War on Sale

If a leader were foolish enough to want to encourage a tactical-weapon attack upon their country, what would such a leader do? Well, they would essentially put war on sale, by lowering the cost to the aggressor. On the other hand, if one wanted to discourage any sort of attack upon itself, one would keep all options on the table for retaliation, and would make that policy known to all the world, repeatedly. They would reinforce the high cost of such a mistake.

Well, President Obama has issued a revision to our policy for nuclear weapons use, clarifying that we will not resort to nukes when attacked by a non-nuclear aggressor. So you decide: is he discouraging attack, or encouraging it?

Now, you might say that those foolish enough to attack the U.S. wouldn't be the sort to worry about retaliation anyway. Nukes or no, they would attack regardless. So then Obama's policy change brings no benefit. It brings only increased risk, and unnecessarily. Risk that is upon his head.

The Unsavory Side of Chicago

I enjoy Chicago-style hot dogs. Yum! Jam 'em down. Chicago-style pizza? Double-yum! Jam it down. Chicago Jazz, and Chicago architecture? You bet! Eat that stuff up.

...But then there's Chicago-style politics, as has been on full display in that past few weeks, pushing this abomination of legislative slop. YUCK! Looks horrible, stinks to high-heaven, and tastes even worse! But like it or not, it got jambed down all our throats. Even many Dems were holding their noses on this one!

Prediction: We better get used to foul and reeking meals from these modern Chicago-style gangsters running D.C. This latest win will not mean sweeter or smoother things to come for us. The political filth is only going to get worse. Open wide, and eat what you've voted for, America.

Paying It Forward

The Obama Health Care plan would apparently have us paying now, or soon enough, for health care coverage that would kick in later. Some 4 years later. The argument is that a certain amount of funds need to be on hand before coverage can be provided, and it will take that long to gather up the necessary fund balance. Let us suspend all reason for just a moment, and just let all of that go as is. Instead, let's focus on what this "plan" represents. It would mean that the government would be accumulating revenues that are reserved for covering those eventual health care costs. Our federal government...hauling in billions...to be spent later...on a promise. ...Riiiiiight. Let us now count the times that our federal government actually kept its greedy, grubby mitts off of any revenues within its reach or imagination, and resisted spending those funds elsewhere. Who among us really believe that they will not spend every single accrued health care dime, and dimes they've not yet accrued, on something and everything other than what it was accrued for, leaving behind yet one more unfulfillable promissory note to us. Don't you fall for it!!

Where there's Smoke, there's Weakness

Government-mandated healthcare; driven down our gullets by a man too weak of will and mind to successfully quit his own smoking habit, which is acknowledge as perhaps the single-most avoidable of all causes of health problems and costs. Further, none of the health bills put forth even attempt to nationally outlaw smoking. Just two more astounding, illogical aspects of that man's ascension to and use of power.

Guns for Babies

What would happen if the pro-Abortion crowd were required to swap out fetuses as their point of focus and replace that with guns, but had to retain all of their established argument logic? For example, they would suddenly find themselves arguing that firearms are a Constitutionally-guaranteed right (which they are), and that the government and insurance companies should provide funding for those who cannot afford them. Anti-Firearm activists would have to stay 50 feet away from all gun shops, and would by default be blamed for all gun shop fires and all "accidents" that might befall any gun shop owners. Firearms would be argued as a Healthcare issue, since it could be shown that being denied them would seriously risk one's health, even one's life. The entire matter of licensing would be argued an undue restriction on one's rights, since owning and carrying a gun would be a matter of discussion strictly between the individual and their gunsmith. Anyone who wouldn't agree with ready access to firearms would be labelled a fanatic radical extremist, completely out of touch with the mainstream. Schools would hold educational sessions for students to understand proper firearm safety and use. If students were allowed to opt out at all, they would need prior parental approval. Imagine.

But what of the other way around you say, where Gun Rights activists would have to take on the cause for Abortion rights? ...Well, show me where the Constitution actually identifies an Abortion Right, and we'll talk.

Liberalism has no equal, and no value!

Conservatism and Liberalism are typically thought of as equivalent alternatives in the realm of philosophies or value systems; that they're opposites. But I submit to you that this is not a proper portrayal. Rather, these are like light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance, matter and space, goodness and evil. These are not opposites; they are contrasting states where one represents the presence of a value, while the other is merely the absence of the value. To be a Liberal is to be deficient in Conservatism. One can invert the statement, but to do so puts the emphasis on the absence rather than the presence. For example, one doesn't say that light is the absence of darkness, since darkness is merely the absence of light. Knowledge is not the lack of ignorance. Matter is not the absence of a emptiness. Goodness is not the absence of evil. Being a Conservative cannot be described as being deficient in Liberalism, as that would be saying Conservatism is the lack of lacking Conservatism.

Ultimately, we should not use the term Liberal. We should instead refer to such people as Anti-Conservatives, since they suffer from the lack of the Conservative value.

Taxes: they're not just for revenue any more

It can now be considered official: taxes are no longer merely a governmental means of raising revenue to cover expenses. They are become the new penalty for misbehavior. Oh, there have been hints of this for some time. For example, cigarette taxes. Those are not disproportionately high in order to re-coup costs from their use (though some would argue this), rather they are set so as to discourage people from buying them. Though the government coffers would suffer if all smokers suddenly quit, cold-turkey!

The newest proof of taxes-as-penalty comes from an unnamed group of "health experts" who are pushing the Obama administration to instantiate a tax on soda pop, because of its involvement in the obesity epidemic. Again, the government isn't bleeding money because people are drinking pop (though again, some would argue), and needs to recoup those losses via such a tax. No, this is merely an idea intent on discouraging the purchase of such heinous products, and therefore is a penalty paid by those who continue.

So, the truth is out and cannot be denied: punishment for misbehavor is no longer the sole purview of the Judicial wing. The Executive branch now owns the power to assess guilt and to levy punishment. Will some wise legal council come forward to explain the unconstitutionality of this creeping assault on the balance of powers and abuse of the tax mechanism? Do we need to grab our 2 liters and head for the nearest harbor to pour their contents overboard in protest? Do we now need Pop Bottle Parties, ala the Tea-Baggers?