“I’m no hero.”


No, you’re not, Kim Davis.

I know, I’m breaking my own self-imposed rule by writing about this toad, but considering she has been screeching in the media about how she’s all victimy and stuff, I figured I’d clear up a few things.

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis says marriage licenses are being issued in Rowan County without her authority and she wants her name and title removed.

And when the deputy clerks issue licenses with her name removed, this entitled bitch says, “uh-uh!” The licenses may not be valid without her signature.

She would object to the documents noting that they come from the office “Rowan County Clerk,” and she would also want an official declaration from the court that the licenses aren’t being issued under her authority.

So, translation: I am the Clerk. I refuse to resign, because I’m entitled to my job and my $80,000/year salary. But I refuse to have legal documents issued under my authority, but I won’t resign and allow others to issue them under theirs.

Essentially, she’s holding the issue hostage.


Now, y’all know I’ve defended Christians and their right to hold their beliefs. My stance on churches performing gay marriages has always been and remains that any church should be free to deny or perform the religious ceremony for gay couples (much like any baker, photographer, etc. as a private citizen should have the right to deny any client for any reason, no matter how ignorant), and any congregants who disagree with their church’s actions on the issue can find a new place of worship. Everyone wins. No government interference. The church officials follow their own consciences on the issue, and the worshipers do as well.

This, however, has nothing to do with this toad’s religious freedom, and here’s why:

As the County Clerk, she is the government. She is part of said government. She is required to issue legal documents. Note, these licenses are not religious documents. They are legal ones. No one is asking her to approve of the union. No one is asking her to perform a religious ceremony. She is required – as part of her job – to issue legal documents to people – people who pay her $80,000 salary. If she cannot in good conscience do her job, she should resign.

But… But… But… Kentucky passed an amendment to its state constitution banning gay marriages and unions, and 10th Amendment!

Well, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By using her authority as Clerk, Davis is doing exactly that. Gays are persons. They are also taxpayers who pay her salary. She is denying them equal protection under the law, as is the Kentucky State Constitution. And she is doing so, even as she draws her salary from them.

But… but… but… putting her name on a license signifies her endorsement of gay marriage, and therefore violates her religious freedom!

No, it doesn’t. It is not a religious act she is being asked to perform, and even though the Kentucky State Constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman,

As the Court has already pointed out, Davis is simply being asked to signify that couples meet the legal requirements to marry. The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities.

Surprisingly, the Washington Post analysis I cited above actually supports Davis’ view and says if she believes “that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA.” The only problem with this is that if her name is removed as the clerk, then the licenses issues may very well be invalid, and once again, she is holding the process hostage to her religious beliefs.

Look, there are some complex legal issues here, and no one is denying this. This is one reason why government involvement in marriage is such a ridiculous idea, and why I’m a huge proponent of getting the government – whether federal or state – out of the issue altogether.

People who want to spend their lives together should be free to do so. They should be free to leave their estates to one another. They should be free to have children together and raise them with love and care. They should be able to visit one another in the hospital without showing a state-issued marriage certificate, and they should certainly be able to receive the flag from the casket of their loved one when said loved one is killed in action!

No one should be forced – and yes, government is force – to perform a religious ceremony, bake a cake, take wedding photographs, or create wedding bands for any ceremony they find religiously objectionable.

But to turn the tables, no government official – and make no mistake, that Davis toad is a government official – should have the right to deny equal treatment under the law to any taxpayer, thereby imposing their religious beliefs on said taxpayers by refusing to step down, since legally it might be that she’s the only one who is authorized by law to sign those legal documents. What she is saying is, “I will not sign these legal documents. I will not allow my name to be on them. But I won’t step aside and allow anyone else’s name to be on them either.”

As I said, it’s not about her religious freedom. It’s about everyone else’s right to be free from her religious views.

If this toad had any integrity at all, she would turn down the $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers, that includes gay ones. But no… she’s fine with taking their tax dollars, but not fine with providing to them the services she was hired to provide?

Nope. Unacceptable. Unacceptable morally and ethically. And hypocritical to boot!

No, she is not a martyr.

No, she is not a hero.

No, she cannot be compared to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr. or any other civil rights hero, because she is using her government office to deny equal treatment under the law to consenting adults wishing to spend their lives together, and she is hiding behind her religion. Sorry. NO-GO! She’s not fighting for religious rights. Her religious rights have not been violated, unless you consider her right to hold a government job and draw an $80,000 salary paid by the taxpayers a “right,” in which case, please just STAHP TALKING! No, she is not being punished for her religious beliefs. She is free to hold them. She is free to exercise them. She is free to worship as she pleases and to interpret her Bible in any way she wishes. What is is not free to do is use her government office to deny equal protections under the law to the very taxpayers who pay her fucking salary!

She is being punished for refusing to do her job, to which she doesn’t have a right. Get over it. This toad is no Rosa Parks.

As you can tell, I don’t think much of her as a person. I think she’s an attention whore. I think she’s a selfish twat, who if she had any integrity at all, would leave that cushy government job if she believed that something as simple as putting her name on a legal document (NOT A RELIGIOUS DOCUMENT) violates her religious beliefs.

I know plenty of religious people who believe marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I may not agree with them, but I’m not religious, so that’s understandable. They should be free to hold those beliefs without governments penalizing them. They should be free to decline to perform a religious ceremony if it violates their beliefs. They should be free to decline to participate in said ceremony, if it violates their beliefs.

But what they are not and should not be free to do is deny others equal treatment under the law if they are government officials. And that is exactly what Davis is trying to do, while hiding behind her “I’m a religious person” shield!

You may differ with me on the assessment. You may even know more about the law than I do. I freely admit I’m not a lawyer. I also freely admit, my amateur legal assessment may be off. That said, what is NOT off is my assessment that for Davis to refuse to treat all taxpayers equally while gleefully taking home a rather large paycheck funded by them is immoral and unethical. Bakers who refuse to cater gay weddings don’t take money from gay couples to whom they refuse to provide a service. Same with photographers, and any other private companies that refuse to make that a part of their services. Kim Davis still draws that salary from taxpayers, while refusing to provide them with the services for which they pay, and refusing to step aside and allow another government official to do so. That makes her a hypocritical toad in my book.

Have fun trying to convince me otherwise.

How will this affect investment?


Industry thrives on investment. Individuals who back companies with their earnings and help them grow, allow companies to expand, create jobs, create wealth and produce.

So does anyone think that an extra 3.8 percent surtax on investment income and capital gains in order to pay for the politicians’ health care takeover just might affect investment?

And how much will it cost to expand the bureaucracy in order to enforce and clarify the mess ObamaCare has foisted upon us?

The tax applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging from stocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.

The 159 pages of rules spell out when the tax applies to trusts and annuities, as well as to individual securities traders.

Released late on Friday, the new regulations include a 0.9 percent healthcare tax on wages for high-income individuals.

Gee! Only 159 pages of rules to clarify one portion of the several thousand-page new law?

Gird your loins, America. It’s just the beginning.

Lars Christiansen On The Danish Experience With Socialism


So, last Tuesday, I attended a very interesting lecture at the Heritage Foundation. It was given by a leading investment banker in Denmark, Lars Seier Christiansen. He is the founder of Saxo Bank. The bank still operates in Denmark, although Mr. Christiansen has since moved to Switzerland. More on that later. Yes, I know i should’ve posted this last week. I’m a blog slacker.

Morton Blackwell, one of the heroes of the fight at the Republican National Convention against Ben Ginsberg and the rest of Romney’s cronies, came out and gave a brief introduction of Lars, and told us that we were about to hear what socialism really does to a nation. He wasn’t kidding.

One of the first things Mr. Christiansen pointed out was that when you go so far as Denmark has down the path of socialism, it’s almost impossible to go back when so many become dependent on government handouts. Too many will be looking to get their ‘fair share’ of the loot, and will resist any real efforts to roll back the welfare state. He wryly obsetved that this was perhaps not the most friendly environment for an investment bank.

Next, he gave us a bit of background on his homeland of Denmark. It’s a monarchy, the oldest in Europe, with a standard Westminster-style parliament. If a party wins 2% or more, they are entitled to representation in the parliament. This creates a system where, much like many others of its type, minor parties can hold disproportionate power. There are eight parties that are represented in the parliament, so it is nearly always the case that a large coalition of parties is needed to build a majority. The worst news is that of these eight parties, only one could be described as right-wing in sense; the others express no interest in rolling back the welfare state at all.
Denmark had the highest taxes in the world, until recently being passed (barely) by Zimbabwe(!). The Danes also have the smallest private sector in the West, and one of the largest public sectors. Outstanding combination, no? As a consequence, even the most socialist politicians understand they need capitalists to generate revenue, but view them as very distasteful, sort of a regrettably necessary evil.
He also spoke about a very supervisory tone to Danish society. Hotlines where you can call and see if someone is cheating. Any payment above $1500 can’t be paid in cash. I am NOT making this up. Tax authorities wield exceedingly wide powers. For example, they can intern any kind of private property without court order,  and demand documents. This is not allowed to authorities imvestigating terrorism. Most Danes actually believe that anyone who is rich and successful cheated somehow. This is due in part to the makeup of the Danish parliament. It has almost no one with any appreciable amount of practical private sector experience. Many powerful goverment ministers are under 35, and very, very far left. Only 1.8 million of almost 6 million Danes are not dependent on the government. That’s staggering. And of course, everyone scraps for any entitlement they can get, due to the insane tax rates. Only 28,000 Danes make over a million krones ($150,000 or so). Massive envy and suspicion of these people.

Tax reform and government reform efforts are largely symbolic. “Tax reform” apparently means growing the PUBLIC sector. Six of the eight parties participated in this latest charade. The absolute furthest left party supports abolishing military and police and nationalizing the largest Danish companies, of which Maersk Shipping would be the most recognizable to Americans.

Politicians have walled themselves into having to promise more and more entitlements. Blue collar voters largely support “right” parties. This has all happened since 1960, when Denmark had a tax pressure lower than Switzerland, where Lars moved a few years ago, because of the insanely confiscatory and invasive Danish government. Since 1960, things have gone horribly wrong. No party has incentive to run on a small-government rollback platform,  so he doesn’t see how reforms will happen for a very,  very long time. They’re uncompetitive even with other socialist EU nations, due to high wages and lower productivity. Many young Danish people are leaving, and he figures they’re on the road to where Greece is now.

More fun facts: Property taxes average 3% of the full value of your home ANNUALLY. RIDICULOUS taxes across the board. Insane green taxes. Total tax pressure for upper middle class, he estimates at 80-85%. And he doesn’t see how it can be reformed, with everyone dependent on the government. He worries that we’re (the United States) headed in this direction. He emphasizes that it is NOT a system to emulate. He thinks it will collapse Europe-wide, bit by bit. Also, Euro politicians love the US going more socialist, so they can point it out when arguing against European pro-liberty advocates. He says we need to turn it around, before it’s too late. You can turn around freedom, but not democratic socialism. He believes it’s paramount to nurture free market values at home and in schools, and that may not be possible soon. He thinks European integration has been horrible due to mandates from Brussels, and erosion of national sovereignty, as evidenced by European politicians like van Rompuy.

So yeah, let’s not do that here. The man knows what he’s talking about.

The entitlement state vs. America

Comments Off on The entitlement state vs. America

Yes, you read that right. No, I don’t think it’s hyperbole. The entitlement state is as far from what the Founding Fathers had in mind as possible, other than perhaps Hamilton, who was a statist outlier.

As I’m sure readers of this blog are well aware, the Democrats have been the driving force behind the entitlement state and the government mechanisms that support it since the passage of the Federal Reserve Act almost a century ago, through the New Deal under FDR, the Great Society under LBJ, through to the passage of the monstrosity known as Obamacare in 2010. Granted, George W. Bush, the worst Republican President since Hoover, got in on the act with his Medicare prescription drug boondoggle in 2005, but the Democrats have carried the ball for the past century. Thanks, guys. Now that things have finally reached the point that we can’t afford them any longer no matter how we fudge the math and soak the productive and rich, the progressives are screaming and hollering like stuck pigs in defense of their venerated, precious, prized accomplishments. Case in point: everyone’s favorite former speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is squawking about how Democrats “created” (Gee, thanks!) Medicare and “will not let them (Republicans) take it away” (Kinda like not letting the doctor cure that infection!) and “We’re going to reject the Ryan plan, which is a transparent trick to end Medicare,” Pelosi said during a gathering over breakfast. “It’s just plain wrong to privatize, voucherize and end Medicare as we know it. So it’s just plain wrong to give insurance companies …more, charge seniors more, more than $6,000 a year. It’s wrong, it’s morally wrong, it’s economically wrong.”

Ah, if only it were so. Ryan, at best, wants to slowly privatize part of the program to help stanch the red ink bleeding out of the federal budget. Sadly, even this is beyond the pale to the Democrats. They’ve managed to hook enough Americans on the drug of entitlements that most don’t realize that the very nature of programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is to grow, grow and grow some more until they become unsustainable. I can hardly even address Pelosi’s assertion that it’s “morally wrong” to end Medicare, so I’ll just say it’s morally wrong to obligate your children to pay for your federal benefits as the so-called “Greatest Generation” did, and their children after them have to theirs… that would be my generation. I’ll be forty in January, and I know that I won’t see a dime of these programs, and from an ethical perspective, I don’t think I’d want to. So we need to kill these generational Ponzi schemes dead, dead, dead before they back the fiscal back of America as well as the spirit of self-reliance America’s known for, as Dan Mitchell sums up nicely.

It’s up to us, people. No one’s going to do it for us. We have to defeat ALL of one major party and much of the other to accomplish eliminating entitlements, but it has to be done.

Justice Department seeks…

Comments Off on Justice Department seeks…

Oh Great Pumpkin on a stick

Are you mentally challenged? Have mental “conditions” or partial / full paralysis? The DOJ seeks you! It wants you! It’s targeted your “disability” as one that’s obviously lacking at the department, and therefore it will likely be pretty easy for you to get a job there!  Our country also needs dwarves, psychos and people with missing limbs.

If you think I’m kidding, I’m not.

The Justice Department needs you!

This is what we’ve come to in this country. Skills don’t matter. The ability to do the job is secondary. Your scabs, shortcomings, deficiencies and other flaws will give you a leg up. Not your abilities. Not your hard work. Not your smarts. Hell, the DOJ apparently doesn’t want brains! It’s specifically looking for the mentally challenged!

Granted, the candidates will apply for non-attorney positions, but still… if you’re a midget, a loon or any other applicant that would otherwise qualify for the job you will have specific hiring preference over those who weren’t so “lucky” as to be afflicted with missing limbs or mental deficiencies.

Bend over, here it comes again!

Comments Off on Bend over, here it comes again!

It’s commonly referred to as BOHICA – a military acronym that means you’re about to get screwed. Again.

This time, it’s the TSA and the Democrats (I know, you’re shocked!) getting you ready for yet another reaming up the patoot.

The agency, backed by Democrats in the Senate, wants to increase the security fee everyone pays with a ticket from $2.50 a flight. to $5.00 per one-way ticket. A total of $10.00 would be added to round-trip tickets.

Because getting violated, felt up, molested, bullied and abused in every way possible is just not enough. Now you need to also get mugged in an era when the airlines are screwing you for every conceivable fee from checked baggage to peanuts.

At what point will the public say, “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH?”

A Word On Federalism, For Those Who’ve Forgotten It


Someone at Students For Liberty, a group which I am a big fan of, has taken a whack at the “states’ rights movement”, as he calls it. He rightly points out that Ron Paul is a huge believer in states’ rights, but wrongly believes that diminishes Paul as  a candidate and champion of liberty. This concept, my young friend, is called FEDERALISM. Our republic was founded on it, and, the excesses of the federal leviathan notwithstanding, it remains the bedrock of American governance. It’s the legal manifestation of the fact that the states CREATED the federal government, not the reverse, hence the name “United States of America”. Also note that the nation is often referred to, and has been since the earliest days of the republic as “these United States”. Plural. The idea is that the Founding Fathers understood that the states were and are very, very different from one another culturally, economically and politically, and brought about a weak, limited federal government to reflect that and limit its ability to arrogate power and authority to itself. This left the states to handle their own internal affairs, for the most part. The federal government really has a very limited purview, as one may note by reading our federal Constitution.

It’s also worth remembering that it is easier to petition your local or state government than it is the federal government. This has always been the case throughout human history; the bigger the government and/or political unit, the harder it is to influence, and the more power it aggregates as a by-product. It’s really easy to sit upon the libertarian ivory tower and say “…advocates of liberty should abandon the “states’ rights” movement—which is, at best, a potential cork in the hull of a sinking ship—and instead direct their efforts toward a long-term, lasting cultural and philosophical shift in favor of individualism and rights-respecting government.” Okay, but in a pragmatic sense, what sorts of governmental arrangements are most conducive to that? And perhaps more importantly, how do we relate the philosophy of liberty to the vast, vast majority of citizens who are unfamiliar with it, using institutions and ideas they ARE familiar with? I know! How about we have a conversation about bringing government as close to the people as we can… and that old saw “That government governs best which governs least?” Some old chap with a powdered wig said that… Jefferson, I believe, was his name. Smart guy.

In a practical sense, the closer a government is to its people, the easier it is to influence, cajole, petition, or threaten. I can pick up the phone or send an email and actually reach the Arlington County Board, or even my state Delegate or Senator personally. Ever tried that with your U.S. Representative, to say nothing of U.S. Senators, or the denizens of the numerous unconstitutional federal departments and agencies we’re buried under? Right, that’s what I thought. States are merely smaller political units, and the author is correct in saying that they have no intrinsic rights as such. However, one look at the Constitution will tell you that they possess quite some number of enumerated rights. If you’re going to try and stand for liberty and against the massive federal leviathan state which is the REAL enemy of every libertarian, paleoconservative, objectivist and every other flavor of liberty activist, the states are the proper vessels for your ambitions. Let’s just agree that we want the local government to do only what we CANNOT do for ourselves, the state to do only what the local governments cannot, and leave the federal government to deliver the mail, provide for the common defense, handle foreign policy, resolve disputes between states, and sit down and shut up otherwise.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: