Saturday, March 31, 2012

Pity the poor working chump

Fifty years' worth of war on poverty has produced little benefit, save for a few valuable lessons. For instance, we've learned about the valiant struggle the disadvantaged wage against capitalist oppression. The homeless, the hungry, and the downtrodden are victims of free market greed. But there's one participant in Washington's war on poverty who's routinely ignored, one whose plight the pointy-headed elites never champion: the working chump.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, a working chump isn't identified by their intellectual prowess but by their productivity. Their status ranges from the professional to the tradesman, the rich to the poor. Such people are driven to meet their own needs and become agitated when others shun that responsibility. While such productive people represent a
declining socioeconomic class, they are indispensable. The entitlement wagon is overloaded with passengers who favor the free ride. Did someone not pull that wagon, it would stall. No one would get what they need, much less what they want. Working chumps are the mules who pull the wagon.

Leftists promote entitlement programs as necessary to meeting essential human needs, and there's an element of truth in their position, for there are essential human needs. However, leftists omit a key fact. There exists no right to receive life's essentials at another person's expense.

Voluntarily contributing to a neighbor's well-being is charitable. Being forced to provide for another's needs is a form of servitude. How else can we describe someone who is forced to relinquish their property -- expressed as the return on their labor -- for their neighbor's personal benefit? Just as charity isn't a vice, forced contribution isn't charity, even when the needs of the "entitled" are life's necessities. How much more when entitlement extends from essentials to convenience?

Perhaps you've heard of Assurance Wireless? If not, it's a program that provides clients with 250 minutes of free cellular service each month. More talkative Assurance customers can receive 500 minutes for $5 a month, and 1000 voice minutes plus 1000 text messages for $20 a month. But there's a flaw: Assurance isn't free. Someone must subsidize the free or reduced rates. That someone is the working chump.

Assurance is funded through the federal Universal Service Fund (USF). Basically, the
USF is a tax that appears on phone and wireless bills. In theory, this tax is collected from communications companies to ensure affordable telecommunications services in remote or high-cost areas. In reality, customers pay the USF. Therefore, the working chump who pays the USF tax is subsidizing yet another welfare program.

Now, labeling Assurance Wireless a welfare program is a stern accusation, one in need of substantiation. Fortunately, confirming
evidence is readily available. Qualifying for Assurance is as simple as participating in an approved entitlement program: Medicaid, food stamps, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, public housing, free school lunch, or low income energy assistance programs. To coin an old phrase, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Likewise, when a program's qualifying criteria is participation in a welfare program, and the program's cost is covered or subsidized through government imposed taxes or fees, it's a welfare program.

The economy isn't technically in recession, but it's far from robust, causing many productive families to trim their budgets. One way to stretch their dollars is through no contract, or prepaid, cellular plans. While prepaid cellular options are sometimes limited, they are affordable. However, prepaid cellular customers work not only to maintain their limited services but also to provide the entitlement class with better cellular plans than they themselves can afford. Productive people are being played for chumps, working chumps. Count me in their number.

Successful cultures aren't built upon a premise where unproductive people have the right to necessity or convenience at another's expense. But more and more Americans perceive themselves entitled. Whether it's necessities like food and shelter or luxuries like cellular phones, working chumps continue to meet the demands of an ungrateful entitlement class.

The government, media, and intelligentsia are quick to defend those who ride in the entitlement wagon. Yet no one defends the working chump, whose productivity keeps that wagon rolling. But they can't pull the load forever. Someday the weight will become too great, and both the wagon and its riders will be left sitting by the side of the road.


This article first appeared at American Thinker: Pity the Poor Working Chump.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Obama is no Ron Paul

The Republican presidential nomination process is more than half complete, meaning Ron Paul's supporters must face a hard fact. Their candidate won't be the nominee. His delegate count is one-tenth that of Mitt Romney and only Maine has awarded Paul double-digit delegates. Even when Paul wins, he loses.

That's not to say Rep. Paul in inconsequential; he's not. But he has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as do the Pittsburgh Pirates of winning the 2012 World Series. So, where will Paul's supporters turn in the general election? Believe it or not, the Obama campaign believes it can court alienated Paulites, citing common ground on budget issues and foreign policy.

Whatever the Obama campaign is smoking must be good stuff. Had it been available at Haight-Ashbury, the Summer of Love would've lasted a decade. Give the President's advisors an "A" in spin, but the idea of Paul's supporters voting Obama is pure fantasy.

Rep. Paul pledged to cut $1 trillion from federal spending immediately upon taking office. He'd like to
repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish inheritance and capital gains taxes. Ron Paul might settle for auditing the Federal Reserve, but he'd prefer to eliminate it outright. And voters attracted to these fiscal positions will back Obama's reelection? Fat chance, Barry!

It's true that Candidate Obama preached fiscal restraint, criticized Bush's "unpatriotic" deficit spending, and promised budgetary discipline. His campaign rhetoric left spendthrift Republicans little room to criticize tax and spend liberalism. But President Obama is accumulating debt at a rate that makes "W" appear cautious. Three years into Obama's presidency we've increased debt from $10 trillion to $15.5 trillion, give or take a hundred billion. Trillion dollar annual deficits are the new normal. Welfare and food stamp participation has
risen, and Washington has seized control of the healthcare industry.

Obama and Paul are as far apart fiscally as the East is from the West. And the notion that Obama's foreign policies will appeal to Paul's base is even more far-fetched.

Ron Paul is non-interventionist to the point of being isolationist. On Paul's ideal plane there would be no appreciable U.S. military presence in the Middle East, Asia, or Europe. And we certainly wouldn't commit forces to wars that Washington exhibits no apparent interest in winning. For right or wrong Ron Paul would bring home the troops.

Obama is following the nation-building war strategy he once condemned. Yes, we've withdrawn from Iraq, but on a timetable determined before Obama took office. The mission in Afghanistan is muddled, American aircraft are bombing targets inside Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen, and the administration seems content to subvert congressional authority and seek
permission from NATO and the UN to intervene in Syria.

In terms of governing philosophy, Barack Obama is to Ron Paul what Karl Marx is to Thomas Jefferson. Only epic absurdity could prompt Obama's campaign to believe it can woo supporters from a man who is the President's ideological polar opposite.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Litigation is risky for Sandra Fluke

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) is one versatile individual. He proved his mastery of psychoanalysis when he diagnosed TEA Partiers as products of dysfunctional families. He's now issuing free legal advice to Sandra Fluke, urging her to sue Rush Limbaugh for "slander, libel, and whatever else might be involved."

A dangerous precedent is established when politicians openly promote lawsuits between citizens. Such misuse of governmental influence belies a key concept of American liberty, wherein government is compelled to consider everyone equally before the law. Hoyer's attitude drives an unnecessary wedge between the populace. While he's legally entitled to support Fluke, he's not ethically entitled to encourage civil litigation. He has compromised his office's integrity, violated the public's trust, and possibly led Sandra Fluke astray.

Hoyer's disregard for his responsibilities as a Congressman doesn't mean a defamation suit against Limbaugh has no merit. A libel attorney can highlight two reasons why Sandra is on solid legal ground. For starters, she's a private citizen victimized publicly by a powerful figure. Also, Limbaugh's disparaging remarks about her sex life established false statements of fact. But there are also flaws in this reasoning that could make litigation a risky path for Ms. Fluke.

Is Sandra indeed a private citizen? When an activist publicly presents their opinions as expert testimony before Congress in an attempt to influence a particular legislative outcome, that person has entered the public forum Rush Limbaugh. But her public activism renders her a public figure of sorts. Therefore, hiding from criticism behind libel law is in question.

What about the insults? Establishing Sandra as a public figure doesn’t open the season for character assassination.

That's true enough. However, a libel suit could be Sandra Fluke's undoing. Instigating legal action entails arguing the case before a judge and jury. Settling out of court for a cool million from the well-heeled Limbaugh would be a smart move. But taking the case to civil court, where sworn testimony is presented, opens a can of worms that's best left closed. Sandra Fluke's background becomes fair game in court, including her sex life. Don't think the Limbaugh defense team wouldn't try to prove Sandra the biggest tramp since Mata Hari.

Limbaugh can afford the highest flying legal eagles money can buy. They'll peek in every closet and look under every rock. Fluke's classmates, friends, and lovers -- from high school until now -- will be interviewed. The most damaging associates will be subpoenaed as witnesses for the defense. If Sandra Fluke is the least bit promiscuous we'll learn every intimate detail, right down to her favorite acts and preferred positions.

Public opinion favors Sandra today. But the goodwill goes out the window if court testimony proves her everything Limbaugh said she was. Her lawsuit will be lost, the potential windfall of an out-of-court settlement gone, and her public reputation legitimately besmirched.

That's the risk Sandra Fluke runs if she follows Steny Hoyer's advice. If she sues Limbaugh for libel and loses she'll appear even worse than Rush portrayed her. Maybe she should then sue Hoyer for bad legal counsel, and for attempting to build his political capitol at her expense.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

End of the line for "Maha Rushie"?

Public figures are bound to offend from time to time. Occasionally they'll stick their foot so far in their mouth they'll develop athlete's tongue. Enter Rush Limbaugh, who might need to brush his teeth with fast-acting Tinactin. If you missed it, Rush called Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke some unflattering names after she practically begged congressional Democrats to force Georgetown to meet her contraceptive demands.

The villain is, predictably, anyone who criticizes Sandra Fluke. But keep in mind that Fluke is no innocent bystander; she's a feminine activist. She knew full well that Georgetown didn't include contraceptives in student insurance plans before she enrolled. Sandra's an operative who used her private life to affect public policy, thus inviting criticism. Frankly, Ms. Fluke is symptomatic of the entitlement attitude that has infected our nation. She demands a benefit at someone else's expense and is willing to grovel at government's feet to get it. A freedom fighter she's not.

However, we don't really know Ms. Fluke's personal affairs, and not all women who use contraception work at the corner brothel. Rush should've chosen his words with more care. He since apologized, leaving everyone to decide for themselves whether he did so sincerely or to stem the
advertising exodus from the EIB network. But if anyone thinks this is the end of the line for the Rush Limbaugh Show, they're jumping the gun.

Conservatives support Rush because he publicly articulates their views on culture and government. As the fallout continues and they see advertisers, and a few radio stations, withdraw from the king of daytime radio a sense of panic on their part is normal. Despite Rush's apology the firestorm hasn't relented, prompting grave concern about Limbaugh's survival among his supporters.

Liberals, conversely, have indulged more fantasies about Limbaugh's demise than have teenage boys about Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. He's arrogant and uninformed, a colossal blowhard who must be silenced at all cost. In wake of his Fluke rebuke, leftwing
forums and message boards are joyously singing funeral dirges to the despised Rush Limbaugh.

Whichever side of that fence you're on, you're reacting prematurely. Controversy isn't new to Rush Limbaugh. He has faced it before and emerged stronger each time. Remember Donovan McNabb, and the phony soldiers? It turned out Rush was right on both topics. He survived drug addiction, hearing loss, the great Viagra airport bust, and failed marriages. Each was said to be his undoing. But he's still there, coast to coast, weekdays from noon to three Eastern Time.

Leftwing personalities have uttered far worse slurs toward conservatives than what Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke.
Bill Maher hosted two loons who fantasized about raping Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachman. Oh, what a laugh that was. Michael Moore produces nefarious propaganda on par with Leni Riefenstahl and wins an Oscar for his documentary. Al Franken became a Senator!

So, love him or hate him, get used to him. Limbaugh isn't going away.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Time to bury the birther theories

Once a conspiracy theory takes root nothing deters its adherents. Evidence contrary to the speculation is summarily dismissed as another brick in the conspirer's wall of secrecy. Thus, the plot thickens.

Now that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has released details questioning the birth certificate Obama produced last year, birthers could become revitalized. While Arpaio's findings aren't unique; they are fuel for smoldering embers. When Obama released his birth record, after excessive and suspicious stonewalling, the birther's questioned its authenticity. You knew it was coming. Computer images are easily doctored, thus birthers were wise to the cover-up, as they are now.

Leftists will satirize Arpaio's investigation as the mindless rants of a rightwing loon. However, since many prominent lefties still believe 9/11 was an inside job and that the 2000 election was stolen from Al Gore we can dismiss their ridicule out of hand. But that doesn't meant Arpaio's investigation will boot Obama from office ahead of schedule.

At this point it doesn't matter what Sheriff Joe learns. He can produce irrefutable proof that Barack Obama was born on the dark side of the moon and it won't matter. No one within the political structure -- conservative, liberal, Republican, or Democrat -- will touch this matter with a ten-foot pole, even if merited.

Imagine the fallout from finding that a sitting President isn't the President after all. Every bill Obama has signed, every executive order he has issued, would instantly be invalidated. Anyone incarcerated according to laws enacted under Obama's administration, or prosecuted by its Justice department, would have to be released. Every fine, fee, or hardship an individual or business has encountered must be compensated. Think any politicians would be willing to absorb that cost?

What's more, every act of foreign policy, including war, would result in an investigation of Obama. Since he wouldn't be Commander-in-Chief, his role in the Libya War and support for the Arab Spring would be illegal. His orders to kill Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki would amount to hired hits. Obama would instantly become an international war criminal based on his fraudulent assumption of Executive war powers. If that isn't enough, Barack Obama, lacking the authority to command troops, would be criminally accountable for every military casualty to have occurred on his watch, both friend and enemy.

We haven't even touched on the social aspects. You think racism charges against Obama's opponents are rampant now? Just wait until he's removed from office and charged with crimes punishable by death, based on the birther argument.

I'm no fan of Obama. But it's time we buried the birther movement. First, it's no more of a constitutional crisis than Washington's daily operations. Second, our political structure hasn't even the guts to reform the bankrupt entitlement system. Who could believe it will act on evidence Arpaio's investigation unearths, even if it's unassailable? Besides, it's better to beat Obama in November than rely on a conspiracy that's going nowhere.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Obama and the audacity of fairness

Genuine fairness conveys nothing more than the opportunity to use one's talents and ideas unhindered by legalized oppression. But that notion of fairness has changed. In fact, "fairness" has become one of the English language's most corrupt words.


Contemporary fairness is measured not in equality before the law, the opportunity to better oneself, or the absence of government persecution. It's determined in manipulated outcomes, income egalitarianism, and political correctness. We might say that fairness has evolved into a one-word oxymoron, especially when used by politicians like our current President.


For example, President Obama promised, "We can build a nation where . . . everybody plays by the same rules."


Well, what could be fairer? Who could oppose a society wherein everyone plays by the same rules, where there's no preferential treatment based on wealth, status, heritage, or the lack thereof? One of the key elements of a free society is the right of each citizen to pursue their happiness. This is possible only when a culture is based on the rule of natural law. But does President Obama support such a traditional version of fairness, where the law applies equally to everyone? Or does he have something else in mind.


The latter is most likely. As Jesus of Nazareth said, "by their fruits you shall know them." When it comes to everyone playing by the same rules, President Obama's fruit belies his rhetoric.


Shouldn't citizens of a representative republic enjoy access to their polling places free from racial or ethnic intimidation? They would if everyone played by the same rules. But under the Obama administration the subject of voter intimidation is selective. Obama's Justice Department would fully prosecute Ku Klux Klan members who position themselves outside a polling station, and rightly so. But when New Black Panther Party members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson employed bully tactics and brandished weapons outside a polling place no judicial review was warranted. In fact, the pending case against them was summarily dismissed.


Obama can't cite the equal application of justice to support his vision of a "nation where everybody plays by the same rules." He shouldn't look to energy either. While the administration has blocked the Keystone pipeline project it has poured taxpayer's money down several green energy rat holes. Rat holes like Solyndra and the Chevrolet Volt, where taxpayer dollars have gone up in smoke faster than a torpedo in a Cheech and Chong movie. What's more, a portion of those taxpayer funds came from traditional energy and auto producers and their employees, who were forced to subsidize failing competitors. Where's the fairness?


Economic regulation is another dead end for Obama's fairness doctrine. Certainly Boeing, Inc. wasn't treated like a company operating in a "nation where everybody plays by the same rules." Boeing built a factory in Charleston, SC to aid production of their 787 Dreamliner. But a political "unfairness" existed. South Carolina is a right-to-work state whereas Washington, Boeing's main facility, favors unionization. The National Labor Relations Board brought unfair labor complaints against Boeing, charges that were eventually dropped amid heavy criticism. Yet it's quite plain that the government's intent was to benefit organized labor, which is wholeheartedly in the tank for the Obama administration. Is that just a coincidence, or another example of the administration's fairness doctrine?


Productive Americans shouldn't expect fair treatment from Obama either. The administration continues to sing the tired refrain about "the rich" not paying their "fair share." In reality, productive people of all income levels bear the burden of a fundamental unfairness. Families who earned adjusted gross incomes of $32,306 and up in 2009 accounted for 98-percent of all income taxes paid. The "one-percenters" pay 36-percent of all collected income taxes. Yet an alarming number of our countrymen have become net beneficiaries of government's insatiable spending. When the productive subsidize the unproductive, how can the productive believe they live in a "nation where everybody plays by the same rules"?


Rather than a fortress of fairness, Barack Obama's administration has been, at best, a bag of dirty tricks. However, the administration's tactics are no real surprise. Obama's call for fairness perfectly fits the template common among collectivist politicians. Sell the notion that everyone will play according to the same rules and an uninformed populace will accept your doctrine without a shred of supporting evidence. Anyone who dares oppose the administration's dogma is summarily dismissed as selfish, heartless, and yes, unfair.


Barack Obama is unquestionably an audacious individual. But his isn't an audacity of hope; it's an audacity of fairness. Judging from the fruit Obama has borne to date, only the naïve and uninformed could expect to live in a nation where everybody plays by the same rules.


So now we're banning toy guns

Gun control activists built their anti-liberty agenda around a simple theme: Guns kill. Never mind that firearms -- like any weapon or tool -- can accomplish neither good nor evil without an operator. Firearms are so evil that children shouldn't even play with toy replicas. But banning toy guns is ridiculous, isn't it? Not so fast.

In Michigan, toy guns have apparently replaced the so-called assault rifle as the criminal's weapon of choice. Republican Senator Rick Jones explained, "People are taking imitation guns that look real, cutting off the orange end and then threatening people." But do criminal acts with toy mock-ups warrant a ban? Quite the contrary, it would seem a reason to further liberalize right-to-carry laws. Toy gun toting gangbangers will think twice before pointing airsoft pistols at people who might be sporting the genuine article.

Gun control advocates will argue that armed citizens prompt criminals to use real guns, escalating the danger. Yet criminals already have that option. So why do they choose toy guns? Modifying toy guns is cheaper than obtaining real ones, and using them carries a lesser sentence upon conviction.

If S.B. 779 becomes law, brandishing a modified toy gun would be punishable by up to 18 months in prison. Why only 18 months, and why aren't such offenders treated as armed criminals now? The perpetrator who misrepresents a toy gun as the real McCoy is selling the threat, not the gun. Since the intimidating affect is real to the victim, the threat is the same as if a real gun were used. And should the victim unlimber their own firearm and kill the perpetrator their act would be just as much self-defense as if the perpetrator's gun were genuine. What's more, the aggressor would be just as dead.

Such a law is ambiguous, too. Jacksonville, FL police killed a robber who confronted them with a modified toy gun. But San Jose, CA officers appear to have overreacted when faced with a toy gun. Regardless the situation, no one finds joy in wounding or killing another person. But does either shooting validate criminalizing the possession of a modified toy? In the first example the robber received exactly what he requested. Thinning the herd, it's called. Why shed tears on his behalf? In the second incident, officers perceived a danger. But the gun wasn't presented in a threatening manner. Why should the wounded man face charges?

Rather than criminalizing toy guns for lacking orange muzzles we should recognize violent behavior for what it is and treat it accordingly. The last thing we need is another impotent gun law.

When one person threatens another the real crime isn't the presence of a gun, whether genuine or imitation. The crime is the aggressor's attempt to gain advantage through the threat of bodily harm, or even death. The criminal is telling the victim that their right to life and property exists only at the criminal's discretion. Isn't that crime's true nature?

Friday, March 2, 2012

So now we're banning toy guns

Gun control activists built their anti-liberty agenda around a simple theme: Guns kill. Never mind that firearms -- like any weapon or tool -- can accomplish neither good nor evil without an operator. Firearms are so evil that children shouldn't even play with toy replicas. But banning toy guns is ridiculous, isn't it? Not so fast.

In Michigan,
toy guns have apparently replaced the so-called assault rifle as the criminal's weapon of choice. Republican Senator Rick Jones explained, "People are taking imitation guns that look real, cutting off the orange end and then threatening people." But do criminal acts with toy mock-ups warrant a ban? Quite the contrary, it would seem a reason to further liberalize right-to-carry laws. Toy gun toting gangbangers will think twice before pointing airsoft pistols at people who might be sporting the genuine article.

Gun control advocates will argue that armed citizens prompt criminals to use real guns, escalating the danger. Yet criminals already have that option. So why do they choose toy guns? Modifying toy guns is cheaper than obtaining real ones, and using them carries a lesser sentence upon conviction.

If
S.B. 779 becomes law, brandishing a modified toy gun would be punishable by up to 18 months in prison. Why only 18 months, and why aren't such offenders treated as armed criminals now? The perpetrator who misrepresents a toy gun as the real McCoy is selling the threat, not the gun. Since the intimidating affect is real to the victim, the threat is the same as if a real gun were used. And should the victim unlimber their own firearm and kill the perpetrator their act would be just as much self-defense as if the perpetrator's gun were genuine. What's more, the aggressor would be just as dead.

Such a law is ambiguous, too. Jacksonville, FL police
killed a robber who confronted them with a modified toy gun. But San Jose, CA officers appear to have overreacted when faced with a toy gun. Regardless the situation, no one finds joy in wounding or killing another person. But does either shooting validate criminalizing the possession of a modified toy? In the first example the robber received exactly what he requested. Thinning the herd, it's called. Why shed tears on his behalf? In the second incident, officers perceived a danger. But the gun wasn't presented in a threatening manner. Why should the wounded man face charges?

Rather than criminalizing toy guns for lacking orange muzzles we should recognize violent behavior for what it is and treat it accordingly. The last thing we need is another impotent gun law.

When one person threatens another the real crime isn't the presence of a gun, whether genuine or imitation. The crime is the aggressor's attempt to gain advantage through the threat of bodily harm, or even death. The criminal is telling the victim that their right to life and property exists only at the criminal's discretion. Isn't that crime's true nature?