Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, January 24, 2012 8:25 pm

Hillary called it “the best speech.” She needs to get out more. A federal law against dropping out of high school? Government should only do what can’t do for ourselves? Doesn’t compute.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, January 24, 2012 5:23 pm

Hey, I’ve been posting irregularly and with little enthusiasm because some twit had compromised my blog so that every time I opened a page, popups would appear and/or my anti-virus software would announce that it had stumbled upon some malware. I’ve been so busy that last four months that I’ve not had the time to figure out and fix the problem.

Well, no more. My wife worked tirelessly yesterday and cleaned up our blogs–or most of them–including updating the the WordPress software to 3.3.1. And just in time, too! We’re in the middle of a hot race for the Repulican nomination for president, and now I have another stage from which to talk about that race and the one to follow.

Go Mitt!

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, January 21, 2012 3:20 pm

What if Newt decides the Presidency is beneath him?

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, June 8, 2011 3:23 pm

Ilya Shapiro nails it, and apparently, so did the judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Obamacare–the Affordable Care Act–is and always has been about power. Washington wants is. The people, at least people like me, don’t want to give it to them.

As the lawyer representing 26 states against the federal government said, “The whole reason we do this is to protect liberty.” With those words, former solicitor general Paul Clement reached the essence of the Obamacare lawsuits. With apologies to Joe Biden, this is a big deal not because we’re dealing with a huge reorganization of the health care industry, but because our most fundamental first principle is at stake: we limit government power so people can live their lives the way they want.

This legal process is not an academic exercise to map the precise contours of the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause — or even to vindicate our commitment to federalism or judicial review. No, all of these worthy endeavors are just means to achieve the goal of maximizing human freedom and flourishing. Indeed, that is the very reason the government exists in the first place.

And the 11th Circuit judges saw that. Countless times, Judges Dubina and Marcus demanded that the government articulate constitutional limiting principles to the power it asserted. And countless times they pointed out that never in history has Congress tried to compel people to engage in commerce as a means of regulating commerce.

In case anybody cares, I feel the same way about Climate Change. Even conceding that the globe is warming, I’m not willing to kneel before the would-be climate demigods, certainly not before them move from their Mount Olympus mansions and give up their jets. Yes, Al, I’m talking about you.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, June 6, 2011 3:09 pm

In his just-completed news conference, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) apologized profusely for his bad judgment in Tweeting photos of himself, then lying about it. He did it because he was embarrassed about it.

That said, what’s interesting to me is how many people miss the big issue, the issue that was present in the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. Blackmail.

This was brought home in two comments on Ann Althouse’s blog about Weinergate:

These people sit on committees and routinely receive sensitive information. Embarrassment is hard to take(ask Weiner), so if you can avoid embarrassment by lying about your actions or paying someone off or . . .

I have sympathy for him. His apology seemed heartfelt. However, it came about not because he wanted to apology. It came about because he had no other choice. What if he had had another choice? What if he could have made the allegations go away with a little money, a small kickback, a leak? What if?

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, June 6, 2011 1:05 pm

In October last year, Obama granted McDonald’s and 28 other firms waivers from having to comply with his Affordable Care Act. With that in mind, consider the following.

Prior to the release of the May jobs report, Morgan Stanley, according to MarketWatch, estimated that McDonald’s would account for roughly half the jobs created in May 2011.

Morgan Stanley estimates McDonald’s hiring will boost the overall number by 25,000 to 30,000. The Labor Department won’t detail an exact McDonald’s figure — they won’t identify any company they survey — but there will be data in the report to give a rough estimate.

In fact, total private-sector employment grew by 83,000 in May. Thus IF Morgan Stanley was right, Mickey D’s was responsible for as much as 36% of the private sector jobs created last week. (If you use the total non-farm payroll, which includes government jobs, job growth was even weaker at just 54,000; thus, Mickey D’s could have accounted for up to 55% of new jobs.)

In any case, job growth was weak in May, and McDonald’s probably created a large number of those jobs; thus, logic compels the following question: Should Obama grant waivers to all businesses?

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, June 4, 2011 12:18 pm

They’re at it again. Palin’s critics. They’re beclowning themselves even as they attempt to turn her into one. It began with this video:

Her garbled comment set the Leftosphere afire. That dumb Palin got her history wrong again! How can conservatives be soooo stupid!

Then Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection rode to her defense (many links at this link). Among other things, he posted Paul Revere’s personal account of his adventure. In the relevant part, it reads (spelling in original, bolding mine):

I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from,& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up. He imediately rode towards those who stoppd us, when all five of them came down upon a full gallop; one of them, whom I afterwards found to be Major Mitchel, of the 5th Regiment, Clapped his pistol to my head, called me by name, & told me he was going to ask me some questions, & if I did not give him true answers, he would blow my brains out. He then asked me similar questions to those above. He then orderd me to mount my Horse, after searching me for arms

Jacobson also links to David Hackett Fischer’s book, Paul Revere’s Ride at Google Books. If you’re interested, read pages 140-143, but here’s a snippet to save you the trouble:

[Revere] rode directly to the house of Captain Isaac Hall, commander of Medford’s minutemen, who instantly triggered the town’s alarm system. A townsman remembered that ‘repeated gunshots, the beating of drums and the ringing of bells filled the air’ . . . Along the North Shore of Massachusetts, church bells began to toll and the heavy beat of drums could be heard for many miles in the night air. Some towns responded to these warnings before a courier reached them. North Reading was awakened by alarm guns before sunrise. The first messenger appeared a little later (140). . . . [Another] express rider delivered the alarm to a Whig leader who went to an outcropping called Bell Rick, and rang the town bell. That prearranged signal summoned the men of Malden with their weapons . . . (141) . . . Along Paul Revere’s northern route, the town leaders and company captains instantly triggered the alarm system . . . (142).

So did Paul Revere ring bells, beat drums, and shoot guns to warn his compatriots? Probably not, but who really knows. What we do know is that he and his fellow express riders were certainly the “triggers” that set off the warning system of bells, drums, and gunshots.

Yes, Palin could have been more clear, but what she said was spot on. Revere did warn the British that they were in for a fight, and he “triggered” a pre-arranged warning system.

Meanwhile, her bitter critics on the left cling to their copies of Longfellow’s poem.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, June 3, 2011 6:46 pm

Dilma’s Chief of Staff, Antonio Palocci, may be on the way out, apparently for making a little too much money a little too fast. In fact, he somehow increased his wealth by $R10 million in one month. Not bad for government work.

Interestingly, as with Timothy Geitner, or TurboTax fame, claim to fame is that he’s indispensable. Or not.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, May 25, 2011 10:58 am

The weasely, lying fear mongers?

Or the person who actually takes the time to lay out the facts?

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, May 23, 2011 3:51 pm

The Economist gets the thumbs up for the best line of the week. In an editorial titled “Damned,” the magazine laments the possible loss of DSK’s ideas because of his fall from grace. “They are more important [than him,” the editorial says. And why? Well among other things, he stood to become the first Socialist Party candidate to win the presidency of France since François Mitterrand ate Ortolan Bunting.

That’s important because DSK apparently knows something his party doesn’t (bolding mine):

The danger now, as Socialist alternatives line up, is that the party sloughs off its modernising aspirations and reverts to type. Unlike parties of the left in Britain or Germany, France’s Socialists have yet to digest the sour reality that wealth needs to be created before it can be distributed. Their draft manifesto includes a jaw-dropping pledge to reverse France’s minimum retirement age, which has only just been raised from 60 years to 62. The Socialists’ reflex is to tell the French that they need to be “protected” and “sheltered”. However, the French cannot for ever defy the laws of economics and protect themselves with costly benefits that only pile up huge public debts for future generations. France’s tragedy is that Mr Strauss-Kahn, who understood that, misunderstood so much else.