About these ads

The High Cost of Liberalism

1 Comment

This is by Thomas Sowell in Town Hall.

We all are paying for liberalism and will do so for decades.


Liberals advocate many wonderful things. In fact, I suspect that most conservatives would prefer to live in the kind of world envisioned by liberals, rather than in the kind of world envisioned by conservatives.

Unfortunately, the only kind of world that any of us can live in is the world that actually exists. Trying to live in the kind of world that liberals envision has costs that will not go away just because these costs are often ignored by liberals.

One of those costs appeared in an announcement of a house for sale in Palo Alto, the community adjacent to Stanford University, an institution that is as politically correct as they come.

The house is for sale at $1,498,000. It is a 1,010 square foot bungalow with two bedrooms, one bath and a garage. Although the announcement does not mention it, this bungalow is located near a commuter railroad line, with trains passing regularly throughout the day.

Lest you think this house must be some kind of designer’s dream, loaded with high-tech stuff, it was built in 1942 and, even if it was larger, no one would mistake it for the Taj Mahal or San Simeon.

This house is not an aberration, and its price is not out of line with other housing prices in Palo Alto. One couple who had lived in their 1,200 square foot home in Palo Alto for 20 years decided to sell it, and posted an asking price just under $1.3 million.

Competition for that house forced the selling price up to $1.7 million.

Another Palo Alto house, this one with 1,292 square feet of space, is on the market for $2,285,000. It was built in 1895.

Even a vacant lot in Palo Alto costs more than a spacious middle-class home costs in most of the rest of the country.

How does this tie in with liberalism?

In this part of California, liberalism reigns supreme and “open space” is virtually a religion. What that lovely phrase means is that there are vast amounts of empty land where the law forbids anybody from building anything.

Anyone who has taken Economics 1 knows that preventing the supply from rising to meet the demand means that prices are going to rise. Housing is no exception.

Yet when my wife wrote in a local Palo Alto newspaper, many years ago, that preventing the building of housing would cause existing housing to become far too expensive for most people to afford it, she was deluged with more outraged letters than I get from readers of a nationally syndicated column.

What she said was treated as blasphemy against the religion of “open space” — and open space is just one of the wonderful things about the world envisioned by liberals that is ruinously expensive in the mundane world where the rest of us live.

Much as many liberals like to put guilt trips on other people, they seldom seek out, much less acknowledge and take responsibility for, the bad consequences of their own actions.

There are people who claim that astronomical housing prices in places like Palo Alto and San Francisco are due to a scarcity of land. But there is enough vacant land (“open space”) on the other side of the 280 Freeway that goes past Palo Alto to build another Palo Alto or two — except for laws and policies that make that impossible.

As in San Francisco and other parts of the country where housing prices skyrocketed after building homes was prohibited or severely restricted, this began in Palo Alto in the 1970s.

Housing prices in Palo Alto nearly quadrupled during that decade. This was not due to expensive new houses being built, because not a single new house was built in Palo Alto in the 1970s. The same old houses simply shot up in price.

It was very much the same story in San Francisco, which was a bastion of liberalism then as now. There too, incredibly high prices are charged for small houses, often jammed close together. A local newspaper described a graduate student looking for a place to rent who was “visiting one exorbitantly priced hovel after another.”

That is part of the unacknowledged cost of “open space,” and just part of the high cost of liberalism.

About these ads

5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Obama and Holder need to be held accountable for the damage they have done to the rule of law.

Sadly because of their race they will get a pass.



When you allow unlawful acts to go unpunished, you’re moving toward a government of men rather than a government of law; you’re moving toward anarchy. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. — John Wayne

 All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. — George Orwell

Tell me why any American should respect the law?

Because it’s moral? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in a nation like America, it’s not unusual for laws to be unfair, unjust, and even immoral.

Is it because laws represent the will of the people? Not anymore. Today, the “law” is often summarily created from murky statutes by unelected bureaucrats who face no consequences for destroying people’s lives.

Well, is the law at least equally applied? Absolutely not. Your political affiliation and how well connected you are to the regime in charge can have a direct bearing on whether you’re prosecuted for breaking the law and how serious the penalty will be.

So, what’s left?

Respect for the law? Why should anyone respect arbitrary, immoral laws that aren’t equally applied and don’t reflect the will of the people? Under Barack Obama, the “law” in this country has become nothing more than whatever you can get away with and we’re likely to feel the consequences of that for decades to come.


1) Obamacare is whatever Barack Obama says it is: Barack Obama has no more legal right to change Obamacare all by his lonesome than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, or for that matter, Justin Bieber does. He simply doesn’t have the legal authority to delay the employer mandate, delay taxes that are written into law, or give subsidies through federal exchanges to places where no state exchange was set up. Yet, Obama has delayed or changed the meaning of the law 19 times as if he were KimJong- un, as opposed to the President of a republic. 

2) There are different laws for Tea Parties and the Occupy Movement: In city after city, the Occupy Movement was allowed to protest without expensive permits, participants were allowed to illegally camp and in some places they were allowed to break the law with impunity, which is why it’s so staggering that there were still almost 8,000 arrests by the time all the dirty hippies abandoned their tents and rape-free zones to go home and take showers. Meanwhile, Tea Party groups across the country weren’t given any similar breaks. 

 Tea party activists…accused officials in at least four cities of giving preferential treatment to anti-Wall Street protesters, and one group in Richmond is asking the city to repay $8,000 spent for permits and other needs. …The Richmond Tea Party said Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ administration sought permit fees, portable toilets and other demands for their events, but has given Occupy Richmond a free pass. The occupation has grown to a tent city, with a makeshift library, a volleyball net and a row of portable toilets. Jones has said that because he is a product of the civil rights movement he has allowed the Occupy protesters to remain since Oct. 17. “He’s sympathizing with them,” said Colleen Owens, a spokeswoman for the Richmond Tea Party. “We would never, as a tea party, have gotten away with not complying with the law.” Tea party organizers had to buy liability insurance, hire police and emergency personnel and even keep a defibrillator on site, Owens said.

When groups all across the country are charged thousands of dollars for permits and liability insurance solely because of their political beliefs while other groups are given a free pass, there is no equality under the law. 

3) Illegal immigration becomes legal: Admittedly, George W. Bush did a mediocre job of securing the border and enforcing immigration law. However, as a practical matter, illegal immigration isn’t “illegal” anymore. Obama has illegally passed his own version of the DREAM Act, illegally handed out work permits to people who are breaking the law, and for all intents and purposes, has stopped detaining illegal immigrants who haven’t been charged with other crimes. According to Senator Jeff Sessions “at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.”

This is despite the fact that being here illegally is a crime and the people who broke that law did so knowing that the penalty was deportation. Tens of millions of immigrants have been welcomed to this country because as EVERYONE is well aware, we already have a “path to citizenship” fornon- Americans and it’s called following the law.

4) The IRS illegally targeted Tea Partiers: If the IRS ever comes after you, try refusing to hand over documentation for years and pleading the 5th Amendment and see what happens to you. If you’re lucky, maybe you’ll end up in the same minimum security prison that Wesley Snipes went to after some advisors convinced him he didn’t have to pay taxes. Yet, after the IRS targeted TeaPartiers because they were conservative, tried to refer them for prosecution to the DOJ, and illegally released some of their information to outside parties, the IRS officials have been refusing to cooperate with the investigation. If the IRS wasn’t guiltier than Wesley Snipes, it would be cooperating just like the rest of usare forced to do when we face an audit. 

5) Eric Holder encouraged state attorney generals to refuse to defend traditional marriage in court: In other words, if your state passes a ban on gay marriage, Holder wants state attorney generals to undercut the will of the people in order to further his political agenda. So according to Eric Holder, whether the people of a state get to have a representative in court depends on whether or not liberal attorney generals agree with their opinion or not. As John Suthers, the attorney general of Colorado, said: 

 I have been attorney general of Colorado for nine years, during which time the state has enacted laws that span the philosophical and political spectrum. I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs. But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all — and will continue to.

…Depending on one’s view of the laws in question, such a “litigation veto” may, in the short term, be a terrific thing; an unpopular law is defanged and the attorney general can take credit — indeed, he can be the hero to his political base and keep his political ambitions intact. But in the longer term, this practice corrodes our system of checks and balances, public belief in the power of democracy and ultimately the moral and legal authority on which attorneys general must depend.

….I fear that refusing to defend unpopular or politically distasteful laws will ultimately weaken the legal and moral authority that attorneys general have earned and depend on. We will become viewed as simply one more player in a political system rather than as legal authorities in a legal system. The courts, the governments we represent and, most important, the people we serve will treat our pronouncements and arguments with skepticism and cynicism.

When the “law” becomes little more than politics by other means, it deserves to be treated with the same rich contempt that we hold for politicians in this country. That has already started to happen, it’s not good for the country, and much to the chagrin of the liberals who love this lawlessness as long as they’re in charge, it’s not going to end with Obama.


Md. gov candidate suggests Iraq War vet opponent not up for ‘real job’

1 Comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

This is a man who should know about not being up for s a real job as he is a lawyer.

Little Douglas has never had a real job he is a politician and a lawyer.

A Democratic candidate for governor of Maryland is defending comments he made Monday in which he suggested his opponent, an Iraq war veteran, was not up to the task of a “real job.”

Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler drew ire from a veterans’ group after he made the comments about his opponent for the Democratic nomination, Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown, at an event held by the Tech Council of Maryland.

During the event, Gansler was asked what the state had learned from the rollout of ObamaCare. Maryland’s state-run exchange has been particularly troubled, and earlier this month the exchange’s board of directors voted to replace technology in the system with one used in in Connecticut’s exchange instead of fixing its current system or partnering with the federal government.

Gansler said the website’s woes prove Maryland needs someone who has leadership experience and worked with budgets; someone, he claimed, unlike Brown.

“I’m running against somebody who has never managed anybody, never run anything, his ads are about how he’s a lawyer in Iraq, and that’s all fine and good but this is a real job,” Gansler said.


Gansler was referencing a recent campaign ad by Brown, in which he talks about serving in the Army ROTC, the Army Reserves and being deployed to Iraq.

Gansler’s comments were slammed by a veterans’ group VoteVets.org, whose chairman told the Baltimore Sun his comments were “slime ball politics.”

“Doug Gansler needs to stop smearing those of us who served in Iraq as not having had a ‘real job,’ “Jon Soltz, whose group has endorsed Brown, said. “It’s a horrible insult to all those men and women who put their lives on the line, and especially those who died, in service to this country.”

Gansler said in a statement to FoxNews.com his comments simply needed to be clarified.

“I have the utmost respect for his military service and for veterans,” Gansler said. “The point I was trying to make is that Anthony Brown’s only attempt to lead as Lieutenant Governor was the unmitigated debacle of the health exchange website that denied Marylanders access to health care and cost taxpayers nearly $200 million.”

Brown and the state’s current Gov. Martin O’Malley have blamed the website’s vendors for the problems with Maryland’s state exchange. He and Gansler face off in the primary June 24.

Show Em Your Badge Sonny ….

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To Odie@Woodsterman






A DEA Agent stopped at a ranch in Texas and talked to an old rancher. He told the rancher, “I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs.” The rancher said, “okay, but don’t go into that field over there…”, as he pointed out the location.
The DEA Agent verbally exploded and said, “look mister, I have the authority of the federal government with me!” Reaching into his rear back pocket, the arrogant officer removed his badge and proudly displayed it to the rancher.
“See this badge?! This badge means I can go wherever I want… On any land! No questions asked, no answers given! Do you understand old man?!”

The rancher kindly nodded, apologized, and went about his chores. Moments later the rancher heard loud screams, he looked up and saw the DEA agent running for his life, being chased by the ranchers big Santa Gertrudis Bull… With every step the bull was gaining ground on the officer, and it was likely that he’d sure enough get gored before he reached safety.

The officer was clearly terrified. The old rancher threw down his tools, ran as fast as he could to the fence, and yelled at the top of his lungs……


“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, 
that will herald the end of the republic” -  Ben Franklin 




UAW Withdraws Objection To Lost Election At VW Tennessee Plant

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Business.

What underhanded move will the union thugs try next?




The United Auto Workers union said Monday it is withdrawing its appeal of February’s defeat at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, saying it pulled its challenge because the process could have dragged on for years.

The union had appealed the high-profile vote to the National Labor Relations Board arguing that “a firestorm of interference from politicians and special interest groups” had played a central role in causing workers to vote against the union.

Workers at the plant narrowly voted against having the union represent them in labor negotiations, a move seen as a devastating blow for the UAW and the U.S. labor movement in general.

In a statement, the UAW said the decision was made “in the best interests of Volkswagen employees, the automaker, and economic development in Chattanooga.”

The union’s announcement came on the same day an NLRB  hearing was scheduled in Chattanooga to address the union’s allegations.

UAW President Bob King said the UAW based its decision on the belief that the NLRB’s “historically dysfunctional and complex process” potentially could drag on for months or even years

The union didn’t back away from its original allegations of interference by powerful political figures in Tennessee.

“The unprecedented political interference by Gov. (Bill) Haslam, Sen. (Bob) Corker and others was a distraction for Volkswagen employees and a detour from achieving Tennessee’s economic priorities,” King said. “The UAW is ready to put February’s tainted election in the rearview mirror and instead focus on advocating for new jobs and economic investment in Chattanooga.”

Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga, was outspoken in his opposition of the union and publicly cheered when the union was defeated.

Corker released a statement Monday saying, “This 11th hour reversal by the UAW affirms what we have said all along — that their objection was nothing more than a sideshow to draw attention away from their stinging loss in Chattanooga.”

According to the UAW”s complaint filed in February, threats were made by elected officials in Tennessee to withhold certain state-financed incentives if workers voted in favor of brining in the UAW.

In a Feb 12-14 election workers voted 712-to-626 against allowing the UAW to represent them.


1 Comment

This is from Breitbart.com.

DemocRat Mike Honda is proving that California politicians are owned body and soul by the union thugs of SEIU.



Democratic Congressman Mike Honda, (D-CA), from the high-tech 17th congressional district in Silicon Valley, has a rather curious place for his campaign headquarters, the San Francisco Chronicle reports: inside the headquarters of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 521.

That address, 2302 Zanker Road, San Jose, is not listed as the campaign’s address on Honda’s campaign website; instead, 2050 Gateway Suite 100, San Jose, is listed.

 Honda is running for reelection in the “jungle” primary June 3 against Democrat challenger Ro Khanna and Republicans Vanila Singh and Joel Vanlandingham.

 The reason that the false address came to light is that the Chronicle reported that Honda’s address was outside the district he represents. The story revealed that not only was Honda’s field office located at 2001 Gateway, San Jose–outside the district–but that the 2050 Gateway address was, too.

 When confronted with that information, Honda’s campaign said his address was the Zanker road address, which was inside the district boundaries. When campaign spokesman Vivek Kembaiyanwas was pressed further with the information that the Zanker road address was in the SEIU space, he said, “our campaign rents office space from SEIU 521.”

 According to the campaign finance reports Honda filed with the FEC, he paid $3,900 for rent last year, while this year he is paying far more, a little more than $1000 per month.

 One veteran Democratic consultant was surprised that Honda would share his office with a major labor union, telling the Chronicle: “It is weird that a major candidate wouldn’t have his own office space,” adding that Khanna and Singh could assert that Honda’s campaign “is the sole creation of organized labor.”

 Jessica Levinson, professor of election law and governance at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said:  “My main question is: is (SEIU) basically giving him a donation by letting him use the office for less than what a member of the public would pay? … It’s so clear he is aligning himself with the unions … its very visual. I mean, they’re roommates.”

 She added that if Honda returns to Congress, “as an optical matter, it will be hard to distance himself from them. It gives the appearance he would be more reticent to vote against union interests. Because it would be really awkward to go back to your campaign office and find all those people you have potentially annoyed.”

 Kembayian argued that the campaign has never buried the information of where Honda’s office is, and that the Gateway address listed on the Honda’s campaign website is a UPS “mail drop” address.

The most recent polling in the district showed Honda with a double-digit lead over all rivals, with Republican Singh in second.


Fall River teen charged in death of alleged robbery accomplice

1 Comment

This is from The Boston Globe.

Two Sons of Obama decide to rip off a man they think is a drug dealer.

For their efforts one AmboyBlake gets killed and his partner in this bungled robbery attempt is now facing felony murder charges.


Death by Hoodie

photo credit rabidrepublicanblog.com


A Fall River teenager is facing charges after his alleged accomplice was shot to death during an attempted armed robbery in Lynn Wednesday, Essex prosecutors said.

Jahleel Sanders Williams, 17, pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in Lynn District Court on Thursday to charges of felony murder and attempt to commit a crime. The charges come after Amoy Blake, an 18-year-old Lynn man, was shot to death, according to a statement from the office of Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett.

Blake and Williams allegedly approached a 20-year-old Lynn man and attempted to rob him Wednesday night. Blake allegedly held a gun to the man’s head, according to Blodgett’s office.

The man then shot Blake with his own legally licensed weapon, and Williams fled, according to Blodgett’s office.

The Lynn man called for an ambulance, which took Blake to Union Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, Blodgett’s office said.

He is not being charged in the incident because it was an act of self-defense, according to Carrie Kimball Monahan, a spokeswoman for Blodgett’s office.

Williams is being charged with felony murder, which means as a participant in the alleged armed robbery, he is criminally liable for any deaths that occurred while committing that felony, said Monahan. He is being tried as an adult, she said.

State and Lynn police assigned to Blodgett’s office will continue to investigate the incident, said Monahan.

Williams is being held without bail. He is to return to court May 19 for a probable cause hearing, according to Blodgett’s office.

Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 569 other followers

%d bloggers like this: