Why Does Michigan Hate Bacon?

Oops. Wrong Piggy.

We here at Why Not Nashville? have always had a special relationship with the federal government.  We imagine it’s similar to the bond shared by Kevin Arnold and Becky Slater, where having a companion to ride bikes with is nice, but making out with Winnie Cooper is better, or something like that.  But we’re critical of state and local governments too.  After all, who can forget the anger we directed at the state of Illinois over its crap-tastic toll increases? Or the references made about our local property taxes, which are so high they occasionally cause to me to consider sending my kids to the public schools (but then I remember that the public schools don’t allow their teachers to encourage good behavior with a ruler and stories of hell, and the thought goes away).

Today, we’re wondering why the state of Michigan hates bacon.

NaturalNews can now confirm that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has, in total violation of the Fourth Amendment, conducted two armed raids on pig farmers in that state, one in Kalkaska County at Fife Lake and another in Cheboygan County. Staging raids involving six vehicles and ten armed men, DNA conducted unconstitutional, illegal and arguably criminal armed raids on these two farms with the intent of shooting all the farmers’ pigs under a bizarre new ‘Invasive Species Order’ (ISO) that has suddenly declared traditional livestock to be an invasive species.

Hmm, curious.  Now don’t get me wrong.  I have no problem with killing pigs.  In fact, I require that death occur at some point before I apply the barbeque sauce.  But why is a state agency invading people’s private property to shoot tasty animals?  And why are the owners of these animals being charged with felonies?  And why is the only guy who seems to care possess the title of “Health Ranger?”

All this tells me is that Michigan obviously has too many state employees sitting around doing nothing.  I can imagine the conversation being had in Lansing now:

Govt. Big Wig: ‘Ok Joe.  We need to find something for you to do, or else we’ll have to fire you.’

Joe:  ‘But Govt. Big Wig, I’m turning 40 next week, and then I can retire with a pension and full benefits.  Can’t you wait until then?’

Govt. Big Wig: ‘Calm down Joe.  You know we don’t actually fire anybody around here.  But I do need to find something for you to do.  So, you have two options.  You can either go help pave that section of M-43 that gets re-paved every year, or you can go shoot some hogs on Murphy’s farm with this assault rifle.  It turns out they’re invasive.’

Joe: ‘Invasive eh?  I thought they just smelled bad.  Anyway, I’ll take the hogs.’

They’re pigs people, not Tigers.  I understand the fear is that they’ll escape, and breed, and maybe maul a pedestrian as he enjoys a delicious bottle of Vernor’s, but is that really enough of a concern to justify the violent taking of a person’s private property?  Of course not.  But when the guy leading the resistance is only a Ranger of Health, then you get what you deserve.

Mad Men, Mitt Romney, and Non-Traditional Occupations. TGIF

Because I couldn't think of a better picture.

I watched only part of the first season of “Mad Men,” before I simply couldn’t take it anymore.  It’s a testament to our times that a show so full of depraved people could be so popular.  In case you haven’t seen it, the entire show is about a bunch of overgrown children running around on their wives.  Needless to say, I was surprised to come across an article seemingly equating Don Draper with a guy whose personal life is about at squeaky clean as they come.  But after reading it though, I understood.  “The Draperizing of Mitt Romney” does a nice job of laying out the culture war that has been created by the left, in the hopes of retaining the White House.

The president’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, has gone further, quipping that the former Massachusetts governor ‘must watch ‘Mad Men’ and think it’s the evening news’ while jabbing that Romney’s views are out of a time when ‘bosses could dictate on women’s health.’

Ha, that David Axelrod, what a card.  His concluding statement, of course, is a reference to the president’s healthcare plan which forces Catholic employers to provide free contraception to their employees, despite their belief that contraception is a sin.  Obviously, the statement about bosses dictating women’s health is complete nonsense, since no one is telling any woman that she can’t use contraception, but Axelrod’s never been known for getting the punchline right.

The article harkens back to yesterday’s kerfluffle about Ann Romney never working a day in her life.  The point wasn’t really that Mrs. Romney had never actually worked a day in her life, it was that she was unable to understand the problems a modern woman must face.  Other feminists agree.

‘I simply have not seen her in any way as an advocate for women’s empowerment in society,’ said Kim Gandy, the former head of the National Organization for Women, of Ann Romney before Rosen’s comments. ‘And since Gov. Romney looks to her to find out what women care about, that does not bode well. I haven’t heard her speaking out about increasing women’s opportunity for higher paid employment, for women in non-traditional occupations, specifically for increasing pay equity for women, closing the pay gap, certainly not on women’s reproductive rights.’

Well, you probably haven’t heard her talking about these things because they’re made up issues.  Seriously, what’s a “non-traditional occupation?”  Kicker for a NFL team?  Is a wet-nurse a “non-traditional occupation,” because I’ve been looking to break into that market for a while.  And gender pay-gap?  There is no gender pay-gap if you actually compare apples to apples.  In other words, women who haven’t left work at some point to have children or take up mud wrestling are actually earning more than men at the same job.  And this fact doesn’t take into account another fact: the federal government shouldn’t be telling any private company how much they should be paying anyone.  The only other issue referenced is “reproductive rights.”  As indicated above, there is no “contraception issue.”  It’s completely made up.  And Ann Romney isn’t the first woman to be pro-life.  So get a grip.

Despite their consisting of entirely manufactured outrage, the culture wars will continue to be waged at all costs by the left.   Without being able to misdirect the attention of half of the population, the president might have to run on his record, which would be bad for him.  In other words, Barry’s presidency has been a nuclear holocaust to the economy, and he now has to run against a guy that has been a successful business man his entire life.  So what do they do?  Attack a guy who has an impeccable personal life, and accuse him of being a misogynist.  And while they’re at it, they’ll ridicule his “Suzy homemaker” wife who has done nothing with her life other than be faithful and raise five boys who aren’t guests on “Jersey Shore.” Oh yeah, and surviving breast cancer and living with MS.  Apparently the only way to  get any street-cred now days with the feminist left is to have at least one kid be a coked-up transvestite, who’s the product of a failed late-term abortion.  I am woman, hear me roar indeed.

Note to my wife: Your life is easy and you should never talk about things that don’t involve baby-making and bon-bons. **UPDATE** Libs respond

If I ever said this, my wife would kill me.  And by “kill,” I mean make me stay home with my kids for a week.  The following is HILARIOUS.  Not because it’s a woman saying it, but because it’s an Obama advisor, lefty woman saying it.  After all, nothing irritates the feminists like a conservative stay-at-home mom.  The fun starts around the 50 second mark:

Note to my wife: stop your yapping.  You don’t ever have to worry about anything.  You just sit around, eat your bon bons, and look pretty.  This little blurb is yet another reminder of the set-in-stone fact that no one is more intolerant of those who don’t agree with them then liberals.  It’s not like I go around blaming all the world’s problems on the latch-key kid whose parents are too important to have someone at home when the little deviant returns from school with his sixteen year old girlfriend and a couple of cans of Old Style that his buddy Johnny lifted from his old man.

And of course, all of this came after Barry explained to the world on Friday why his wife, Michelle “give me that Happy Meal” Obama, had to work while having two daughters at home.

‘Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling,’ he said. ‘And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.’

Hey, I’ve heard this line before.  People say this to me in a condescending way about all the money I must have, since my wife gets to stay at home with the fruit of my prodigious loins.  In other words, Barry’s trying to tell you that he’s just one of the guys.  A middle class, beer-drinkin’, blue-collar schmo, who didn’t have the money to keep a parent home.  After all, the happy couple was only earning just south of half a million dollars per year at the time.

What’s the point about all of this?  Is it that stay-at-home mom’s are good?  Or that feminists are evil, blood-sucking, harpies?  No, although both points are entirely accurate.  It’s about the fact that, despite the conventional wisdom, the Dems aren’t “pro-women” or  “pro-black” or “pro-gay.”  If you don’t fit into their value system, you’re attacked.  And their value-system for women isn’t being “barefoot and pregnant” at home.  It’s making damn sure that mom is at work, trying to put her boss’s testicles in a box, while Timmy is knocking up his girlfriend on his Transformers sheets.

**UPDATE**

It seems the left realizes the problem here.  So what does it do?  It argues that the right is attacking the moron in the video above because she’s a lesbian.  Seriously.  And they just make it worse for themselves.

No one is arguing that raising children isn’t work. Democratic strategist and CAP Action board member Hilary Rosen is a single mother of twins who had to go through the expensive and challenging process of adoption with her then partner Elizabeth Birch. Now, she’s trying to stick up for other mothers who don’t have the luxury of millionaire husbands to help fund their child-rearing duties, and the backlash is getting ugly.

Granted, this isn’t the mainstream left responding here.  It’s the crazy “Think Progress” fringe.  Still, the fact that the author is a lunatic doesn’t justify dishonesty, right?  The lady in the video wasn’t trying to “stick up for mothers” who have to work.  She was degrading Ann Romney for having the nerve to talk to her husband about the economy when all she’s apparently qualified to do is paint her nails and yell at the lawn boy.  No one is attacking the bimbo because she’s a lesbian; they’re attacking her because she’s everything that’s wrong with the left.  Personally, I hope more Dems come to her defense because it will keep the issue in the news longer.

President to help middle class by paying them in fairness. Middle class not sure if it constitutes legal tender.

Not that Buffett

Every now and then, an issue comes up that allows me to truly gauge the intelligence of the American people.  Well, I’m excited to report that such an issue has arisen: the Buffett Rule.  No, we’re not talking about my personal hero Jimmy Buffett; he’s too drunk to be paying attention.  I’m talking about that annoying old man Warren Buffett, who has allowed his inability to satisfy his secretary sexually financially to quickly absorb as much of my talk radio time as Jesse Jackson and his merry band of hoodie-wearers.  In case you didn’t know, Mr. Buffett, a man worth billions, has made it part of his bucket list to complain about how he pays a lower overall tax rate than his secretary.  This has caused many to offer him the practical option of simply paying more in taxes if he’d prefer.  In fact, he can even pay my taxes while he’s at it. Not surprisingly, the idea of a rich guy asking the feds to take more of his money is something the lefties can’t ignore; especially when all of their other economic plans have been as successful as a one-armed man rowing his boat in a straight line.  So, instead of making an effort to propose an actual budget that could get a single vote in the House of Representatives, our little dictator in chief has asked the Senate to vote on the “Buffett Rule.”

Mr Obama is promoting the ‘Buffett rule’, which would set a minimum tax of 30 per cent on the income of millionaires, as he attempts to establish a stark contrast with Mitt Romney, his Republican challenger and a former private equity executive.

You may be asking why I’m using the Buffett Rule as a barometer of American intelligence.  Well, the last time I looked, a majority of Americans supports the proposition of “making the rich pay their fair share,” even if they can’t tell you what “fair” means.  To put it simply: if anyone is in favor of this proposition, then they obviously sustained severe brain damage.  And to support this point, I’m not even going to make reference to the fact that, while the top two percent already pays a disproportionate share of the total federal income taxes, half of this country doesn’t pay any.

No.  I’m going to focus on a lie that is so blatantly obvious that someone would need to be comatose not to catch it.  What’s the lie, you ask?

Still, throughout his speech, the message was clear: In 2012, Barack Obama and the Democrats are in favor of ‘fairness,’ of having those Americans who can afford to do so pay a bit more in taxes so that the rest of the country can thrive.

How is taking more money from the top 1% going to help the country “thrive?”  It’s a proven fact that the extra money won’t put a scratch, let alone a dent, in the national debt.  And it isn’t like we have a president who seems to care about deficits.  The implied argument being made here is that the middle class will somehow be helped by taxing the rich more.  How?  Well, notably absent from Barry’s plan is a tax cut for the middle class.  And it’s not like the extra money being extracted from the rich is going to be sent to the middle class.  So, how is this plan helping anyone?  That’s right, it’s not.  The Buffett Rule is a political stunt that the president hopes will distract everyone from the fact that his presidency has been less then stellar.

So, are you going to fall for this asshattery?  Of course not.  You’re one of my readers.  But your mom may not be.  So feel free to poke her with a sharp pin to make sure she responds to painful stimuli before giving her a summary of the foregoing.

Our little dictator lobs one over the bow of the Supreme Court. **UPDATE: Now with proof of my genius from the Fifth Circuit**

Lest you forget, oral arguments concerning Obamacare were had last week in the Supreme Court.  At stake: the individual mandate, and potentially the whole friggin’ law.  Despite the assertions of the legal geniuses residing in their ivory tower law schools, the Supremes didn’t seem convinced that forcing every American to purchase a product constituted “regulation of economic activity.”  In fact, at least five, and possibly six, of the Justices seemed skeptical about whether inactivity was the type of activity that could be regulated.  After the hearings were completed, everyone proceeded to overreact.

The most over-the-top, and predictable, overreaction came from the president yesterday.  In a speech delivered with the heads of Mexico and Canada(?), Barry proceeded to threaten the Supreme Court, just in case they were stupid enough to go against the family.

‘Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,’ Obama said.

I’m not sure overturning a law passed by Congress is unprecedented.  The last time I looked, the Constitution considers the Supreme Court to be  equal to Congress.  Moreover, the job of the Court has, for a few centuries, been to review legislation passed by Congress for its constitutionality.  In fact, the Supreme Court has overturned laws passed by Congress before.  Thus, doing so here would not be “unprecedented.”  Also, being that the Democrats had to bribe some of their own members in the Senate to get the thing passed in the first place, I’d hardly call Obamacare legislation “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” (not that the number of “yes” votes matters to a law’s constitutionality).

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the ‘unelected’ Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

I agree.  Activist judges suck.  But overturning Obamacare because the mandate is an unprecedented overreach of the federal government wouldn’t constitute “activism.”  In other words, deciding that forcing an American citizen to buy something doesn’t constitute “regulating interstate commerce” isn’t exactly crazy.  In fact, as I eluded to earlier, the only way the mandate could be upheld is if the Court decides “regulate” and “activity” actually mean the exact opposite.  Don’t get me wrong…it wouldn’t shock me if the Court performed such a manipulation of the English language, but its choosing not to do so certainly wouldn’t constitute radical activism.

‘I think it’s important…to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,’ Obama said.

‘The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.

‘There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.’

In a courtroom, the foregoing is what’s called “irrelevant.”  I’m sure my life would be much more enjoyable if Congress passed a law requiring me to buy a helicopter, and then provided me the money if I couldn’t afford it; but the satisfaction of laughing at the losers stuck in traffic while I sip champagne in my underwear doesn’t make it constitutional.

It should be noted that Barry’s rant against the Supreme Court is just another example of his dictatorial dreams.  Who can forget the fits he still throws when Congress doesn’t give him what he wants?  And just as he has done in response to Congress’s alleged “failure to act,” (giving unelected agencies like the EPA and FDA truly unprecedented power, for example), I’m predicting Barry tries to do something extreme if the Court overturns Obamacare.  Packing the Courts, a la FDR?  Something else?  We’ll have to wait and see.

**UPDATE**

The Fifth Circuit today, while hearing a separate challenge to Obamacare, revealed that it reads this very blog as part of its preparation for important oral arguments.

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Obviously a Fifth Circuit judge isn’t going to go on the record saying he or she relies upon a blog to provide pertinent legal background, but it’s obvious, right?  Didn’t I already point out that the Supreme Court has stricken unconstitutional legislation before?  Who else can provide this kind of legal research?  The president himself isn’t even aware, and he used to be a law professor!

Obvious questions remain: Will the Justice Department respond?  Will Eric Holder find the time between running guns to Mexico and racially profiling nuns (I made up the latter)?  Will Barry write the letter himself, in purple crayon (the most diverse color)?  WILL THIS BLOG FINALLY GET THE CREDIT IT DESERVES?

Senate filibusters taking money from oil companies and using it to build more exploding cars

Well, the temperature has dropped, and with it, my mood.

Just kidding.  It’s Friday, so the work week can suck it.  Plus, how could I possibly complain after three days of Obamacare oral arguments at the Supreme Court?  Just listening to the confused responses of those who previously told me the case was a slam dunk was enough to get me through the week.  Don’t get too excited though; just because the Justices’ questions exposed the absurdity of the mandate doesn’t mean they’ll vote that way.  After all, the Court found a constitutional right to abortion somewhere.  But I’m not here to talk about that.

I’m here to talk about the the Senate bill to end oil subsidies.  It failed due to the filibuster rule, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass something.  Barry, of course, was not pleased:

‘They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past. Or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren’t needed to boost oil production so that we can invest in the future,’ Obama said. ‘It’s that simple.’

He continued with the rhetoric:

‘It’s like hitting the American people twice,’ Obama said in a Rose Garden speech on Thursday morning. ‘You’re already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress thinks it’s a good idea to send billions more of your tax dollars to the oil industry?’

Two things about this.  First, the American people aren’t being hit twice, because we’re not talking about actual “subsidies.”  In other words, the government isn’t taking my tax dollars and sending them to Chevron.  Instead, our tax code gives oil companies tax breaks, which simply allows them to keep more of their own money.  Thus, B.O.’s statement is blatantly untrue.

With that being said, why are we giving tax breaks to oil companies?  I agree with the president in this respect.  In fact, why are we giving them to any industry?  Why does the government have pet projects?  Why don’t we just lower taxes overall and get rid of subsidies/tax break for every industry?  This leads me to point number two.  What does Barry want to do with the extra money the government gets if the bill is passed?  Pay down the debt?  Send me a check?  Wallpaper the White House?  No.  Of course not.  He would use it to “invest in the future.”

The bill would have killed several tax breaks taken by the five largest oil companies and use some of the proceeds to extend expiring energy tax provisions, such as tax breaks for renewable energy, electric cars and energy efficient homes.

That’s right.  He’d turn them into tax breaks for other industries.  And not just any other industries, but industries that don’t work and that nobody wants.  And as an aside, renewables are already the Belles of the Ball in terms of tax breaks.  Need proof?  Here’s some info from the Congressional Budget Office; complete with a picture which everybody likes.

So, what have we learned?  We have further confirmation that Obama’s a liar (which, to be fair, every politician is).  We’ve also learned that removing tax breaks is hard.  The Republicans didn’t just reject the bill because of the give-away to renewables, or because they’re in the pocket of big oil (which everyone in Congress is).  We’re already paying through the nose for gasoline, and increasing the costs on oil companies certainly won’t help prices go down.

Well, that’s it.  I’m going to listen to some more audio from the Obamacare hearings, and dream of days where the Supreme Court actually enforces the Constitution.

The President Hates Flowers and Birds. And Barry White.

It was so hot, they barely needed to wear clothes.

We here at Why Not Nashville? are in great spirits.  The flowers are blooming.  The bee’s are buzzing.  The birds are listening to Barry White to get themselves in the mood.  The weather is warm.  So warm in fact, that I was able to lose my shirt a few days ago and obtain my first sunburn of the summer…and it’s only March!  No snow.  No frost.  Nothing to make me wake up in the morning and say “crap, I’m going to be late because I have to scrape ice off of my car.”  If this is because of global warming, then sign me up for some mo’.

Just kidding.  It’s not because of global warming.  Oh, and I didn’t “lose” my shirt.  I voluntarily removed it so my pasty skin could reflect light onto all of those solar panels I had installed on my house.  Also, the chicks in the neighborhood enjoy me shirtless.  And really, who can blame them?

It’s convenient that I can worship at the altar of global warming because of all the global warming stuff that’s in the news right now.  For example, our unelected friends at the EPA are about to roll out their new power plant regulations that will effectively put a halt to the construction of new coal plants.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the new rule ‘captures the end of an era’ during which coal provided most of the nation’s electricity. It currently generates about 40 percent of U.S. electricity.

Of course, we don’t know how to replace that 40%, but whatever.

The power sector accounts for 40 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, and Brune said it is ‘the only place where we’re making significant progress’ in curbing greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, adding that ‘at the same time, it’s not sufficient.’

If you’ve been paying attention to this blog for any period of time, you should know by now that I am of the opinion that “man-made global warming” or even “global warming” are politically-charged statements with little definitive science to back them up.  Yes, there are those who make their living off of federal grants truly do believe in the theory of global warming, but others aren’t so sure.  Take this professor of physics at Princeton, for example:

What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.

So, temperatures worldwide have not gone up lately, and actually dropped a little since we started paying attention.  However, there has apparently been some warming…if you look back far enough.

There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.

In other words, most of the warming occurred before the Industrial Revolution, when we started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.  And this doesn’t even take into account how hot it is in those dinosaur movies, when there weren’t any people at all.

So, in light of the fact that science is sorta’ groping around in the dark with respect to the intricacies of our climate, while the circumstantial evidence certainly leans to the side of our carbon footprint not really making much of a difference, why is the administration going out of its way, even to the point of working around Congress, to shut out new coal plants?  If you’re looking for some super-secret answer to this question, you won’t find it here.  Barry’s a jerk.  That’s about it really.  He’d rather put people out of work/keep more people from working, while causing the cost of electricity to increase for everyone, all in the name of some questionable scientific theory.

Oh, and his big donors.  I almost forgot about that one.