julian Hattem05/07/15 09:25 AM EDT

A federal court has decided that the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk, warrantless collection of millions of Americans’ phone records is illegal.

The sweeping decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday represents a major court victory for opponents of the NSA, and comes just as Congress begins a fight over whether to renew the underlying law used to justify the program.  

That program “exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized,” Judge Gerard Lynch wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel.

The law “cannot be interpreted in a way that defies any meaningful limit,” he added.

The key section of the Patriot Act that ‘allows’ the government to collection information has been interpreted too broadly according to the bill’s author, Rep, Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). It is §215 that is flawed and the section that the 2nd Appellate Court is limiting.

But, the win in court may be moot. Despite efforts by the White House, the NSA and statists in Congress, §215 is due to expire within a month.

***

Chris Cuomo, son of the late New York Governor Mario Cuomo, displayed his stupidity on Twitter. His liberal buddies piled on. Not to defend him, but to ridicule him. It couldn’t happen to a better, ‘stuck on stupid’ liberal.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo gets Twitter-spanked after boneheaded First Amendment gaffe

His claim that the “fighting words” exception applies to hate speech made for “fighting words” on Twitter

It is increasingly difficult for those who identify on the left and right to find anything they agree upon, but this morning CNN anchor and law school graduate Chris Cuomo provided those across the political spectrum with some common ground.

Cuomo was hosting a Twitter conversation about the constitutionality of hate speech and wrote:

First Amendment experts, self-styled and actual and of all political stripes, jumped in to inform him of his wrongness:

Such a painfully dumb tweet! @ChrisCuomo: can you point to where this free speech “exception” is in US Constitution? https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/595934009764487168 

Ass. You are a disgrace to Fordham Law School, which only admitted you because of your famous father. https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/595934009764487168 

it doesn’t. hate speech is excluded from protection. dont just say you love the constitution…read it https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/595931074477305856 

@ChrisCuomo hey, long time listener first time caller, looking for this in this constitution you speak of. Got a link?

it doesn’t. hate speech is excluded from protection. dont just say you love the constitution…read it https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/595931074477305856 

@ChrisCuomo I did read the First Amendment, and still can’t find the “hate speech” exception to free speech. Can you point it out for us?

Morning Twitter Update, 5.6.15: Chris Cuomo is getting the fighting words doctrine and First Amendment hilariously wrong.

Chris Cuomo phonically learned the dit-dit of law but has no basic understanding of law and rights. That’s why all the dumb.

Cuomo replied:

@ChrisCuomo I did read the First Amendment, and still can’t find the “hate speech” exception to free speech. Can you point it out for us?

@EdMorrissey I will keep saying one word: chaplinsky

That word, “chaplinsky,” refers to Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the Supreme Court decided that some speech — like “fighting words,” or other statements that incite violence — aren’t protected by the First Amendment. Unfortunately for Cuomo:

FYI, the case @ChrisCuomo keeps citing (a) has been subsequently so gutted it’s basically a dead letter & (b) IS NOT ABOUT HATE SPEECH.

And you will still be entirely wrong. ReTweet: @ChrisCuomo @EdMorrissey I will keep saying one word: chaplinsky

@EdMorrissey So, basically, @ChrisCuomo‘s expert fact-based legal opinion is a single word chanted repeatedly like a talisman against evil?

I love how Cuomo screams READ THE CONSTITUTION then cites case law (incorrectly).

Also, of course, @ChrisCuomo completely overlooks the face-to-face requirement as he alleges that fighting words doctrine somehow applies.

As a followup to Cuomo’s use of, “Chaplinski,” it has largely been reversed. You can follow the link above to see how limited it was. The limitation with ‘Chaplinski’ is that it requires a face-to-face confrontation. None of those requirements are met contrary to Cuomo’s assertions.
Not even über-liberal Salon can stomach Cuomo’s idiotcy.

Words for Wednesday

Somedays it is hard to write a post. The difficulty is caused by a number of reasons, repetitive news cycles, ignorance of the MSM and in many areas the ignorance and apathy of the public. At other times, a lack of motivation or time conflicts conspire to push me to not post.

Today is one such day.

Be that as it may, today’s lead item is about stupidity. John Boehner’s bartender—a man who has been Boehner’s bartender for over five years, is accused of plotting to poison the Representative from Ohio.

The bartender must be an astoundingly poor planner. He had opportunities to shuffle off Boehner’s mortal coil for five years…but he just couldn’t get his act together.

When I read the article, it triggered my disbelief tripwire. After a facing mutiny in the GOP ranks, Boehner and the FBI reveal this incompetent. It just seems to be a misdirection ploy to get some positive media for Boehner. I wonder how many American have trouble with this news item?

***

Guns and Taxes

From WMSA.NET

From the PoliticMO Newsletter for January 14, 2015.

GUNS — ‘Gun groups vow to fight Missouri lawmaker’s bill taxing guns to pay for police body cameras,’ Raw Story: “A Missouri state legislator has drawn criticism from gun enthusiasts for introducing bills that would pay for body cameras for police officers through a tax increase on firearm and ammunition sales… House Bills 75 and 76, which were introduced by state Rep. Brandon Ellington (D), would implement a 1 percent tax raise on gun sales, with the money going to the “Peace Officer Handgun and Ammunition Sales Tax Fund,” to be used to buy the cameras. Officers would then be required to wear the cameras during any interaction with the public, and keep the footage in their records for at least 30 days. Undercover officers and detectives would be exempt from wearing the cameras. …

“The National Rifle Association (NRA) has already come out against Ellington’s proposal. ‘Forcing law-abiding Missourians to pay an additional tax on firearm and ammunition purchases is unmerited. Gun owners and purchasers should not be responsible for funding these projects,’ the group said in a release. ‘The NRA will continue to fight against such misguided encroachments on those who exercise their Second Amendment rights.’” — PoliticMO Newsletter, Jan 14, 2015

We continually hit with taxes and more taxes. A new tax to one thing or another, another hand in our pocket stealing our money under the guise of law. Every tax has some benefit, we’re told. I just don’t believe it. We don’t need a new tax to fund body cameras now, especially one that taxes guns and ammunition.

***

The rank and file of our military do not like Obama. Who’da thunk it?

AMERICA’S MILITARY: A conservative institution’s uneasy cultural evolution

The force is changing — often reluctantly — alongside the civilian society it serves

In his first term, President Obama oversaw repeal of the controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Then he broke with one of the military’s most deeply rooted traditions and vowed to lift the ban on women serving in combat.

And the commander in chief has aggressively sought to change military culture by cracking down on sexual assault and sexual harassment, problems that for years were underreported or overlooked.

Obama is an unpopular president in the eyes of the men and women in uniform. Yet his two-term administration is etching a deep imprint on the culture inside the armed forces. As commander in chief, he will leave behind a legacy that will shape the Pentagon’s personnel policies and the social customs of rank-and-file troops for decades to come.

Go visit the Military Times and read the complete article. It confirms the opinions of many now serving and some fears as well.

Missouri, Redux

Missouri passed a bill last year that provided statutes to support the US 2nd Amendment. In that bill, was provisions to criminalize federal enforcement of laws deemed unconstitutional. It passed both Houses of the Legislature. The Governor vetoed the bill and the veto was sustained by one vote.

That vote occurred in September. A new legislative session begins next month and bills are being pre-filled already. One of those bills is a new version of the bill above, hence, the title, Missouri, Redux.

Missouri bill would nullify all federal gun laws, ‘past, present or future’

Tuesday, December 17, 2013 – A View from the Tenth by Michael Boldin

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., December 17, 2013 —  In Missouri, legislation has been introduced to nullify every federal gun control measure on the books, “whether past, present or future.”

The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, introduced as Senate Bill 613 (SB613) for the 2014 legislative session by Sen. Brian Nieves, follows on the heels of a failed effort to do the same in 2013.

A similar bill passed both Missouri houses by a large margin earlier this year, but after a veto by Governor Jay Nixon, an override effort failed by one vote.

According to Ron Calzone of Missouri First, Senate President pro tem Tom Dempsey and majority floor leader Ron Richard have both given assurances that the new bill will be fast-tracked in 2014, even though they both sided with Nixon and voted to kill the bill this year. Their greatest concerns have been addressed in the latest version of the bill, according to Calzone.

The bill states, in part:

All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

The legislation bans all state employees from enforcing any federal acts which run counter to the act. Including this provision “follows the advice of James Madison,” said Mike Maharrey, national communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center.

“By ordering a complete stand-down on all federal gun control measures, all of them, enforcement falls back to the federal government. This is exactly what James Madison advised states to do in Federalist #46. He called it ‘a refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.’”

Earlier this year on the Fox Business Channel, Judge Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, suggested that a single state taking such an action would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce.”

In what many legal experts consider a controversial move, the legislation also includes criminal charges for any federal agent who violates the state law. State and local law enforcement are given “discretionary power” in the bill to determine whether or not such charges will actually be made. Inside sources say that this was done to alleviate concerns from Missouri Law Enforcement organizations who actively lobbied against the effort in 2013, citing a requirement to arrest “federal law enforcement partners in the field” as a primary concern. Maharrey said that while he isn’t counting on the legal community or federal courts to uphold this particular provision, he isn’t concerned about this part of the bill, modeled after the Tenth Amendment Center’s 2nd Amendment Preservation Act.

“First of all, every bill in Missouri is severable. That means if a court finds part of it unconstitutional, the rest remains. And the main provision calling on the entire state to stop enforcing federal gun control measures is on strong legal ground with Court precedent going from 1842 to 2012. States simply are not required to help the feds violate your rights. And the feds don’t have the manpower to do it themselves.”

Rep. Doug Funderburk, R-St. Charles, is expected to file an identical bill in the state house in the coming days.

***

McConnell’s attacks against the Tea Party is growing fruit—for the democrats. McConnell’s favorability numbers in Kentucky match that of Obama’s—“with 31 percent approving of his job performance and 61 percent disapproving of his performance.”

more from Keith BrekhusTuesday, December, 17th, 2013, 3:42 pm,

A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey conducted from December 12th through December 15th, brings more bad news for the Mitch McConnell camp. The poll finds that Mitch McConnell is despised by Kentucky voters, with 31 percent approving of his job performance and 61 percent disapproving of his performance. The survey found that Mitch McConnell has become almost as unpopular as Barack Obama in the deep red state. Obama sports an identical 31 percent approval rating, while 64 percent of Kentucky voters disapprove of how Obama is handling the presidency. Even Kentucky’s favorable Republican tilt may not be enough to save the Senate Minority Leader come next November. Although Kentucky went handily Republican in 2012, choosing Mitt Romney by a whopping 61-38 percent margin over Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell is unable to shake his Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes.

The Senate race is a toss up with McConnell clinging to an uninspiring 43-42 lead over Grimes. Perhaps even more embarrassing for the Senator, he does no better against Grimes than does his Tea Party challenger in the GOP, businessman Matt Bevin. Bevin also leads Grimes by a mere point, 39-38 percent. Mitch McConnell can no longer credibly describe himself as more electable than Bevin. While Bevin’s 13-23 favorability rating is under water, it is not nearly as awful as McConnell’s dreadful 31-61 approval spread. In addition, many voters have no opinion of Bevin yet, so he has more room to grow in popularity. McConnell, on the other hand is well known, and Kentucky voters do not like what they see.

Grimes’ favorability numbers are closer to even, with 31 percent of voters having a favorable opinion of her compared to 37 percent with an unfavorable opinion and another 32 percent unsure. Like Bevin, she has room to grow in popularity. With under a third of the Kentucky electorate approving of Mitch McConnell’s job performance, the Senator’s political future is very cloudy. Over 3/5ths of Kentucky voters are not happy with McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes offers them a credible Democratic alternative.

Compounding McConnell’s difficulties, he must also survive a GOP primary versus Matt Bevin, just to have an opportunity to face Grimes in the general election. While McConnell is expected to win the Republican primary, he does enjoy only 47 percent approval within his own party in Kentucky, so he certainly cannot take that primary race for granted. After serving nearly three decades in the US Senate, Mitch McConnell  has given the voters in Kentucky plenty of time to evaluate his performance. The voters have seen enough and in 2014 they may force him out in either the primary or the general election.

The ‘Pubbies assume that the Obamacare debacle will bring ‘Pub victories in 2014. This is reminder that those assumptions aren’t necessarily true.

***

In closing, here’s another video from Celtic Woman.

 

Obama’s Targets

“Make it hurt!” That’s been Obama’s instructions to his troops when the Shutdown began. He had been planning for the shutdown for some time. The blockages, barriers, and propaganda appeared within minutes of the deadline.

Who are Obama’s targets? Those who have invested the more in our nation—the veterans, the military, the sick, the rank-and-file conservatives, anyone who won’t line up and kiss Obama’s feet.

The Washington Examiner identified six target groups, groups chosen by Obama as his personal enemies. I can only hope he reaps what he’s sown. It will not be what he thinks.

6 groups targeted to make the shutdown look worse

By ASHE SCHOW | OCTOBER 7, 2013 AT 4:22 PM

A partial government shutdown just wasn’t going to hit people the way the Obama administration needed it to, so officials resorted to some unprecedented acts to make Americans feel the pain, as Conservative Intel’s David Freddoso notes:

Most people — even the poor in state-run safety net programs — don’t have that many interactions with the federal government agencies affected right now by the shutdown.

So it’s a challenge to make people notice that your agency is vital to the survival of the Republic. The feds have to apply a lot of force and behave in unsubtle ways to make you angry with Congress.

1. Veterans

No group has been more visible during the shutdown than veterans. Memorials were closed, and House Democrats voted against bills that would restore funding to veterans programs.

A short list of some of the monuments closed (note that veterans moved barricades to see their monuments anyway):

» World War II Memorial

» Normandy cemetery

» Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall

» Iwo Jima Memorial

Just 4 percent of employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs have been furloughed, according to Government Executive magazine, making it even more odd that the department’s funding wasn’t restored.

2. Lake Mead, Nev., property owners

Suddenly, owning a home on federal land causes homeowners to be kicked out of their domiciles.

Ralph and Joyce Spencer, an elderly couple who own a Lake Mead cabin, were forced out of their homes by park rangers saying they had to leave until the federal government reopens.

The Spencers have owned their home since the 1970s, and fellow Lake Mead resident Bob Hitchcock, who’s owned a cabin on the lake for 26 years, said he wasn’t told to vacate during the previous government shutdown that occurred under the Clinton Administration.

3. Cancer patients

House Democrats also voted against a bill to restore funding to the National Institutes of Health, a federally funded medical research center.

Yes, there is privately funded cancer research still occurring, but saying no to cancer research of any kind is probably not a winning strategy.

NIH is an agency within the Health and Human Services Department, which furloughed 49 percent of its employees, according to Government Executive.

4. National Guard and Reserve units

House Democrats (noticing a pattern?) also voted against funding that would allow members of the National Guard and Reserves to return to work during the shutdown.

Democrats say the reason they won’t pass piecemeal funding bills is due to GOP “cherry-picking” parts of the government to fund instead of funding the entire government.

5. Tourists

Imagine saving up to visit the nation’s capitol or the Grand Canyon. The family is packed up and ready to fly — or drive — cross the country to see the sites and have a great time.

Then the government shuts down. No worries, how can the government shut down open-air monuments? Well, apparently they can — and did.

The Grand Canyon National Park is closed. How does one shut down a giant canyon? Apparently with gates and barricades similar to those veterans crossed to see their monuments.

Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., refused to allow the federal government to close state parks in Wisconsin, since the state had the authority to operate the parks and provided most of the funding for them.

Mount Rushmore is also closed. Cones have been placed along the highway to keep tourists from pulling over and snapping pictures of the monument. Because it’s apparently cheaper to pay people to set up cones than it is to … not do that.

Across the country, in D.C., the Lincoln Memorial is closed. Note that this monument was not closed during the 1995-96 government shutdowns. Barricades were also set up outside the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.

The National Parks Service attempted to shut down Mount Vernon, George Washington’s home. Problem is, the site is privately owned and operated by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. Also, NPS tried to shut down the Claude Moore Colonial Farm, which hasn’t received federal funding since 1980. Oops!

The NPS is on a roll, actually, when it comes to closing down privately owned businesses.

6. Taxpayers

One thing that isn’t closed during the partial shutdown: tax collection.

“The IRS will accept and process all tax returns with payments, but will be unable to issue refunds during this time,” the IRS website said.

Every day we hear of more villainous acts by the federal government and their surrogates. The National Park Service seems particularly apt and eager to oppress the public. Over the weekend the NPS issued 21 tickets to people wanting to see the Grand Canyon. They must appear in person before a federal Judge.

I wonder how long it will be before some trigger-happy federal JBT shoots someone for wanting to see one of our nation’s treasures?

Bits ‘n Pieces

It’s September and silliness is in the air. From where? From the liberals around the world. In Europe, the EU want’s to limit highway speeds and install governors in every vehicle—including installing governors in vehicles already sold at the owner’s expense.

“In its continuing efforts to outlaw anything remotely fun, the European Union has announced plans to forcibly limit all cars to a maximum of 70 miles per hour. Under the latest scheme proposed by EU bureaucrats, cameras that can read speed limit signs would be installed in all new cars, reports The Telegraph. The cars would then automatically slam on the brakes when drivers exceed the posted speed limit. Owners of existing cars would not be immune. They would be required to have the speed limit mechanisms installed as well. The Intelligent Speed Adaptation plan was proposed by the European Commission’s Mobility and Transport Department. Its purpose is to decrease the number of traffic deaths. Some 30,000 traffic fatalities occur on European roads each year.”

TheDC Morning suspects every one who bought a Ferrari in Europe is probably pretty angry right now. But if the EU wants to save lives, why not just forbid everyone from leaving their house? Or if that’s too drastic, how about banning soccer? — The Daily Caller.

Other silliness comes from the student government at UCLA. They want to outlaw the term, “illegal immigrant.” How about using “criminal alien?” That would be accurate.

“The student government at UCLA unanimously resolved to call for the eradication of the phrase ‘illegal immigrant,’ reports Campus Reform. The UCLA Undergraduate Students Association wants the term “illegal immigrant” banned because, its members say, the phrase is a violation of the human rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Last week’s resolution emphasizes the student council’s desire to prevent journalists, media organizations and various campus partners  from identifying illegal aliens as ‘illegal immigrants,’ explains the Daily Bruin, UCLA’s campus rag.” Add this to the growing stack of evidence which suggests the voting age needs to be raised. — The Daily Caller.

***

We have a dichotomy in the US House. We have one story from the Washington Examiner that says the House is about to say, “No!” on Obama’s Syrian war, while over on The Drudge Report, John Boehner is all for it—once again proving he’s Obama’s lap dog.

From the Washington Examiner…

House Republicans poised to say no on Syria

By DAVID M. DRUCKER | SEPTEMBER 2, 2013 AT 9:44 AM

While Congressmen are moving towards non-intervention, John Boehner, is exercising his rubber-stamp, giving his approval for Obama’s War.

Boehner: ‘I’m Going to Support the President’s Call for Action’ in Syria

11:26 AM, Sep 3, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

Speaker of the House John Boehner says that he’ll support President Obama’s “call for action” in Syria:

“The use of these weapons has to be responded to and only the United States has the capability and capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated,” said Boehner after meeting with Obama. “I appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the Congress over the last couple of weeks. I also appreciate the president asking the Congress to support him in this action. This is something that the United States as a country needs to do. I’m going to support the president’s call for action. I believe my colleagues should support this call for action. We have enemies around the world that need to understand that we’re not going to tolerate this type of behavior. We also have allies around the world and allies in the region who also need to know that America will be there and stand up whether it is necessary.”

The problem will all this rhetoric is the question, “Who really released the Sarin gas that killed those 1,300 people? The Euros, Obama and Boehner are quick to accuse Assad. However, there are also reports that the gas was released accidentally by the rebels, rebels associated with Iran and Al Queda.

When it came to action, the Brits and the Euros quickly changed their minds. Brit Prime Minister Cameron lost his vote in Parliament. France, initially in favor of retaliatory attacks against Assad, has now gotten cold feet.

Of course, facts have never been worth considering when liberals get backed into a corner of their own making. Any out is acceptable, and who knows, maybe they can blame it all on Bush, or at least, the ‘Pubs.