Constant Conservative

Most of us in this part of the woods either dealt with flooding this spring-summer or we helped someone who was. Then, there is this “lucky” family (or families–the article does not say):

In Wilkinson County, Miss., a home has been flooded 34 times since 1978.

Extraordinary as the damage may be, even more extraordinary is that an insurer has paid claims every time, required no flood proofing, never raised premiums after a claim and vowed to continue insuring the house. Forever.

The home’s value is $69,900. Yet the total insurance payments are nearly 10 times that: $663,000.

It’s no surprise that the insurer faces huge financial problems.

The insurer? The federal government.

[...]

“If this were a private insurer, it would be bankrupt,” said Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, an industry think tank.

Please, read the entire article and consider whatever legal actions you might be able to personally take to ensure that this type of financial insanity does not continue.

After the Korean War, we left a number of weapons in South Korea (or perhaps sold them to the South Koreans). Now, Korea is interested in sending them home. Turns out that our government doesn’t want us to have them:

According to The Korea Times, the Obama administration has blocked efforts by the South Korean government to sell over a  hundred thousand surplus M1 Garand and Carbine rifles into the United States market. These self-loading were rifles introduced in 1926 and 1941. As rifles, they are especially well-suited to community defense in an emergency, as in the cases of community defense following Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Along with AR-15 type rifles, the M1 rifles are the quintessential firearms of responsible citizenship, precisely the type of firearms which civic responsibility organizations such as the Appleseed Project teach people how to use.

According to a South Korean official, “The U.S. insisted that imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents. It was also worried the weapons could be smuggled to terrorists, gangs or other people with bad intentions.”

We import any number of firearms which are made all over the world(China, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Italy, Germany, etc) every year. Many of these are guns from the WWII period and are in varying states of usefulness and repair. Why these M1 rifles should be singled out for special treatment is troubling–or maybe they have not been singled out.

As noted in the linked article, President Obama has stated that he is a supporter of the Second Amendment, but his actions have led many to understand that those were “just words.”

I realize that that title it about as boring as it gets, but since it accurately reflects the topic at hand, it will have to do. Perhaps if I were able to get a government grant for some lessons in writing article titles I could improve . . . hmm. Anyway, you may have heard a bit from John Boehner recently about special interests. Here is part of his press release:

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after Democratic Leaders indicated they would call the House back into session to pass billions in additional ‘stimulus’ spending paid for with a job-killing tax hike on U.S. job creators:

“The American people don’t want more Washington ‘stimulus’ spending – especially in the form of a pay-off to union bosses and liberal special interests. This stunning display of tone-deafness comes at the expense of American workers, who will be hit by another job-killing tax hike because Washington Democrats can’t kick their addiction to more government ‘stimulus’ spending. Democrats should be listening to their constituents – who are asking ‘where are the jobs?’ – instead of scampering back to Washington to push through more special interest bailouts and job-killing tax hikes.

Some folks with Organizing for America took this and made the determination, since this bill (which Herseth Sandlin is now supporting) would set aside monies for education expenses, among others, that Boehner was calling out teachers as “special interests.” Here’s a video response from a trio of those offended persons:

The idea that we should not be spending money on special interests has a long and storied history in these United States. In fact, Joseph Story had this to say about Congress and proper usage of its spending power:

The true test is, whether the object be of a local character, and local use; or, whether it be of general benefit to the states. If it be purely local, congress cannot constitutionally appropriate money for the object. But, if the benefit be general, it matters not, whether in point of locality it be in one state, or several; whether it be of large, or of small extent.

Perhaps it we had stuck to this relatively simple (albeit old-fashioned) approach to disbursement of our tax dollars, we would have have groups such as teachers complaining that they are not special interests. Then again, we are so far from this standard that I greatly doubt we’ll ever return–but then, I’m more pessimistic as the day wanes toward night.

Back to the teachers for a moment. If they are not special interests why not? Do they not desire specific and particular positive economic treatment by the government by reason of their inclusion in the group? The rest of the nation is reeling from economic woes and the teacher’s unions wish to ensure that none of their members are let go or fired or furloughed or otherwise removed from employment? If that’s not the very definition of a special interest group then I confess to not being ‘specially interested in knowing what other group might fit that definition.

In the Ukraine, our Secretary of State actively espouses wealth redistribution. Here’s a bit of the transcript:

Too few people, the political and economic elite, are realizing the vast majority of benefits from economic activity. It’s true in my own country where, unfortunately, economic inequality is increasing. And it’s true in Ukraine. It’s true in Europe and Asia and Africa and South America. So part of the challenge of economic growth and prosperity is to make sure it gets down and equally spread among people.

Madam Secretary? I think the Ukrainians are not fully recovered from the last time someone said that they needed to “equally spread” wealth among the people.

And she doesn’t even flinch when she says “political and economic elite.” After all, she is a member of both groups–assuming that she’s still married to Bill.

Via reader Chad V.

From John Thune’s site:

“President Obama’s decision to put a leading advocate of rationed health care in charge of Medicare without even a public hearing is a slap in the face of the American people who have every right to know how Donald Berwick intends to implement President Obama’s new trillion dollar health care plan. Sneaking Dr. Berwick into power without giving the public any opportunity to hear his controversial views on rationing only raises more red flags about the unpopular health care law that was jammed through Congress over the objection of the American people. This is another backroom deal that favors special interests over the American people.”

Pretty well spot on, I must say. Whatever happened to that  “up or down vote” thingy we heard with regard to President Bush’s appointments?

Someday we’ll figure out just why it is that the federal government does not like to enforce existing federal immigration laws. Meanwhile, Ace makes very good sense:

Yes, a state law cannot conflict with a federal law in an area of federal jurisdiction, but can a state policy conflict with a federal policy if both state the same law?

In other words — Arizona’s law is the same as the feds’. The big difference is not in the law, but in the policy: the feds have a policy of non- or minimal enforcement; they are angry at Arizona not because Arizona has passed fresh law but because Arizona intends a different policy — a policy of actual enforcement.

So yes, federal law trumps state law, but does mere federal policy trump state policy, especially when federal policy is in fact at odds with its own stated law?

If policy does trump the law, then what point is there to having a law to begin with? After all, every administration can simply define its own policies and not worry about the pesky laws at all.

Oh, wait a minute . . . .

Wow.

Having watched the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, dairy farmer Frank Konkel has a hard time seeing how spilled milk can be labeled the same kind of environmental hazard.

But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is classifying milk as oil because it contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil.

The Hesperia farmer and others would be required to develop and implement spill prevention plans for milk storage tanks. The rules are set to take effect in November, though that date might be pushed back.

See, this goes back to the issue of power and those who have too much of it. The EPA is apparently trying to save us all from everything. What’s next? Oil booms around the milk dispensing machines in schools?

Back in the dark ages, my parents moved the family into an Amish rental for 6 months while they searched for the perfect 100-acre farm. We became good friends with the family who lived across the yard from us and spent many interesting Sundays together. During those Sunday affairs, my father and Mr. Stoltzfus would regularly compare notes on the sermons which each had heard that morning.

It was not until we were no longer living there that we found out Mr. Stolzfus had often been the pastor who gave the sermon which he and my father discussed. He thought that telling us he was the one who had preached the sermon would be a mark of pride and therefore sinful.

I mention this story because it came to mind when I read the following:

Is it too soon to name a road after President Barack Obama? A new road being built through Orlando will have his name.

Roads in Orlando honor some of our greatest presidents, from Washington to Jefferson and now Obama.

On Friday, Orlando leaders made President Barack Obama Parkway the first road under construction in the nation named after our 44th president, and surely one of the few in history to be named after a sitting president in his first term.

I’ve a pretty good idea what Mr. Stolzfus would think of this. I’m absolutely certain that I know my own thoughts on the matter.

Senator Nelson of Nebraska on BP, the oil spill, President Obama and the US Constitution in the following video:

Hey, did you know? We need to spend lots of money right now to keep the government gravy train world from ending. C’mon empty your pockets. What? They are already empty? How about your kids? Do they have any change in the cushions? You’re sure? But, but, but we’ve got to pay all the policemen and firemen and the teachers right now!

From the WaPo:

President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters” and to support the still-fragile economic recovery.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama defended last year’s huge economic stimulus package, saying it helped break the economy’s free fall, but argued that more spending is urgent and unavoidable. “We must take these emergency measures,” he wrote in an appeal aimed primarily at members of his own party.

Don’t you hear the man? It is an emergency and must be addressed with the universal salve: taxpayers’ future earnings.

“I think there is spending fatigue,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said recently. “It’s tough in both houses to get votes.”

Democrats, particularly in the House, have voted for politically costly initiatives at Obama’s insistence, most notably health-care and climate change legislation. But faced with an electorate widely viewed as angry and hostile to incumbents, many are increasingly reluctant to take politically unpopular positions.

I don’t think there is any “spending fatigue.” After all, have you ever known a government to get tired of spending your money? No, what is happening here is that many elected officials are suffering from what is known as voter backlash. And, November is not so far away that some of them cannot see their prospects of reelection fading with every “emergency” spending bill to which they vote “aye.”

Obama asks lawmakers to be patient on the deficit, noting that a special commission is at work on a comprehensive deficit-reduction plan.

Oh, sorry, my mistake. We are to be the recipients of a “comprehensive deficit-reduction plan.” Whew. You had me worried there–I thought we didn’t have a plan.

On second thought, here’s my plan: stop spending money which does not exist. If we don’t, we are going to have a real emergency.

Wickedness (to use the old-fashioned, but entirely appropriate term) lies in people’s hearts–not in their gun cabinets. Nevertheless, the United Nations has determined that it will stop world conflicts by doing away with “small arms.” Apparently, everyone will get a stipend to work out and bulk up his/her biceps and triceps . . . oh, sorry, wrong arms. No, the United Nations wants to stop everyone (in certain categories), everywhere from access to firearms. John Lott gets it right:

According to the U.N., guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year. Their proposed solution is a simple one. Keep rebels from getting guns by requiring that countries “prevent, combat and eradicate” what those countries define as “the illicit trade in small arms.”

[...]

Many countries already ban private gun ownership. Rwanda and Sierra Leone are two notable examples. Yet, with more than a million people hacked to death over the last decade-and-a-half, were their citizens better off without guns?

Hmm. Almost as though guns are not the real problem here.

[T]he treaty is a backdoor way to get more gun control laws adopted in the US. “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” Former UN Ambassador John Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”

In addition, to keep track of guns, licensing and registration will be pushed, despite their complete failure to trace crime guns in the places in the US that have tried it or Canada.

“Hey, Junior. I know that the tractor’s out of gas, but would you crank it one more time? It might just start.”

The Small Arms Treaty is just a back door way for the Obama administration trying to force through gun control regulations.

For anyone to think otherwise is to ignore the “I don’t care how, but we need to get this done” approach which the Obama administration continues to take with just about every contentious policy issue at hand.

A sad milestone:

Recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program subsidies for food purchases totaled 40.2 million, up 21 percent from a year earlier and 1.2 percent more than in February, the Department of Agriculture said yesterday in a statement on its website. The number of recipients has set records for 16 straight months.

Records for 16 straight months. 21 percent increase over the last year.