Author: admin

Well, at least they reported it…

CNN ran a recent story on a conservative activist, James O’Keefe, who secretly recorded democratic activists as they discussed how they worked to incite violence at Trump rallys. There is a link to the video in the CNN article; I recommend you take a peek for yourself. The two prominent players in the video are Robert Creamer and Scott Foval; they are well described in the story so I won’t repeat that here (read the story already…).

The DNC is now trying to distance itself, and is claiming that the taped conversations were “hypothetical” (which is truly funny, once you’ve seen the video), and that none of the schemes (their word, not mine) ever took place.

O.K., so here’s the funny part. From the CNN story:

“Donna Brazile, the interim DNC chair, said O’Keefe “is a convicted criminal with a history of doctoring video to advance his ideological agenda” and that the practices have nothing to do with long-term efforts by the group.”

Yes, it’s true: O’Keefe was convicted of the misdemeanor crime of entering a building under false pretenses. However, Robert Creamer, who is the husband of Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky and the head of a group called Mobilize contracted to the DNC, is also a convicted criminal. Again, from the CNN article:

“In 2005, Creamer pleaded guilty to tax violations and $2.3 million in bank fraud in relation to his operation of public interest groups in the 1990s.”

So, it seems Ms. Brazile believes it is not acceptable to be a conservative activist with a misdemeanor conviction, but it is OK to be a progressive activist working for the DNC with a felony conviction? Maybe it’s a job prerequisite…

In any event, the video shows how elections can be dishonestly manipulated. The deception and subversion tactics of the progressive left discussed in the video are disturbing, and are reminiscent of the activist and propaganda organizations operated under the Nazis during WWII (remember the brownshirts?).

Vote carefully; your future depends on it. And keep in mind that one day these “activists” might come after you!

Did you see that Unicorn?

Because they, like “temporary taxes”, don’t exist either…

Proposition 55 would extend “temporary” tax for 12 years

Note the slight of hand with respect to taxes for a “specific” purpose, such as in this case for education reform. Gov. Brown had stated that the tax collected “must go to the classroom and can’t be touched by Sacramento politicians.” However, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LGO) had found that only about half of the money went towards the education budget.

After all, it’s easy to circumvent such restrictions: just divert money from other funding sources back to the general fund. Here’s how that works:

Say you have a $100M budget for schools, but you need more money – both for schools and the general fund. No problem; pass a $100M tax bill ostensibly for schools only; then, stop providing 80M from the original school funding sources. Now the schools have 120M in funding ( 20M original and 100M school-only funds), and the balance saved of 80M goes back to the general fund. Presto-chango, Abra-cadabra, the money is now being spent on stuff you didn’t want to fund.

This works even if there is a clause in the tax bill that prevents reduction of school funding from current sources and levels. Since funding requirements increase each year (when was the last time they went down…), you provide those increases from the new tax revenue instead of from the general fund. Within a few years, the “school” tax money is back in the general fund and ready for government abuse.

Note, too, that the LGO predicted that state spending overall (not just for education) would increase as a result of this new tax – and it did. Never would have guessed that would happen…

 

Taking pictures = criminal charges

I had thought that this was already settled law. Apparently not.

A couple of people are filming border patrol officers working in plain view of the public. Legal, right? 1st amendment and all. But no; they are arrested and their pictures destroyed.

A district court has initially ruled that national security allows for abridging the 1st amendment. It’s before the Ninth Circuit now.

Askins v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security

Paid family leave

NPR is running a story on paid family leave, telling the sad story about how a father had no paid leave with which he could assist in raising his new child. These stories generally call for a government-mandated family leave program funded by a tax on earnings. However, I would argue that this is solely the fault of the parents, and their failure to properly prepare for a child should not result in additional laws and taxes.

The reality is that if someone chooses to have a child, their decision must (at least it used to…) involve some planning on the part of the parents to insure that sufficient funds, time, and services are available for *their* child. It is not the responsibility of the public to raise the children of individuals, and the public should not bear the cost.

Given that some planning is required, why then would these parents-to-be not simply save for a few years to make sure that sufficient funds are available for the necessary time off work? How would a government program – with substantial overhead and cost, that takes money out of our paychecks –  solve this problem any better than the parents simply saving the money themselves in preparation? And why are these “family leave” demands receiving such attention and traction in the media?

The answer is simple: the people most loudly calling for such “family leave” programs hope to gain more out of the system they put into it. This is the typical effect of such socialist programs; a redistribution of wealth to those unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. If this is what they want, then the government should tax them alone for the program (people having children). Let’s see how much traction a “paid family leave” program gets when the people asking for it realize that it is they who will have to pay for it, overhead and all.

Social media censorship

Scott Adam (of Dilbert fame) recently posted about how he had been “shadowbanned” by Twitter. This is when your tweets and replies are not visible to your followers, but not in a way that is obvious. It is a form of censorship forced on people whose ideas or opinions are at odds with those of the social media firm.

This method of speech suppression is of particular concern given the rise of social media as a means of exercising free speech. I understand the desire of these social media sites to maintain a PG-rated and “safe” environments, but when their censorship extends beyond such basic protection and into the realm of limiting political speech then I think they’ve gone too far; at that point they’ve become political advocates and should be treated as such. In many cases there are few if any options for reaching the digital masses without the use of an established social media “network”.

I’d love to hear legal opinions regarding such censorship tactics by Google (via limiting search hits), Facebook (by blocking content or specific political causes or candidates), and Twitter.

Immigration and border control

This is an example of why we need to control our borders:

US tried to deport refugee shot, killed by California police

I welcome immigrants coming to the U.S. via established, legal means. However, legal immigrants come to the U.S. with the understanding that if they fail to follow our laws then they will be deported. If their country of origin will not accept such deportees, then we should not allow immigrants from those countries. If necessary, we should leverage other international mechanisms (possibly trade and travel restrictions) to encourage countries to accept their deportees.

We are supposed to be a melting pot, not a dumpster.

Obamacare update

From a recent news item on Obamacare’s death-spiral:

As for rising premiums, many Democrats including presidential nominee Hillary Clinton favor offering a government public option that would compete directly with for-profit insurance companies.

“If a public option could bring premiums down, primarily by paying doctors and hospitals less and having lower overhead and no profit, that would lower federal government costs,” said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The only way for a “public” option to bring down premiums is for the government (that’s you and me) to subsidize premiums further. As for a public option having less overhead – well, “government efficiency” is an oxymoron.

Notice, too, that the supporter of this premise is a private insurer. Go figure.