National Holiday?

10 Comments

As I drove to work today, I was listening to the morning guys Brian and Larry – the only ones I can stomach on my local talk radio station WMAL (believe it or not Savage, Levin, Limbaugh, and whoever else they have screeching on that station endlessly just don’t appeal to me). They asked an interesting question: Bernie Sanders wants to make Election Day a national holiday. Do you agree?

I had to think about this one a bit. I used to commute 90 miles each way to work when I lived in my beautiful house in Stephens City, but that commute took an hour and a half on a good day, and 2-3 hours on most other days, so voting became difficult. I had to leave the house at 0500 each morning to try and avoid the morning rush, get to work early, and leave early to avoid the afternoon disaster. Most days it still took an average of three hours to get home, and if I left a little bit later than 1600, you could forget about me getting to the polls in time to vote! So I kind of understand the desire to make Election Day a day off, so that citizens could exercise their right to choose the dimwits who would ultimately represent them.

So what would be the advantages?

Those who actually work, contribute to society, pay taxes, and should have their voices heard would be able to do so without taking several hours of leave.

The day off would eliminate the need for absentee or early voting, unless you’re a service member stationed overseas and can’t get to your polling place. Given the amount of corruption and fraud in that system, it would be good to eliminate it.

But then…

Using government force to compel a company to give its employees a day off smacks of the kind of authoritarian crap I hate.

It also smacks of the “more free shit” mentality that Bernie Sanders thinks will get him elected.

And while it seems most people claim they’re too busy with whatever they’ve got going on in their life to vote, that doesn’t necessarily mean work per se. It could mean any number of things in people’s daily lives, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee that if they had the day off from work, they would get their happy asses to the polls.

And frankly… it doesn’t take all day to vote, so a lot of employers do give their workers a couple of hours to go do their civic duty.

So I’m curious what you guys think. Should voting be a national holiday? Leave your opinion in the comments, should you so choose.

Crunch Time In The Fight To Stop An Article V Convention Call In The Old Dominion

1 Comment

I ruffled some feathers when I opined a few weeks ago about the possibility of a Article V convention. Now that several bills have advanced to the floor of the General Assembly calling for an Article V convention, there seems to be a real chance of passage of such a thing for the first time since Speaker Howell and the General Assembly wisely revoked Virginia’s previous call for an Article V convention over ten years ago. Many good conservatives like Ken Cuccinelli support such an idea. Nevertheless, the more I learn about not just the concept itself, but those behind it, the worse an idea it seems.

The people, and the money, behind the push for an Article V convention, are, shall we say, suspect. Mark Meckler, the President of the Convention of States project, was, of all things, a distributor with Herbalife, the purveyor of dietary supplements that works through a Mary Kay/Amway-style pyramid scheme. Mr. Meckler apparently made quite a killing, being near the top of the Herbalife pyramid. Meckler had never shown any real inclination to be involved in politics. This changed when he suddenly jumped into politics, co-founding Tea Party Patriots (TPP) with Jenny Beth Martin. For brevity’s sake, I won’t rehash the issues with TPP becoming a cash cow for its leadership here, but Google will quickly turn up a number of references should readers require them. Oddly enough, TPP, like Herbalife, distributed what it took in (initially through membership fees, then later contracted a large fundraising firm which kept up to 70% of every dollar taken in for TPP) through a pyramid-like scheme. I don’t believe in that sort of coincidence. Mr. Meckler then left TPP for the Convention of States project. It’s unknown how much they pay their employees, of course, but it is VERY well-funded. Here in Virginia, it is allied to the Middle Resolution PAC, which is bankrolled by Bob Bailie, an establishment Republican megadonor. In the interests of brevity, I also won’t get into the longstanding issues with Middle Resolution and conservatives, but like with regard to TPP, Google will be your friend.
There is one last tidbit regarding Mr. Meckler. He recently joined up with Living Room Conversations, a group that, based on their site, is very left-leaning. Their other public representatives include a co-founder of MoveOn.org, a former organizer of the Coffee Party, and Van Jones (!). I am not making this up.

The advocates of the Convention of States project have still failed to demonstrate how an Article V convention could be limited once called, or how they could guarantee the “one state, one vote” structure they propose, or how they could guarantee that the delegates would be strict constructionist Constitutional conservatives. Their constitutional law expert, Robert Natelson, argues that state legislatures have such power. As it turns out, he’s wrong. Given the political makeup of Virginia, does anyone think that, even granting the CoS advocates that they could set up the convention exactly the way they propose, that our delegate would be a Ken Cuccinelli or Dave Brat? It’s far more likely that the General Assembly would select, if not a Howell or Norment themselves, someone like… oh, Frank Wagner or Barry Knight, or if we roll snake eyes, Bill Bolling. Consider that. Then consider the delegates that states like, say, New York might choose. If we are lucky, they’d send Michael Bloomberg. It is highly unlikely that an Article V convention would be led by conservatives, and extremely likely that it would yield exceedingly dangerous proposed amendments, which would then have considerable momentum for passage through the state legislatures, by the same Congress that constructed the convention in the first place. This is why the left is pushing for an Article V convention through Move To Amend and Wolf PAC. Some suggest that penalties could be imposed on delegates who exceed the instructions of a state which appointed them to an Article V convention, but there is no case law supporting that such a thing would stand. None. Once the convention is called, it’s anyone’s ballgame. Some CoS advocates even insist that an Article V convention is not a constitutional convention. Black’s Law Dictionary says otherwise. It’s also worth noting that at the 1787 convention, every delegate other than George Mason and Elbridge Gerry, and one other gentleman (whose name escapes me at the moment) wanted to leave the convention option out of Article V completely, yet these three threatened to leave the convention unless a convention to propose amendments was added, and ended up doing so anyhow because it didn’t go far enough to suit them (they wanted the convention model that CoS advocates, and didn’t get it). A convention simply wasn’t among the vehicles the framers had in mind to restrain an overarching federal leviathan. Tremendous and unnecessary danger awaits the republic if an Article V convention should come to pass.

To sum up, it is desperately important for the General Assembly to defeat HJ497 and HJ499 on the floor of the House of Delegates, and SJ252 and SJ269 on the floor of the Senate of Virginia this week. Delegate Bob Marshall and Senator Dick Black have been absolute heroes on this issue. They need YOUR help! Contact your legislators (politely and concisely) and let them know you oppose these bills, and any call for an Article V convention.

Choices

9 Comments

Nicki:

I used to get so angry when my family referred to my late brother’s alcohol and drug abuse as a “disease!” They would tell me how he was “sick,” and how I should have felt sympathy for him.

I did not.

Calling him “sick” diminished the very real fight of every cancer survivor and the plight of diabetics, people who contracted cholera, polio, meningitis, plague, and every other actual disease!

Sure, he got sick from his alcohol and drug abuse. He had liver issues, blood problems, edema, etc. Yes, he was sick. But make no mistake – alcoholism and drug abuse in and of themselves are not sicknesses. They are CHOICES. And those choices result in sometimes tragic consequences. But they are, in fact, choices. And I refuse to feel sorry for grown human beings who choose to abuse their bodies and then demand we give them sympathy and money to counter the illnesses that result from said choices!

No. Just no.

That’s why Matt Walsh’s blog entry on obesity hit home for me as well. As someone who has a hard time losing weight and must work her ass off to do so, this entry is particularly relevant.

Bottom line: stop treating choices as illnesses, stop acting like victims, and get up off your ass and do something about it.

Originally posted on The Matt Walsh Blog:

images (2)

According to a new study, it does more harm than good to label obesity a “disease.”  Shockingly, the study finds, when you tell people that they are victims and that they have no control over their physical condition, you ultimately discourage them from attempting to improve themselves.

So when the American Medical Association suddenly decided to throw science out the window and declare that body fat is a disease like cancer or malaria, they knowingly and purposefully stoked the feelings of helplessness that many of us already struggle with on a daily basis.

They also enriched themselves by ensuring that government health insurance plans would cover obesity treatments and diet pills, but I’m sure that was totally not a factor in their decision.

Beyond the findings of this survey, there are many other problems with calling obesity a disease. Here’s one: it isn’t true.

Obesity is not a disease.

Of course it isn’t.

Obesity…

View original 1,263 more words

I’m a liberal because I think Starbucks has private property rights

13 Comments

Nicki:

More on the Starbucks controversy. The money shot:
“I received several emails from people proud to show me photos of their “demonstration.” Invariably, it was an image of some guy flashing his holstered firearm in the middle of the store, while a lady in the background looks on with an expression of concern and befuddlement. My response was always the same: the store let you carry that inside, why are you punishing them for it? Yes, perhaps other patrons shouldn’t be worried just because half of the people in the store are armed to the teeth, but they will be worried. And you know it. So your act of “appreciation” is to hurt the business you claim to appreciate by abusing the thing you appreciate them for? I’m confused. And befuddled. Actually, I guess I can relate to that woman in the photo.

This is like if I permit you to wear shoes in my house, so you, rejoicing my leniency, celebrate by jumping into a mud puddle, stomping on my carpet and putting your feet up on my coffee table. Congratulations, I’ve just amended my shoe policy, and it’s all your fault.

I love gun rights, I’m a humongous Second Amendment advocate, and I have consistently and passionately used whatever little voice I have to advocate for the rights of gun owners, but this — this is not activism. This is a disservice to the gun rights movement. Responsible gun owners don’t parade around coffee shops with their shotguns just so they can post a photo of it on social media. Responsible gun owners aren’t impressed with themselves; they see the gun as a tool — not a toy, not a fashion accessory, not a “point,” not an excuse to cause a scene — and they carry that tool with a sense of maturity and discipline.”

Originally posted on The Matt Walsh Blog:

I remember when a fast food chicken sandwich restaurant became, out of nowhere, a hotly contested battle ground in the gay marriage debate. Everything was fine, everything was normal, everybody was eating chicken, until suddenly liberal activist organizations were encouraging gay men have heated make out sessions at their local Chick-fil-A, and Christians were countering with a Bible in one hand and waffle fries in the other. Boycotts, rallies, Appreciation Days, demonstrations, fundraisers — it was war. Personally, I have plenty of opinions on the topic of gay marriage, but on the topic of Chick-fil-A all I ever cared about was their chicken.

Millions of people cried out, “We must win Chick-fil-A to our side!”

And I courageously stood and shouted, “Can I get a number one with a Diet Coke?”

I didn’t think political discourse could get any more absurd than the Gays vs. Chicken War of 2012, but…

View original 1,641 more words

Newspaper publishes map of gun owners. Editor fired in mass layoffs.

6 Comments

Nicki:

Finally! Someone is being held accountable. Took them long enough!

Originally posted on SlowFacts:

I’ve nothing to add except this is wonderful news.  A newspaper accessed the names and addresses of registered New York gun owners through a public records request.  The paper then published a map of registered gun owners who live just north of New York City.ny go

The editors and staff were shocked by the unfavorable public response.  They received angry phone calls and even face to face criticism at their office.  The home addresses of the newspaper employees were published online by another group.   The managers of the paper hired armed guards for physical security.  The newspaper staff were openly mocked in online videos.  Advertisers in the newspaper received many critical comments and the paper’s advertising revenue fell.  All this happened in a suburb within commuting distance of New York.  I guess you don’t have to get far from Manhattan to loose the luster of liberalism.

Now 17 newspaper employees

View original 89 more words

Read and Heed!

13 Comments

If you don’t, I’ll cut you.

grammar

RLC National: Wrong On Immigration

2 Comments

A couple weeks back, I laid out my vision on the immigration issue. No amnesty, border security, one set of rules for everyone. Pretty straightforward stuff, even mostly endorsing a plan put forward by a Republican Liberty Caucus national board member.

Sadly, RLC National has gone ahead and released a plan that panders to Hispanics and apologists for illegals, with a supporting op-ed in the Examiner by RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle. I should point out that this is likely the only significant national issue where I disagree with Dave; however, this issue is very significant. I will urge the RLCVA state board to oppose this plan.

Amnesty now will be like the 1986 amnesty times ten, and there still won’t be any border security. We’ve seen this movie before. Washington will spend more energy coming up with a hundred excuses why they can’t secure the border than it would take to actually do so. No amnesty. If you’re illegal, go home and go to the back of the line, whether you entered illegally or overstayed a visa. No whining, no excuses.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: