When did we allow His Excellency to change us into an autocracy?

I spent a good portion of Thursday away from my computer. Car troubles can do that to a person’s free time. As the early afternoon gave way to the end of the school day, I suddenly got a text message from my writing partner here at Freedom Cocktail asking where I’ve been all day?

He didn’t mean in the physical world. Like me, he could not care less where my actual body was located. After all, he is in Detroit (Oh, bless his heart — if you are from the South, you understand the meaning) and I’m in Atlanta (well, just North of it).

He wanted to know how I could have been so silent in the world of social media? Not one Facebook update. Not one tweet. All while the social media verse was exploding with responses to the President’s latest attempt to apply a tourniquet to the severed artery known as Obamacare (for those featured on late night television, the Affordable Care Act, which is the same thing).

health-overhaul-obamajpeg-0954b_s640x427Even though I didn’t have the time to post anything until I was parked in the line of vehicles at car-rider pickup, I had been able to listen to the presser. I heard the President take to the lectern and vie for sympathy by opening his press conference with words about the devastation in the Philippines. It appeared he was trying to create a foil to play against the real reason he had called members of the press to the White House. It’s as if he was trying to convey, in the least condescending way possible, that in the grand scheme of the universe, the pain, suffering and frustration felt by Americans affected by the “unintended” consequences of the Affordable Care Act was really insignificant when compared to the real tragedy unfolding halfway around the world. I could almost hear the words, “My subjects, I know how difficult you think things are but let me assure you, the real difficulty goes to the people of the Philippines. But, because I know you are more worried about your own lives than those affected by the typhoon, I am going to try to do something for you.”

I am referring to his decision to ask insurance companies to let folks keep their current plans — well, at least for a year. On the surface, it sounded like an acceptable solution, if only temporary, for the millions losing their current coverage.

What I noticed immediately was the unilateral edict being given to insurers to basically ignore the law. President Barack Obama’s announcement amounted to a grant to insurance companies to keep offering plans that would otherwise be canceled due to the mandates of the Affordable Care Act. Said another way, he was telling the insurance companies that it was okay to ignore, for a year, the regulations that had been enacted by the law. He even intimated that the extension might last longer if problems still persisted. At the same time, Obama made it very clear that he would continue to fight ongoing attempts to nix the entire program, saying, “I will not accept proposals that are just another brazen attempt to undermine or repeal the overall law and drag us back into a broken system.”

An ironic choice of words, considering the solution he was offering. Remember when others tried to make the case that it was Obamacare that would end up broken?

Let’s look back just a few weeks ago when Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, who were being ostracized by a majority of Congress, were fighting with all their might to either defund or delay the Affordable Care Act. Ted Cruz mounted an epic 21+ hour floor speech, detailing all of the damage he believed would come to pass if the law were to go into full effect on October 1. He talked about the millions who would lose their coverage and the spike in premiums that millions more would soon face. Congressman on both the left and the right (let’s call them the entrenched establishment) derided their efforts as meaningless and dangerous. Senator John McCain even went so far as to call Ted Cruz a “wacko bird” for his attempts to draw attention to the perils of Obamacare.


In a blog released at the time, I satirized the Affordable Care Act and then dovetailed it into an explanation for why Ted Cruz chose to carry out his pseudo-filibuster. It wasn’t about winning at that point in time — it was about giving Americans the time necessary to start to question the efficacy of the Act itself. For 21 hours, most of the media outlets from around the world were reporting on his efforts, and though many took on a disparaging tone, the old saying goes that no press is bad press.

The Affordable Care Act, let’s remember, was passed at the 11th hour on Christmas Eve in 2009, using a parliamentary trick called reconciliation. Not one single Republican in either the House or Senate voted for the legislation. In poll after poll since it’s passage, the law has never received a majority of support from the American people. But, the trumpeters of its merits, from the President, to Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, to former Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, all vowed that the law would lower premiums for everyone and for those who were happy with their coverage, it would not affect them at all.

Fellow democrats happily picked up this mantra and regurgitated it over and over in one stump speech after another. It was the old saying that if you repeat a lie long enough, and if it was big enough, people would believe it. In fact, Human Events just published a list of every Democrat who heralded the same or similar talking points without ever, so it seems, reading the law for themselves. And now they are running for political cover while trying to “walk back” their previous rock-solid positions.

And when Senator Ted Cruz’s time was up, many of the politicians who ran on the promise to “do whatever it took to repeal Obamacare,” played a parliamentary game themselves called cloture. In so doing, these establishment Republicans could literally say to their constituents that they had voted against the funding of Obamacare, when, in point of fact, by voting for cloture, they knew their vote to defund would be meaningless.

As my partner at Freedom Cocktail has written about extensively of late, the GOP is rife with politicians who are willing to say anything to make you believe they are conservative, but will actually do whatever it takes to retain their elected office, regardless of their campaign promises. Here we are, just over a month since the stand made by Senator Cruz, and now the same Congressmen who derided his efforts are calling for the very repeal they disparaged. Even John McCain ran to the first available microphone after the President’s press conference to  declare that Congress needed to do whatever they could to repeal this disastrous law.

mccain-wacko-birdTo the honorable senator from the great state of Arizona, and to the others who are jumping on the politically expedient bandwagon, where were you when you voted for cloture instead of against it? Where was your righteous indignation and intestinal fortitude when the odds were not in your favor? Where was the vim and vigor of the consummate warrior, fighting for the ideals of liberty and freedom, when the polls didn’t seem to be on your side? You are all a disgrace and should be ashamed to now pretend to hold the very flag of liberty that you were afraid to touch just a month prior.

But, before I forget my place, there is more to this story than just the machinations of the establishment, doing and saying whatever is necessary to curry the favor of their constituents when reelection draws nigh. Let’s get back to the President himself — the man who swore to the American public that if they liked their insurance, they could keep it, period.

Remember this talking point, uttered non-stop during the government shut down: it’s the law of the land? Every member of the Democrat party that could grab a sound bite made sure to vomit this very line over and over again incessantly to a mainstream media, who were all too ready to play those clips non-stop to their audience. Now, a scant 30 days later, the President of the United States has taken it upon himself to tell the underwriters of every health insurance company that he will allow them to break that very law for at least a year. Maybe more.

Let me repeat that in case you missed this little nugget of autocratic rule.

Our President, the man who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, is saying that he will allow a sub-set of the American population to ignore the very law he championed because it would help his poll numbers and the reelection chances of 13 Democrat Senators who are terrified they may lose their offices in the 2014 midterm elections. The Chief Executive of the land, whose job it is to execute and follow the laws passed by Congress, is saying he has the power to tell his citizens that they are allowed to break the law because he said it’s okay.

At what point have we abdicated our Republic and chosen the path of a monarch? Where in the Constitution does it allow for the Executive branch to decide which laws it deems acceptable and those it determines can be ignored? What is the point of the legislature if the President can make or repeal laws on a whim? What need is there for a judiciary when one person can decide, on his own, the efficacy of any law duly passed by Congress? Even Howard Dean, former chair of the DNC and former democratic candidate for president asked if Obama had the legal authority to pass the fix he declared in his press conference on Thursday.

This massive piece of legislation is falling apart on its own weight and bringing millions of Americans down with it. The immediate reaction is to jump in and do something to help.

Let me suggest that we step back and recognize that the words of Senator Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are coming to pass. Obamacare is a nightmare and a disaster and we are only just seeing the beginning of the ramifications of this liberal Holy Grail. President Obama has stated repeatedly that he will never repeal the law, even though he seems more than willing to ignore pieces of it as is beneficial to him and his party.

The Affordable Care Act is a terrible law, period (to use the same word uttered by the President when touting the law). It was passed without a single Republican vote. I would heartily suggest that it remain in the sole province of the Democrat party. If the GOP is finally ready to adopt the principles of smaller government, fiscal responsibility and a return to both state’s rights and the rights of the individual, then a good start is to step back and let the Democrats own both the law and it’s outcome.

It’s been said many times before, when your opponent is committing political suicide, get out of the way. Don’t offer to save them. This albatross hangs around the necks of Barack Obama and every single Democrat that voted to pass the law into existence. It is theirs. They own it.

The only involvement that should be allowed by the GOP is in participating for the vote that fully repeals this abomination. Anything else would be folly.

But, if history serves, the Republicans will bend themselves over backward to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, all while bowing to the new autocracy they purport to be against.

I hope I’m wrong.

All or Nothing?

Rand Paul said, “I’m not a Libertarian.”
Rand Paul said, “I’m a Libertarian Republican.”
Rand Paul said, “I’m a Constitutional Conservative.”

He said all these things on May 10, 2013 at a luncheon with several evangelical pastors in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He made it rather clear he wasn’t a Libertarian when he advised he was not in favor of ending the Drug War, that he was more in favor of a “Virtuous Society” with people practicing “Self Restraint.” Damn. Doesn’t it seem we, Ron Paul fans, got suckered by the Son? Doesn’t first glance suggest the Filibuster was a stunt? Maybe.

Rand Paul hasn’t quite practiced small government all the time. He voted in favor of sanctions against Iran. And he said that 900 US military bases worldwide was a lot but made it clear, he wouldn’t make reducing foreign intervention a priority. Regarding marriage, Senator Paul advised he thinks it’s a mistake to support a federal ban on gay marriage because they are going to “lose” that debate right now. So he’s not in favor of gay marriage. He just doesn’t think it’s a winning battle right now. Finally, the ultimate insult, was that for the 2012 presidential election, he cast his lot for Mitt Romney. NOT for his own father, who is very Libertarian.

All the offenses listed above could confirm what we Libertarians have been saying for years. That Republicans always campaign like Libertarians but end up governing like Democrats. All, except the elder Paul. But Rand Paul did filibuster until Attorney General Holder confirmed, in writing, that the President does not have the authority to kill non-combative Americans on American soil with armed drones. He is also in favor of term limits, reductions in taxation and in favor of gun rights (right to self-defense). And despite recently telling his evangelical audience that they’d lose the battle right now on gay marriage, in an earlier interview, he advised that despite being in favor of traditional One Man/One Woman marriage, he would rather the federal government remain neutral on the subject as it’s a subject more for the States. This is very Libertarian: I tolerate your life choices and; in turn, you tolerate mine.

So what are we to make of him? It’s clear and he knows it, he’s not a Libertarian. But it’s also clear but doesn’t know it, he’s not a Constitutional Conservative. The Drug War, the vast foreign meddling, those are very non-Constitutional policies. Perhaps he’s using the term as a buzz word, an ear catcher to the Tea Party that supported him from the beginning. He is, at best, correct that he’s a Libertarian Republican. Senator Paul cherry picks from both platforms. I suspect as the 2016 presidential election approaches, we’ll hear Senator Paul continue to use the words, “Libertarian”, “Republican”, “Constitution” and “Conservative”. Consider Rand Paul a connection-point between four political views. Like the one corner that the States Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico share, Rand Paul sits right there as the thread holding said political views together.

Some of my colleagues in the Libertarian Party are cautioning it’s members from supporting Senator Paul. They argue, a half-assed (small L) libertarian isn’t worth our vote. We should only vote for candidates that support the complete return to the limits of the Constitution. We should only support Libertarian candidates who run from the Libertarian Platform under the LP Banner. But I say, let’s think about that.

By the 2016 presidential election, I will have put in twenty-years of campaigning (directly and indirectly) for the Libertarian Party. And despite my efforts and the extraordinary efforts of members better qualified and dedicated than myself, we’re still clocking in at around 1% of the presidential vote. There are reasons for this. Check out the link and come back to this post. It appears we’ve been so far away from freedom, we don’t know how to get back. Maybe instead of an All or Nothing philosophy, we need to take steps. And saying this, even entertaining it gently, makes me cringe. But I’m ready to try something different.

I’ll say it again, we are so far away from the simplicity of a Constitutional government, even gradual, small steps are gratifying. It’s working for drugs. Medical marijuana is popular and States are passing favorable laws more often. Washington and Colorado voted in favor of legalization of small amounts of marijuana, having nothing to do with medicinal purposes. As people see the sky isn’t falling, more legalization will occur. The end of illegal plants is coming to an end. Isn’t this considered a victory?

In my home state, Michigan, riders of motorcycles were recently allowed to decide for themselves if they wanted to wear helmets. Instead of government mandates, the rider is now allowed to make his/her own safety decisions. That step, once the sky doesn’t fall, could lead to relaxed mandatory seat belts and air bags. Yes?

An All or Nothing stance may never get us where we want to be. I hesitated several times writing those words. Forever and a day, until today, I was an All or Nothing Libertarian. But it isn’t working. A candidate like Rand Paul is still worthy. Much better than, say, a John McCain. Some Libertarian is better than No Libertarian. Right now, I think Rand Paul is our best bridge. It took a Nirvana to bridge Metal and Punk fans.

Harry Browne once took a question on his radio show where the questioner wondered if we could even remove the Post Office from the Constitution now that we have private delivery companies like FedEx and UPS. Mr. Browne advised that we were so far away from the Constitution we needed to get back to at least the Constitution before we hacked further. This, is sound to me.

Right now, as much as I want ALL of the Libertarian Platform, a candidate like Rand Paul could be our medical marijuana. He’s worth continuing to support and look at. I say support and look at. If he falls further from the Tree of Liberty, then by all means, let’s dump him. But right now, I think he deserves a continued admiration for not giving in everywhere.

A final thought on All or Nothing. Ask a cancer patient (me) if chemotherapy and radiation reduction of a tumor is better than waiting for a complete cure. They won’t complain if the tumor is still there. But they’ll dance and sing when the bloated bastard shrinks.

Senator Rand Paul. Kill This Hog!

We had this Sequester thingy. Yet despite this humble, meek downsizing of government funding, John Kerry lunched with Egypt’s ignoramus Muslim Brotherhood and handed over $250 million US dollars. Then we read that the Obama Administration wanted to make the Sequester “hurt” to give a black eye to the Republican Party. Well the fact is, our government has been pissing around money for decades, playing political football with all kinds of programming.

Every year, the good people at Citizens Against Government Waste, spend their warm summers and cold winters, combing through proposals and bills before Congress. The objective is to review for Pork. CAGW didn’t choose the word. It’s been with us for awhile.

Don’t know why we settled on the word “Pork”. Tasty, yummy pork. I mean, here’s the first definition at Merriam-Webster: The fresh or salted flesh of swine when dressed for food. My mouth starts watering at salted (and this is coming from a Morrissey worshipper). How did this word come to mean the second definition: Government funds, jobs, or favors distributed by politicians to gain political advantage. Maybe it goes back to the Bible, where the Hebrews were prohibited from eating the pig because it was thought to be a filthy animal. Okay, that makes sense. Moving on.

The first I heard of the CAGW was in the late 90s. And I bought their Pig Book in 1999. Here are some entries:

  • $3,354,000 for shrimp aquaculture.
  • $500,000 for research at North Carolina State University on the impact of pfiesteria.
  • $1,470,000 to begin planning for the marine mammal research and education center at the National Energy Laboratory.
  • $19,600,000 for the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) in support of the Anglo-Irish Accord.
  • $4,250,000 for the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
  • $2,000,000 for the Guadalupe Cener in Kansas city for training in culinary arts.
  • $475,000 for Women’s World Cup Soccer.
  • $100,000 for improvements in accessibility and safety to the Black World History Wax Museum in St. Louis.
  • $1,000,000 for the Animal Waste Management Consortium through the U. Of MO for projects associated with animal waste.
  • $500,000 for the Boston Symphony Orchestra for restoration of the Boston Symphony Hall.
    Ad nauseum…

When I found it on my bookshelves and flipped through it again with 2013 eyes, what first hit me was how small these numbers were. Here we are, about fourteen years later, and I’ve been conditioned to hearing billions. It seems like government does nothing less than a dollar sign followed by ten digits. So I wondered if I had false memories.

Checking in with the CAGW website, they are kind enough to publish online, a summary of the Pig Book. And here are some entries for 2012:

  • $120,000,000 for three earmarks of $40,000,000 each for alternative energy research within the Air Force, Army, and Navy. (Hilarious if you consider an aircraft carrier is never, ever, never done ever, gonna run on solar).
  • $50,000,000 for the National Guard for Counter-Drug Program state plans.
  • $13,840,000 for hydropower construction.
  • $3,388,000 for national fish hatchery system operations.
  • $5,000,000 for abstinence education.
  • $2,094,000 for the Asia Foundation, which is “committed to the development of a peaceful, prosperous, just, and open Asia-Pacific region.” (With Kim Jong-un getting testier as of late, I’d say we’re not getting our monies worth).

Although the numbers weren’t in the billions, it’s interesting to note two things:

1) My memory serves correct; in that, our government has continued to piss away money on the most Unconstitutionally-authorized projects.

2) My memory serves poor; in that, the money spent in 2013 is similar to 1999. What has changed is that there are more pet projects than 1999. And that explains the huge federal budget.

Granted the above examples are not apples to apples. It’s not entirely common to have, say, $4,250,000 for the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area happen again. The point is that the federal government continues to spend our tax dollars on pet projects or, at best, what should be local (State/City) endeavours.

In Fourteen-years, the federal budget has grown by trillions. It’s an increase in garbage spending, and increased in exploits and plundering. None/most of the activity is not authorized by the Constitution. How do they get away with it? I think it’s because the same two parties have been in power for decades. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Remember John McCain’s ultimatum, during the scandals of steroid use in Professional Baseball? He gave the Major Leagues an Old West Get it together or I’m pulling this piece of mine. * This pretty much shows a we’ll do whatever the hell we want attitude. A dangerous attitude. A dangerous old curmudgeon.

So it’s time for a change. A change of the old guard. A change from an incumbent, members-only club. If you want to see the pork go away, you have to start voting for groups and/or individuals who want to do that. It’s why I vote Libertarian often.

The story doesn’t end there. I’m not rolling credits yet. There is a New Hope. It’s kinda like Episode IV in Republican circles these past few weeks.

It used to be that we, Libertarians, would smirk and wince come election season. We’d see Republican candidates campaigning, using libertarian language, and selling themselves as small-government politicians. But then they’d get into office and trash the place. Like teenagers with new licenses, back seats full of buddies and a party to get to, we knew it wouldn’t end well and probably cost a lot of money in damages. But two Republicans have caught our Libertarian eyes which has this Libertarian not yet ready to throw in the towel.

Libertarians are no stranger to Ron Paul. He ran under our banner for president in 1988. But then switched to the Republican Party for reasons of his own (I don’t know why). But he’s gone now. He quit Congress and went back home. But a new Paul rises.

In 2010, we saw the election of Ron’s son, Rand Paul, to the US Senate. He serves for the State of Kentucky. And so far, he hasn’t disappointed me (he did, however, endorse Mitt Romney for president in 2012 which made me go all wide-eyed for a bit but I forgive him). Senator Paul’s thirteen-hour filibuster was a grand way to make him a household name and I don’t believe it was a publicity stunt. He truly believed an answer was needed to the question on whether or not the President could use drones to kill American citizens on American soil. It was a proud moment to watch a Senator, who calls himself a Republican, act like it. I also saw a number of other liberty minded Republicans join Senator Paul on the Congressional floor. When Marco Rubio quoted Jay-Z and the Godfather to President Obama, oh wow.

That evening, I didn’t go to bed early. It was a great thing to see a sitting Senator and comrades, for once, demanding the president answer a question that wasn’t about a mystery stain on a clerk’s dress.

Senator Rand Paul has lit a fire, a burning towards liberty and away from big government. If the Republican Party can run with it, find their way again (it’s what they claim to be about) I might call them friends again. I might Like them on Facebook. I might occasionally Tweet GOP goodness. And I might proudly vote for them in future elections.

Senator Paul, Kill this Hog! We, at Freedom Cocktail, Stand with you!

* McCain’s sour notes over the triumph of Rand Paul shows that he really is like Ferris Bueller’s sister.

And now, let’s check in and see what Congress is up to…yep, same shit.


Sequester is Worth 18 Points…and That’s About It



Government is going to cut some spending.

And the word for it is…


Doesn’t that sound great?


What? Government is going to cut spending? And you’re telling me they’re doing nothing to stop it?

Say it with me:


How often do you hear that the government isn’t going to spend money or increase funding? I know, right? But coming in a couple of days (March 1st, 2013) that’s exactly what’s going to happen. And it’s to the tune of $85 billion dollars. Ahhhhhhhhh, $85 billion dollars unspent.


After wrapping my head around this stunning revelation and watching thirty or forty Harlem Shake videos, I admitted this is really going to happen. Spending is going to get cut, by default, on March 1st, and the Executive and Legislative branches are greeting it with a yawn. Wow.

So what are we looking at? What’s getting cut? Apparently, we’re looking at cuts of a few thousand vaccinations for children, some food safety inspections will be missed, millions of meals won’t get to seniors. Let’s see, what else? Education is on the chopping block. Thousands of kids are expected to no longer be eligible for Head Start. I hear unemployment benefits will be cut (why is unemployment or disability checks referred to as “benefits”?) And a reduction in defense spending too. If Tom Cohen of CNN is to be believed, he writes, “The forced cuts were written into law in 2011 to be intentionally indiscriminate so that legislators would compromise on an alternative instead of allowing them to take effect.” You do realize, dear reader, that this means these specific programs were chosen to be used as political footballs. If true, this means these cuts were never meant to be cut but were used as a calculated financial threat to force members of Congress to play nice. Money allocation is a pig skin in Washington. Programs are created or cut based on what is best for political gain. NOT what is valuable. My thought is, doesn’t this mean none of these programs are valuable since they’re being walked across a fraying tight-rope without a net? Maybe.

It’s more likely we’ll see no reduction in government spending at all. Most of the $85 billion in cuts doesn’t take affect for a few weeks or months. This means March 1st is a false deadline. The delay gives Congress more time and a second, third, fourth or umpteenth chance to vote to raise spending in the future. Plus, most of the $85 billion comes from the Discretionary Budget. The Discretionary Budget is funded on an annual basis. So Congress can wait as long as it wants and jack up the spending practically any time it wants. Note that the federal budget has grown and is projected to grow well into the future. What is cut now may/will find a pay raise later leaving some programs with a larger share of the pie than before the Sequester. This is really a non-issue. So don’t cheer or cry about the Sequester. It’s a fear tactic.

There is only one way to change this revolving door. Get the government out of everything it’s not supposed to be involved in. This way, it can no longer hold education, health, or whatever else it wants to take hostage. It will no longer abuse programs and services that the public needs.

We have to get the government out of every issue it does not belong in. Allowing it to do so turns it into Orwell’s worst nightmare and puts the United States on a path to feudalism, where those with power dictate what’s best for those outside it’s cherished walls.

In 2004, when John McCain threatend to use, “…government intervention if baseball owners and players (didn’t) agree on a stricter steroid-testing program…”, it was pretty clear right there that the government could stick it’s nose into anything it wanted to. And, it could kick your ass any damn way it pleased if you didn’t comply.

Take a look at the Congressional Enumerated Powers. Did ya? It’s not much, is it? (Originally I intended on doing a copy/paste of the Powers to force a reading but, eh, if you’ve come this far, you’re probably willing to click the link and come back). And now that you’ve read it, I ask, did you read anything saying, “To Provide hot lunches to school children”? Or, “To Regulate your toilet bowl to only 1.6 gallons of water per flush”? Or, “To Prohibit the use of marijuana and Twinkees”? No. Why? I guess the Founding Fathers had no idea what a Twinkee was. But sarcasm aside, Powers like these were not meant to be federal issues. Anything outside of the Enumerated Powers were left up to the States (See the 10th Amendment).

Government fails at anything other than protecting the Rights and Property of the people. * It isn’t designed to provide programs and services. Let me stress it again: Government, good government, exists to engage in the protection of Rights and Property. Anything else becomes politicking (as we’re seeing with the programs in this Sequester due to take affect in a couple of days).

Imagine if Taco Bell got into the cell phone business. Imagine a Taco Bell division geared towards the R&D of cellular technology. You can’t, can you?

Imagine Sears & Roebuck getting into the hamburger business. You can’t, can you?

Imagine Barnes & Noble (my favorite place to be) deciding it was going to manufacture and service farming equipment. You can’t, can you?

Imagine I will be making this argument on my death bed. You can, can’t you?

The reason the above noted businesses aren’t engaging in such behavior is because their business model is not set up for it. Consider government the same way. It has a business model – The Constitution. And The Declaration of Independence is the Mission Statement.

Let’s get back to that and there will no longer be valuable programs held hostage over political disputes. The free market will reign where programs come and go based on customer demand and service provided. Not because one congressman wants to teach another a lesson on humility.

The best reason to let the Sequester go through was summed up by the CNN Washington Bureau and they probably didn’t even realize they gave it. They wrote, “Most Americans will feel the impact of forced budget cuts when their lives intersect with government”. Good. Less government is good government. Let the Sequester begin.



S.e.q.u.e.s.t.e.r gets you 18 Scrabble points. 18 X 3 (for the three branches of the federal government) equals 54. 54 plus 34 points from the name of “Barack Hussein Obama” makes 88 points. Now subtract the three branches of government and you get 85. Ta da! It wouldn’t surprise me at all if this is how the 85 in $85 billion was reached. Nancy Reagan used to consult an astrologer.


If only it could last. But sadly, like the Harlem Shake, it’s pure joy for only about thirty-seconds.

* Regrettably, because the government has stepped so far out of bounds from it’s purpose, the protection of Rights and Property, it is somewhat secondary and corrupting to the point where it’s not even capable of doing that any more.