July 16, 2010: How are we doing?

It’s been a long, hot week, and I’m a bit testy.  With that in mind, let’s discuss where we are.

Saying that our president is doing a bad job is like saying the citizens of Pompei experienced traffic congestion the morning Mount Vesuvius  blew.  It’s true, but it’s also an incredible understatement.  100% of Barry’s presidency has resided somewhere between doing nothing or making things worse.  Honestly, I’ll have a major award for anyone that can point to one good thing this man has done since he’s gotten into office.  We’re still sitting just shy of 10% national unemployment…and that doesn’t count the people who are no longer even looking for work.  Our debt and deficits literally make history ever single day, and all B.O. thinks we should do is spend more.  In fact, his own freakin’ debt commission stated the debt will destroy this country.  Not possible?  Look at Greece, or Spain, or Portugal.

His Department of Justice is choosing to sue Arizona for enforcing federal law, while refusing to prosecute sanctuary cities for explicitly violating federal law.  How about a lawsuit against Chicago for its new gun restrictions?  Don’t understand my point Mr. President?  How about we put the restrictions in terms you can understand.  It would be similar to Illinois telling a young pregnant girl she can have an abortion, but only after she pays $1,000.00 cash to watch a video of an abortion procedure, with her parents and grandparents, after which she takes a test consisting entirely of identifying still images from the video, and then, after the abortion, being forced to keep the dead baby in a jar under her pillow for nine months after the abortion.  Oh, and she’d need to go to Wisconsin to get the abortion.  Now, I bet a law like that would receive a lawsuit. Guns and abortion are both “fundamental rights” that are protected by the constitution, right?

How ’bout that financial overhaul bill that everyone on the left is so damn excited about?  While it doesn’t do anything about fixing what actually went wrong with the economy in the first place, Fannie Mae is out there offering first time home-buyers loans with a little as $1,000.00 down.  And now I get to go sit in traffic on the highway because the idiots hired by the state of Illinois, with federal funds I’m sure, decided to strike after tearing up the damn road.  They apparently didn’t get the memo that the economy sucks while health care costs and premiums are still going up, as a result of despite Obamacare.  And on January 1, 2011, those of us who actually pay income tax can look forward to it skyrocketing.

And what is our esteemed president’s response:

The president said in the interview he believes voters “are going to say the policies that got us into this mess, we can’t go back to.” He also said Washington “has spent an inordinate amount of time on politics — who’s up and who’s down — and not enough on what we’re doing for the American people.”

It’s official.  We didn’t elect a President.  We didn’t even elect a petty dictator.  We elected a buffoon.   And by “we” I mean somebody else because I didn’t vote for him.  The liberal policies that got us into this mess are still out there, alive and well.  “What we’re doing for the American people?”  Are you serious?  How about what you’re doing to the American people?  Here’s what Barry’s done to the American people since he’s become president: increased unemployment.  increased deficits and debt.  increased health care costs and premiums.  increased economic uncertainty.  increased claims of racism.  increased divisiveness.  increased entitlements. increased taxes.  Here’s what he’s done for the people of America: been a really active (and bad) golfer.

Obligatory “Fairness” Post

Hey, at least it's fair.

Why does every stupid socialist law implemented by liberals have to have the word “fair” in it?  Do they think it will actually make us think there’s something “fair” about it?  Do they not realize that “fair” is code for bigger government? Now, the internet sales tax is yesterday’s, well, more like five days ago’s, news, but I didn’t catch the name of the bill at the time.  It’s called the “Main Street Fairness Act.” I love it.  In fact, this is actually a double-whammy, because it also squeezes “Main Street” in the title.  No surprisingly, its co-sponsors are all raving lunatics liberals like John Conyers.

I actually discussed this Act with a fellow conservative on Facebook other day.  He was, to my surprise, a fan of the bill because it would help local business.  Not necessarily untrue, but my response is better (bias?):  Instead of increasing the sales tax on merchandise purchased on the internet, why not decrease local sales taxes?  The City of Chicago , for example, drives shoppers into the open arms of the surrounding communities due to its ridiculous sales taxes.  The liberal’s answer is always to raise taxes…wouldn’t lowering them achieve the same “fairness” while actually helping consumers?  Aren’t consumers the people that drive our economy?  Do any of you reading my posts actually respond to these rhetorical questions out loud?  If so, good for you.

The Federal Govt. Sues Arizona: Your Tax Dollars at Work

Some call it an attempt to distract us from the economy…as if that’s possible. Others call it a noble attempt to stop racism…tell that to J. Christian Adams. I simply call it a monumental waste of my tax dollars. As many of you probably know by now, Obama’s DOJ filed suit against the State of Arizona yesterday for its immigration law. You know, the one that requires Arizona cops to make an effort to identify criminals and then arresting them…novel concept.  According to our esteemed government attorneys, any and all aspects of immigration are within the exclusive purview of the federal government. Thus, in legal terms, Arizona’s law violates the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution…or so the argument goes. I haven’t read the complaint, and I’m not sure I will, but the Wall Street Journal apparently has, so that’s got to count for something right?

The suit, filed in Phoenix, said that the state had ‘crossed a constitutional line’ that interferes with the federal authority over immigration. It alleges that the state law would burden federal agencies, diverting resources from such higher priorities as tracking illegal immigrants implicated in terrorism cases, drug smuggling or other crimes.

If this is the best the federal government’s got, then I want my money back.  Now, courts can do all kinds of strange things, like deny unopposed motions for example, so I guess anything’s possible.  That being said, how the hell can enforcing federal law interfere with federal law?  In fact, the feds are doing more interfering than Arizona, due to their refusal to enforce their own law.  Oh, and when did the Supremacy Clause include a section about not diverting resources from higher priorities?  That’s called the “let’s throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” argument.

‘Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,’ Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. ‘Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.’

As an initial point, this is the equivalent of the Chicago police department sitting outside my front door and watching my family be attacked by an intruder, and then arresting me when I kill him.   But Holder’s right.  Setting immigration policy is within the exclusive purview of the federal government.  I’m not so sure about enforcement though.  After all, what constitutes “enforcement?”  The State of Arizona certainly can’t deport the illegals.  But can they arrest them for being here illegally and hold them until I.N.S. deports them?  My gut tells me they can…but that may just be the Chipotle I ate last night…which was awesome by the way.   The learned, ivory tower types have thrown in their two cents as well:

‘I think the federal government is going to win and the Arizona law is going to be shown to be unconstitutional,’ said Karl M. Manheim, professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. ‘States don’t have any power to regulate immigration.’

This opinion begs the question though: does the Arizona law “regulate” immigration?  I think the federal govt. would have a difficult time arguing that the law does any regulating.  It’s simply a criminal statute piggy-backing on a federal statute which already defined who is here illegally.  Arizona’s law hasn’t made being here illegally more illegal than it was before.

As usual though, Gov. Jan Brewer hits the nail on the head with respect to the practicalities of the lawsuit:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer called the federal lawsuit ‘a massive waste of taxpayer funds’ and said the money ‘could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.’

She said that the Obama administration, if worried about a patchwork of laws, could have chosen to sue local governments that adopted ‘sanctuary” policies instructing police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

She is absolutely correct.  The Obama Administration doesn’t give a rat’s ass about a “patchwork of laws.”  Controlling the border is right in the wheelhouse of the federal government, and its failure to do the controllin’ is the sole reason why states are being forced to pick up the slack.  In fact, the DOJ’s complaint constitutes an admission of this.

Of course, as the article goes on to point out, this is all about politics.  Obama doesn’t care about immigration.  If he did, he would have pushed a bill through Congress before he lost his filibuster-proof majority.  Instead, he has continued to dither on the issue, now hoping that the lawsuit will bring the democrats the hispanic vote in November.  I personally doubt that the immigration law is going to bring the Dems any more votes then they already have…but we’ll see.

In the meantime, be sure to send a little love note to your Congressman, thanking him or her for the wise use of your tax dollars.  After all, the only reason the Arizona law was enacted in the first place was because they have failed to do their jobs…again.

Chicago Continues Fight to Keep Guns from Law Abiding Citizens

It would be shocking if it weren’t so typical.  Seriously, what is going on with the politicians in Chicago?  In a 45-0 vote, the Chicago City Council enacted the toughest gun laws in the country yesterday.

The new ordinance bans gun shops in Chicago and prohibits gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun. It becomes law in 10 days, Corporation Counsel Mara Georges said.

In its vote, those representing the good people of the City of Chicago reveal why they should all be placed in a loony bin.

‘I wish that we weren’t in the position where we’re struggling to figure out a way in which we can limit the guns on our streets and still meet the test that our Supreme Court has set for us,’ said Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, minutes before the council voted 45-0 to approve the ordinance.

I’m convinced that every single Alderman is suffering from acid flashbacks all day, every day.  The Supreme Court decision didn’t do anything to affect your “struggle.”  Why?  Because the people shooting each other already have the guns and probably don’t even know what the Supreme Court is.  It’s not just the Aldermen who are nuts though; it’s also Mayor Daley.

‘You have to get the tools to the police,’ Daley said.

What tools?  How does requiring law-abiding citizens to leave the city to purchase a hand-gun, and then jump through ridiculous hoops to own one, constitute law-enforcement “tools?”  It’s nice to see though, that those voting for the Alderman are just as confused:

Some residents applauded the vote.

‘There’s just too much killing going on (and) we need protection,’ said Mary Fitts, a retiree who came from her home on the South Side to watch the vote. ‘You can’t even sit on your front porch.’

Ms. Fitts, the people doing the killing, and keeping you off your porch, aren’t those carrying their firearms card.   And it should be pretty apparent at this point that the police aren’t protecting you.  All Chicago’s ill-conceived law does is keep you from setting your gun next to you on your porch…where you stand a reasonably good chance of being hit with a stray bullet on a nice day.  Other restrictions:

• Limits the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibits residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

• Requires residents in homes with children to keep handguns in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks and requires residents convicted of a gun offense to register with the police department, much as sex offenders are now required to do.

• Prohibits people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

• Requires prospective gun owners to be fingerprinted, take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range.

• Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every registered handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

I wonder if the Supreme Court will analyze these restrictions in the same manner it reviews restrictions to abortion.  If it does (and it should), I have a feeling the overwhelming majority of the restrictions will be shot down…at least if the current make-up of the Court remains.  The most humorous part about the law (at least to me):

Those who have handguns, illegal under the ban, would have 90 days from the day the ordinance is enacted to register those weapons.

I’m not holding my breath that any of those gang-bangers, who had guns before the ban was deemed unconstitutional, will rush in to register them now…and get fingerprinted.

The thing that I find even more unconscionable than the new restrictions is the fact that cash-strapped Chicago is going to spend millions in tax-payer money over the next several years to defend them…and then raise taxes on its citizens to support the effort.  The Chicago government is, without question, the worst government in the country.

Liberals’ Budgetary Boondoggle

Don't forget who else came from Illinois...

Maybe I should amend my home page about why I became a conservative.  See, I was born and raised in Michigan, and its economy has been in the toilet even when the rest of the country was doing well.  Then I moved to California, which is now practically bankrupt.  Now I live in Illinois, which is even worse than California when it comes to fiscal discipline.  All three of these states are democratic hell-holes, and, not coincidentally, entitlement black-holes.  Spending on every human interest story and after-school special that held out its hand was able to be ignored when the economy was good.  Now that the economy continues to lag, the lunacy of the left is revealed.

A New York Times article today provides a revealing look at just how dependent we have apparently become on those government entitlements.  Illinois is currently $5.01 billion in the red.  Comptroller Dan Hynes states,

‘This is not some esoteric budget issue; we are not paying bills for absolutely essential services,’ he says. ‘That is obscene.’

Hynes is right–it is obscene.  But not because we aren’t paying for “essential services.”  The amount of money this state has committed to paying for practically everything is what’s obscene.  A goal of government has never been to become a major part of the economy.  Many complain about companies being “too big to fail,” but few complain about the government being too big to fail.  In addition to its own budgetary boondoggle, Illinois is also a microcosm of the federal government spending too much on too many so-called “essential services.”  Make no mistake, there are legitimate governmental functions out there that should be receiving tax dollars…but we’ve moved far past them.

Someone needs to run for office and actually take a stand against run-away government spending, instead of just saying it.  Someone needs to say no to the human interest stories.  Someone needs to remind this country of what it is, not what it has become.  Essential services don’t include public education.  They don’t include endless unemployment benefits.  They don’t include corporate subsidies.  They don’t include housing subsidies.  They don’t include this:

The Community Counseling Centers of Chicago is another of those workaday groups that are like the stitches on a baseball, holding together poor and working-class neighborhoods. With an annual budget of $16 million, the agency tends to families torn by crime and violence as well as people who are psychologically stressed and abusing drugs.

‘Two weeks ago, I had days to meet my $420,000 payroll and all I was looking at was a $200,000 line of credit from a bank,’ recalled [Chief Administrative Officer John] Troy.

$16 million a year?  For community center?  You don’t think that’s being mismanaged at all?  There are entire cities that run on that budget.  $420,000 in payroll?  Again, for a community center?  Now I know why our president was a community organizer.  Instead of implementing some sort of fiscal restraint years ago on programs like this, Illinois citizens in towns like Carbondale, many of whom have never even been to Chicago, are now having money taken out of their pockets for this $16 million per year monstrosity.  Why?  Because no one has the guts to  stand up to those who spit out the “these people need help” meme.

Legislators this year raised the retirement age and slashed benefits. Though changes apply only to future employees, the legislature claimed immediate savings.

“Savings upfront and reforms down the road,” said Mr. Hynes, the state comptroller. “It’s just bad habits and bad practices.”

I’m not exactly sure what Hynes is trying to say here, but Illinois’ problems go well beyond “bad habits and bad practices.”  Illinois, like California and Michigan, has placed an overwhelmingly heavy burden on the majority of the population for the benefit of the “those in need of help” minority.  Of course, since no one actually attempts to define who those people are, and what constitutes “need,” the government just throws more and more money at them.  Illinois’ budget disaster is largely the result of arbitrary determinations of need, made by those running for office.  That’s the exact opposite of good government.

More broadly, Illinois is caught between blue state convictions about social safety nets and a red state aversion to taxes. For years, the Democratic-controlled legislature has passed budgets that are, in effect, in deficit. Lawmakers routinely skip around the state’s balanced-budget law, with few consequences. (Republicans are near monolithic in voting against any tax increases and borrowings. When one broke ranks to try to keep the pension solvent, he was stripped of a committee position, reducing his pay and pension.)

This is where the New York Times goes from reporting the news to offering its opinions.  Illinois isn’t “caught between blue state convictions about safety social safety nets and a red state aversion to taxes.”  It’s caught between the corrupt political machine in Chicago, which is driven entirely by a small group of liberals, and the rest of the state.  And those monolithic Republicans?  The article fails to mention that they are in the perpetual minority in the Illinois legislature.  The implication that Republicans have some hand in the budget crisis is laughable.

Of course, the response of Mr. Hynes, as it is with all liberals, isn’t to cut spending…it’s to raise taxes.

‘Only the most delusional people think you can solve this without raising taxes,’ he said.

Well Mr. Hynes, and by extension, Mr. Obama, you’re delusional to think that raising taxes will improve anything.  We would still have government full of corrupt politicians who vote themselves raises and refuse to cut spending because it might cost them votes.  How much in governmental salary are you making Mr. Hynes?  How about Mayor Daley? Governor Quinn?   Before government employees, who are paid with my taxes, stick their hands in my pockets again, why don’t they do their part?

On this Fourth of July, remember that we don’t depend on the government, but it does depend on us.   Even better, remember it in November.  In the meantime, I will continue to pressure my wife into a new move…to South Dakota.

Daley reacts to SCOTUS decision by stomping feet and holding breath

In an effort to make sure that only criminals and his private security force can easily obtain fire arms, Chicago Mayor Daley vows to fight for his gun ban.

“As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops,” Daley said. “We are a country of laws not a nation of guns.”

The sheer amount of irony in that last sentence just made me spit coffee all over my computer screen.  While we may be a “nation of laws,” Chicago certainly isn’t…since it’s deemed itself a sanctuary city for the harboring of illegal immigrants.  And while I can’t speak to whether we are a “nation of guns,” I can say that, after the number of shootings in Chicago lately, The Second City certainly appears to have its share.

McDonald v. City of Chicago — SCOTUS finds Chicago gun ban unconstitutional

I can hear it now…”activist judges…radicals in robes…blah, blah, blah.”   The Supreme Court this morning ruled that Chicago’s gun ban, the strictest in the nation, is unconstitutional.  Many, including myself, considered this to be inevitable following the Supremes striking down Washington D.C.’s gun ban.  The only issue was whether the Second Amendment would be applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, like every other right set forth in the Bill of Rights has been.  While a no-brainer after the Washington D.C. case created the necessary precedent, the vote was nonetheless 5-4.

I’m sure Mayor Daley is in his office right now, with his bottle of Jameson’s and tears streaming down his cheeks.  He loved his gun ban.  I’ve never been real sure why–maybe a deal with the mob.  In recent years though, his position has become simply unsupportable given the number of shootings that have been occurring on the city’s outskirts daily.  If the thugs have the guns, why can’t we?

Gangs are over-running neighborhoods in the city and shooting anything and everything that moves.  That might be o.k. if Chicago was suffering from a bear problem; but when the bears are actually six year-olds playing outside at noon…or 2 a.m. (parents?), it usually turns out badly.  It might also be o.k. if the nanny-state was actually good at protecting its citizens, instead of simply cleaning up the mess.  Of course, the cops know who the gang-bangers are, but they aren’t allowed to go crack some heads like they used to do.  Now, maybe the law-abiding citizens can defend themselves…or at least create the illusion of doing so.

Lame.

Now if the Supreme Court would just rule that Illinois’ ban on me buying fun fireworks is unconstitutional due to it depriving me of happiness, I wouldn’t have to spend my entire Fourth of July figuring out how many snappers I had to tie together to  blow up a styrofoam cup.

The lunacy of the anti-gun left

Mayor Daley Threatens to Shoot the Messenger—Namely, Me

I read an interesting blog over my morning cup o’ joe by Mick Dumke at the Chicago Reader (I’ve linked the article above).  It presents Chicago king-pin, er, Mayer Daley discussing why Chicago’s gun ban is a good idea, and why pro-gun folks are nuts.  It includes a rather humorous exchange between Dumke and Daley that does an excellent job illuminating Daley’s insanity.

I’ve enjoyed watching Daley come to terms with the likely Supreme Court ruling that Chicago’s gun ban is unconstitutional.  Daley despises the “gun-rights” crowd and has always been proud of the ban.  I also think he honestly believes the ban makes Chicago streets safer, which is somewhat ironic, given Chicago’s skyrocketing murder rate.  Chicago was the murder capital of America in 2008, with 426 homicides, and has remained near the top of the list since.

I don’t think the police can be blamed for this, however.  There are only so many cops and their ability to “crack down” on known gang members is limited.  Of course, the job of the police isn’t necessarily to prevent crime, but to enforce the law after the crime occurs.  It is largely the community’s job to prevent crime, and the Chicago community has failed in this respect.  Also, Mayor Daley’s gun ban isn’t helping.  The criminals have guns, and they will continue to have them regardless of the law because, well, they’re criminals.  The law-abiding citizens of Chicago, on the other hand, don’t have them, and as a result, are relegated to bringing a knife to a gun fight.  Simply put, the gun ban is not only unconstitutional, it’s stupid, and fails to increase anyone’s safety.  Fortunately, it will likely be gone soon enough.