Rod Dreher ...

.
... somehow just doesn't get it:

Mike Huckabee warns that if the GOP caves on same-sex marriage, Evangelicals will walk.  I don’t believe it. This is an empty threat. Huckabee and I are on the same side of the SSM question, so for “Evangelicals” you might as well substitute “social conservatives.” I think very few of us will abandon the Republican Party over this issue. Why would we, given the alternative would be a Democratic Party that’s more hostile to our values and concerns?

You know, pundits , you would think, would have at least a little understanding about what it is they talk about.

Social conservatives, no matter how misplaced their politics may be, son't have to go to the Democrat party ... they'll just stay home. The question should be 'What will the GOP do without evangelicals?'

And this situation is where libertarians have failed to advance their message, mostly because all of the 'establishment' libertarians you hear think So-cons are 'icky', what with all of their God-bothering ways. That's irrelevant. What they should be advocating is that the government (federal, at least) has no  business legislating on a lot of things it's currently legislating on.

Look, Jesus never petitioned the government to change the law to suit His teachings; He relied on the power of His message (and sacrifice) to change human behavior.

Likewise. So-cons shouldn't look to the government to enforce their way of thinking. Remember that what the government likes today can be what it hates tomorrow. It's much better if the government just butts out.

And Rod Dreher needs to understand that the GOP can't make up for a wholesale defection of those icky So-cons.

pm

The Defense of Marriage Act ...

.
... and an apolitical Supreme Court should be the classical liberal's best friend.

Despite what I may think of the goal of the DOMA, it is not the federal government's role to legislate on marriage, and therein lies the opportunity for classical liberals.

If the government is proscribed from legislating on the validity of one type of marriage over another, how then can the government decide the validity of federal benefits based on the same (non-)criteria?

For example, currently social security will provide spousal benefits with the amount dependant on the particular circumstances. But if the government can no longer validate marriage, how then can it disburse benefits based on marriage? I know, we'll just accept all marriages.

But what about the man (or woman) who has married their dog? Or cat?

Or marmot?! When does (can) the government draw the line?

Could it be that we might realize that the government has no business doing social security at all? Before the economy collapses and it all becomes moot?

pm

Is it a violation of Godwin's Law ...

.
... if it's true?

The only proper response to this threat against the American people is for the representatives of the People, the members of the U.S. House and Senate, to demand in clear terms that the Administration cannot ignore, that the Department of Homeland Security immediately surrender their newly appropriated weapons of war to the Department of Defense (DoD). Further, since the DHS has assumed a position in the Administration to enforce the tyrannical acts of this president against the People of the United States against the limits of the United States Constitution, it remains for the United States Congress to exercise its limiting power in the balancing of powers established by our founding fathers, to disestablish and dissolve the DHS as soon as possible. One needs only to look to the rise of Adolf Hitler, and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation.

I don't think so. Military officers usually get a fairly good education regarding the political shenanigans that lead to war. Sounds like Capt Hestilow is just pointing out the obvious.

p[m

They're either full of shit ...

.
... or they're not:

A forensic profiler who worked on the disappearance of Natalie Holloway and the double-murder case against O.J. Simpson says he is becoming alarmed by some of the references President Obama is using.

Andrew G. Hodges, M.D., who wrote The Obama Confession: Secret Fear, Secret Fury, previously said Obama’s statement “I am not a dictator” actually meant, “I am the dictator president.

I personally think forensic profilers are mostly full of shit*, but when you're talking about Obama, well ... you just might have something!


pm


*Had one used against me in court, and despite him labeling me (in more flowery language) a murderous shit and not to be trusted. And I still haven't killed the guy!

I'm with Darleen ...

.
... I don't know what problem people have with CVS:

While I understand why people recoil at how invasive and Nanny-like this feels — and it is — what the hell did you expect?

Making health insurance the responsibility of employers was bad enough, but with ObamaCare already being felt with more of the same on the horizon, we have given up any say-so in what health-related information we pass on to insurers. 

 I don't know why this hasn't taken hold until now. Of course, what will happen is a disgruntled employee will file suit in a business-unfriendly area, CVS will lose and then they'll assess the $600 a year surcharge on everyone, allowing a discount if you provide the requested information.

The laws of economic reality will not be denied. h/t Darleen at Jeff's

pm

There must be some sort of tactic ...

.
... that the victims can use to counter-act this sort of abuse:

New Jersey police and Dept. of Children and Families officials raided the home of a firearms instructor and demanded to see his guns after he posted a Facebook photo of his 11-year-old son holding a rifle.

“Someone called family services about the photo,” said Evan Nappen, an attorney representing Shawn Moore. “It led to an incredible, heavy-handed raid on his house. They wanted to see his gun safe, his guns and search his house. They even threatened to take his kids.”

And by tactic, I mean filing an 18 USC § 242 action in federal court*. If you have CPS telling the po-po to take action, then you can file a § 241 action.

Yeah, it'll get thrown out ... until someone files a case that's compelling enough and in the right district to have a judge want the government to justify its' actions. And maybe that case ultimately loses ...

Then again, maybe not. h/t Jeff

pm 

*I have no idea what's involved  in doing this; I just know it needs to be done.

This display of arrogance ...

.
... has shaken me out of my shell!!

Transportation Security Administration inspectors forced a wounded Marine who lost both of his legs in an IED blast and who was in a wheelchair to remove his prosthetic legs at one point, and at another point to stand painfully on his legs while his wheelchair was examined, according to a complaint a congressman has registered with the TSA.

I'm on record as not having much respect at all for the TSA; for the most part I think they're bullies who probably got shoved into lockers in high school and what they do has nothing to do with real security but everything to do with making the public think they're safe.

And even though the TSA says that the claim isn't true, it's instructive that there's any question about the incident at all. I mean, given what you've heard, what's more believable; that the TSA humiliated any random traveler (let alone a double-amputee Marine veteran) or they treated all travelers with complete respect and understanding?

This solution is a bit ...

.
... more involved than I would like to see, but it's better than what's been floated:

Putting guns in schools has struck many as a radical suggestion since the Sandy Hook massacre. But in one rural Michigan township, the police chief has come up with a thoughtful, serious plan to do just that.

During his 33-year-career in law enforcement, Victor Pierce has seen the bodies of murdered children, and he’s struggled to reckon with it. After Sandy Hook, he felt compelled to do something, he says. So he decided to invite teachers and school administrators to participate in the reserve-officer-training program. After they’d completed the class, Pierce would swear them in as volunteer reserve officers, and if the school district gave its blessing, they could carry concealed weapons on campus.

I don't believe that teachers should have to be reserve officers (if you've got a state-issued permit, you should be allowed to carry - anywhere) but if that gets defensive firearms where they need to be, then do it.

And to hell with what the school district wants; if reserve officers are allowed to  carry in a school, it's none of their concern.

pm

Aaron's monthly opportunity

.
Enter early, enter often!

Some good news ...

.
... one state seeks to curb puppycide:

Many people consider dogs to be part of the family, and citizens in Colorado are tired of police shooting those family members.

It has happened at least a half-dozen times in the past five years, and now lawmakers have had enough.

Two Colorado state senators plan to introduce a bill requiring police departments to adopt policies and procedures for dealing with dogs.

If it passes, expect it to have virtually no effect. But at least some are pushing back.

pm

No ...

.
... I haven't given up the blog for Lent!

I am, admittedly, in a bit of a funk ... and apparently lots of amateur bloggers go through it. There's just so much shit out there that it is overwhelming sometimes.

That's when I curl up in a closet with my battle rifle!

I will continue to blog, though it may be sporadic. I hope you all understand.

pm