Did Donald Trump Admit He’s Not Conservative?

By William Teach February 12, 2016 – 7:14 am

Ben Shapiro of Breitbart sure thinks so

Donald Trump has now made clear that the thrust of his campaign will not be conservatism. It will instead be populism and nationalism.

For those looking for a governing philosophy of The Donald, his checkered political history has provided little guidance. He’s seemingly endorsed single-payer healthcare; he’s said he rejects Obamacare. He’s blasted money in politics; he’s talked about the necessity for government use of eminent domain to help private parties. He’s ripped overregulation of capitalistic enterprises; he’s talked about tariffs on foreign goods. Trump isn’t conservative, and he never was.

I’ve written before that American conservatism is more about beliefs in government, using the maxim “the government that governs least governs best” as a foundation rock, along with “government only governs when in need”. Government should only apply the minimum/appropriate force necessary to deal with an issue. It should stay out of our private lives as much as possible. The same applies to the economy, where government should act more like a referee on commonly approved laws. There should be minimal restrictions on voting. This is all known as classical liberalism. When you start getting into issues, such as abortion and tariffs, those are not necessarily core CL issues. But, taking private property for private use is. So is wanting single-payer.

Trump’s move here is calculated. He’s going to campaign as a post-ideological candidate. All he wants, as he said in his next tweet, is to “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.” If that means bigger government, that means bigger government. If that means more interventionism in the economy, that means more interventionism in the economy. Trump believes he can restore American greatness in his personage – he can make terrific deals, he can “win” on behalf of America. (snip)

Trump stands up for America; Trump Hulk Smashes for you. He cares about America, and that’s enough – he wants to restore American greatness, and that’s enough. How will he do it? He just will. And he won’t be held back by any conservative vision of a small government nation founded on individual liberty. Sometimes he’ll do conservative things. Sometimes he won’t. But he’ll act with “common sense” and “do what needs to be done.”

At the end of the day, Trump appears to be better than any Democrat, but, many of his leanings are decidedly in favor of increasing the size and scope of government, particularly the federal government. Shapiro also mentions how rabid many Trump supporters are, and how these supposed conservatives no longer seem to care about limited government. I ran into this yesterday, when I tweeted

https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/697869496690810880

Trumpbots came at me hard, telling he has lots of plans, to go to his website. OK. I see a total of 5 positions. Some are detailed, such as immigration, though we still don’t know how he will make Mexico pay for the wall. Then we have issues, which are simply just a bunch of videos. At the end of the day, though, Trump has been more in attack mode than in “here’s a good idea” mode. In all fairness, this is a race to be the next GOP presidential candidate, and politics is a nasty affair. But, how about more attacks on Democrats, which we rarely ever see, and policy?

Read: Did Donald Trump Admit He’s Not Conservative? »

Posted in GOP | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Recommends Dems Support GOP “Guilty Mind” Proposal

By William Teach February 12, 2016 – 6:45 am

Well, here’s something one doesn’t see in the Leftist opinion pages of the NY Times: support for a Republican proposal. Granted, it’s written by Gideon Yaffe, a professor of law at Yale, not the hoity toity Editors, but, it is unusual

(NY Times) THESE days, it’s practically unheard-of for those on the left to embrace ideas promoted by the likes of the Koch brothers and the conservative Heritage Foundation. But it would be a shame if partisan distrust kept Democrats from supporting a proposalfavored by the right: a measure that would bolster the idea that a criminal conviction should require proof of what lawyers call “mens rea” — literally, a guilty mind. That’s because it can be harnessed to aid some of those who are especially ill treated by the criminal justice system: the poor and racial minorities.

As a legal principle, mens rea means that causing harm should not be enough to constitute a crime; knowingly causing harm should be. Walking away from the baggage carousel with a suitcase you mistook for your own isn’t theft; it’s theft only if you knew you didn’t own it. Ordinary citizens may assume that this common-sense requirement is already the law of the land. And indeed law students are taught that prosecutors must prove not just that a defendant did something bad, but also that his frame of mind made him culpable when he did it.

That is a very interesting proposal, which goes along with many other justice system reforms offered by the GOP in Congress. This particular idea comes from James Sensenbrenner, and would apply to many, many more laws. The article notes many convictions where this would come into play, such as

…the president of a company that mistakenly shipped mislabeled drugs was convicted of a crime even though he had no way of knowing that the labels were incorrect. In another, a truck driver crossing the Canadian border into Washington to deliver cases of beer was convicted of drug trafficking even though prosecutors produced no evidence that he knew or should have known that the truck had a secret compartment filled with drugs.

Democrats are whining that this would make it harder to go after corporate executives whose companies cause harm, but, that’s what we have jury trials for, and, the proposal would not apply to all. Certainly, if someone murders another person, the murderer would not be let off because he/she didn’t have a “guilty mind”. Here’s where the article breaks down a bit

Consider a New York law banning “gravity knives” — folding knives that open with a flick of the wrist — that lacks mens rea protections. The statute does not require proof that a defendant knew her knife was a gravity knife, much less that gravity knives are banned in the state. As a result, the law has been used by the police in New York City to pick up thousands of people, most of them minorities, even if they had the knives for innocent purposes. And in Baltimore, Freddie Gray died in a police van after being arrested for violating a very similar statute that also lacked a mens rea requirement.

There is still the notion that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. And picking people up is different from prosecuting them, which is where mens rea is aimed. It’s not really up to the police to determine mens rea, though, of course, there are times they have discretion. Making police determine will gum up the legal system. Freddie Gray supposedly had an illegal knife on him. He was a habitual offender. It was the officer’s job to pick him up and take him to be charged. It was the government legal system’s job to determine whether it should be taken to court.

Is this a good idea or bad idea? Sensenbrenner’s amendment only applies to federal criminal cases. We see this in subchapter B

“(2) if the offense consists of conduct that a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would not know, or would not have reason to believe, was unlawful, the Government must prove that the defendant knew, or had reason to believe, the conduct was unlawful.

I get the sense that this is aimed more at the myriad amount of laws passed by Government that people really do no know, because they pass quite a few. Think of all the people prosecuted by the IRS for failing to follow some law, one which the IRS agents probably didn’t know.

Anyhow, what do you think: good idea or bad idea?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Recommends Dems Support GOP “Guilty Mind” Proposal »

Posted in Current Affairs | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

EPA Looks To Regulate Away Race Cars

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 3:52 pm

This comes via A View From The Beach, which notes “The EPA seeks to regulate everything by redefining everything into something they can regulate”

(SEMA) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a non-related proposed regulation entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2.”

The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted strictly for use at the track. While the Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to motor vehicles, it is clear that vehicles built or modified for racing, and not used on the streets, are not the “motor vehicles” that Congress intended to regulate.

“This proposed regulation represents overreaching by the agency, runs contrary to the law and defies decades of racing activity where EPA has acknowledged and allowed conversion of vehicles,” said SEMA President and CEO Chris Kersting. “Congress did not intend the original Clean Air Act to extend to vehicles modified for racing and has re-enforced that intent on more than one occasion.”

The final rule is expected in July 2016, and we can be utterly sure that the EPA will listen to public comments on the subject, eh? This is exactly one of those issues which Conservatives complain about, namely, government over-reach and mission creep, expanding the core mission of a governmental agency, digging their tentacles into every part of our lives. And, liberals who support this should remember the old adage “be careful what you wish for, you may get it.” These same regulations can expand, and certainly come back and negatively effect their own lives.

Read: EPA Looks To Regulate Away Race Cars »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an ocean that will rise hundreds of feet because you won’t buy local, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post on more Hillary server issues.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Surprise: Solar Can Barely Survive Without Massive Subsidies

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 10:22 am

Sure, sure, rich folks and people willing to spend tens of thousands can gain access to solar power, and, it would be great if companies could develop cost effective solar for home use. I’ve long advocated for this exact thing. But, it is nowhere near as of yet, and can barely survive without subsidies

Rooftop Solar Providers Face a Cloudier Future

Just two years ago, SolarCity and other rooftop solar providers were Wall Street darlings, and prospects for growth were flying high, as enthusiasm for solar power was seemingly boundless.

After all, they had built a better mousetrap, allowing the masses to install environmentally minded solar power systems at little or no cost to them and to reduce their electricity bills at the same time.

But in two years, the landscape has drastically shifted.

Nevada recently rolled back the generous support it gave rooftop solar systems; 20 other states are rethinking their policies, as well. And despite the extension of an important federal tax credit last year, losses by rooftop solar companies have accelerated.

SolarCity, the nation’s largest provider of rooftop systems, is but the most visible of a cluster of companies, built with the aid of government subsidies and utility incentives, now facing deep uncertainties, despite unflagging consumer interest and surging growth in renewable energy.

And right there, in black and white, is the problem: to repeat, without subsidies, it can barely survive. The current model is based on these subsidies, mostly originating from taxpayer funds. Take them away, and the system collapses. They are too reliant on government rules, regulations, and whims. It’s all based on a crony/government capitalism system, rather than a system based on consumer demand.

One day solar will get there. That day is not now.

Read: Surprise: Solar Can Barely Survive Without Massive Subsidies »

Posted in Energy | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Super-divisive President Moans About Partisanship

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 8:27 am

Let’s not forget, this is a guy who, almost immediately upon winning the presidency and taking office, told John McCain, who he defeated, “I won”, and said pretty much the same thing to Congressional Republicans, who were in the minority at the time. That set the tone for the rest of his presidency, where he rarely reached across the aisle, and, when he did, he often demanded ridiculous things or reneged on deals. He’s turned everything into a partisan fight, sometimes even before Republicans had had a chance to respond. He’s referred to Tea Party members as “Teabaggers”, and attacked private citizens for daring to disagree. You have to know that the IRS targeting of Conservative groups originated somewhere within his administration. Anyhow, you know the score. Yet, we get this

(The Blaze) In a homecoming of sorts in front of the Illinois General Assembly where he once served, President Barack Obama called for healing the political divide — before going on to make a polarizing point.

“There is no doubt that America is better off today than when I took office,” Obama said, which prompted rousing applause from Democratic state lawmakers in the Capitol for about 20 seconds, while Republicans provided little response.

“See, I didn’t want this to be like a State of the Union speech where we have one side standing up and the other sitting down,” Obama said. “Come on guys, you know better than that.”

Then he should say things that people agree with. Notice that Obama’s own words in excoriating people who disagree with him create strife.

“This is an important part of the issue — we have an importation of our politics nationally on cable and talk radio and it seeps into everything,” Obama said.

See? It’s not his fault, it’s Everyone Else, especially those people, both left and right, as he complained about both Fox News and the Huffington Post, who dare express their views.

“When I hear either side talking about refusal to compromise as actual accomplishment, I’m not impressed,” Obama said.

Remember when he and the Dems compromised on the Stimulus and Obamacare? Oh, right. Remember all the times Obama has compromised? Quick, name one.

(AFP) “The tone of our politics hasn’t gotten better since I was inaugurated. In fact, it’s gotten worse,” Obama said.

“There is still this yawning gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics.”

Someone needs to look in the mirror. One point he did make is that this is not something new, politics has always been divisive. On that, he’s correct

Obama also outlined measures that he said could ease the enmity, including to reduce the “corrosive influence of money in our politics”

“I don’t believe that money is speech. Or that political spending should have no limits,” he said, backing a constitutional amendment to that end.

Let’s not forget that he raised around $800 million dollars for his 2008 campaign, and reneged on his promise to take the taxpayer funded $75 million for the general election. His goal for 2012 was a billion dollars to spend. Yet, he wants to complain about money in politics?

After leaving Springfield, Obama is set to jet to California for a series of Democratic fundraisers, where it is normally good for business to take a few jabs at Republicans.

Huh. Think on that.

Read: Super-divisive President Moans About Partisanship »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Barry Obama | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Think Supreme Court’s EPA Power Plant Rules Hold Could Help Them Win Back Seats

By William Teach February 11, 2016 – 7:55 am

They do, they really do

(The Hill) The Supreme Court’s halting of the Obama administration’s chief climate rule is a new spark in the race for the Senate.

Democrats and greens, who have long hoped to make climate change a flashpoint in November’s elections, say the court’s 5-4 stay order putting a hold on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan gives them a chance to make a strong case to voters in their push to win back the Senate this fall.

Republicans and energy industry strategists say they’re equally enthusiastic to use the case — which hinges on whether the Obama administration exerted too much authority over carbon emissions — to make a point about executive overreach and its support among Democrats.

The Senate is especially important for climate regulations. If the Supreme Court blocks the rule — a prospect for which opponents are bullish after the stay order — legislation would likely be the only way to go about instituting a carbon reduction plan.

Democrats running in key Senate races next year said they were angered by the Court’s decision to preempt the rule this early.

They can be angered all the want. It will be very amusing to see them support an executive over-reach that will increase the cost of energy, increase the cost of living, and cost people jobs. That sounds like a winning campaign slogan, does it not? Besides, all the court did was delay implementation of Obama’s plan, not scuttle it, at least till the plan has its day in court, as 27 States are suing to kill the plan.

But Frank Maisano, an energy specialist at the law and lobbying firm Bracewell, was doubtful that any development with the climate rule could change the fact that climate change consistently ranks low in voters’ priorities.

“This tends to relegate to a lower position on the spectrum,” he said. “In the grand scheme of a political campaign, this is probably not going to be a factor.”

There is that. But, hey, let Democrats tilt at windmills. Let them chase the Snip. Let them explain how it’s an excellent idea to increase the power the of the federal government, especially the Executive, all to raise the cost of living for the middle and lower classes.

Meanwhile, the NY Times Editorial Board is having sour grapes over the court decision

The Supreme Court’s extraordinary decision on Tuesday to temporarily block the Obama administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from power plants was deeply disturbing on two fronts.

There’s nothing extraordinary about any court putting a plan on hold until any suit on the plan has its full day in court.

It raised serious questions about America’s ability to deliver on Mr. Obama’s pledge in Paris in December to sharply reduce carbon emissions, and, inevitably, about its willingness to take a leadership role on the issue.

Except, most Americans couldn’t care less about this plan, especially if it will raise our costs and eliminate jobs. Furthermore, the plan came out months prior to Obama’s Paris pledge, and, that’s his pledge, not America’s. If the plans are so great, why did he not submit them to the duly elected legislators?

And with all the Republican-appointed justices lining up in a 5-to-4 vote to halt the regulation before a federal appeals court could rule on it, the court also reinforced the belief among many Americans that the court is knee-deep in the partisan politics it claims to stand above. While the court’s action was not a ruling on the merits of the case, it will delay efforts to comply with the regulation and sends an ominous signal that Mr. Obama’s initiative, known as the Clean Power Plan, could ultimately be overturned.

What the NY Times fails to do is explain why States should have to comply with this Executive order when they are suing to stop it. They also fail to explain why they’re OK with raising the cost of living for the middle and lower classes.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Democrats Think Supreme Court’s EPA Power Plant Rules Hold Could Help Them Win Back Seats »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Triumph The Insult Comic Dog Takes On Political Correctness

By William Teach February 10, 2016 – 5:20 pm

Some of these Special Snowflakes seem very uncomfortable, as Triumph discusses mircroaggressions and trigger warnings. It’s a long video, but, well worth it

Read: Triumph The Insult Comic Dog Takes On Political Correctness »

Posted in Like, Gnarly, Dude | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 10, 2016 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil energy sucking smartphone causing the seas to rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Doug Ross @ Journal, with a post highlight Iran expanding underground nuclear weapons complex.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Can You Guess How Much Of Obama’s Budget Goes To “Payments To Individuals”?

By William Teach February 10, 2016 – 10:30 am

Of course, Obama’s budget is going absolutely nowhere. The GOP isn’t even going to bother sending it to committee. Why would they? Everytime it has been given a vote it goes down in flames, with even the vast majority of Democrats voting against his budgets. In fact, when the GOP forces a vote on Obama’s budgets, Dems complain that it is a stunt. Harry Reid wouldn’t even allow a vote on some Obama budgets. I wonder why? (via The Lonely Conservative)

(Investors) Budget: What is the federal government’s most important function these days? Based on the Obama budget released today, it’s not defense, or roads, or education, or the environment. It’s cutting checks.

Buried deep in the president’s annual budget are a series of tables that few ever notice, but that are incredibly illuminating when it comes to understanding the size and scope of today’s federal government.

The table shows how much money the federal government spends on what budget officials describe as “payments to individuals.” Obama’s budget puts the figure for next year at a mind-boggling $2.9 trillion out of a $4.1 trillion budget.

In other words, more than 70% of federal spending amounts to taking money from one set of pockets, and depositing it in another.

This is a figure that has been going up up up. It was 50% in 1991, and 60% in 2008. Where’s it going?

Surprisingly little of this money, however, helps the poor. Housing assistance, food stamps, welfare programs, and Medicaid comprise just 25% of all the payments to individuals.

The rest goes to middle class programs like Social Security, student aid, Medicare benefits, federal employee pensions and the like.

Among the fastest growing spending categories under Obama are Medicaid, which climbed 91% since he took office, food stamps and other nutrition programs (up 78%), Social Security (up 61%), and student aid, which shot up 55%.

And, of course, Obamacare, which grew from $39 billion to $112 billion. Remember when it was going to pay for itself? As The Lonely Conservative notes, “This is how politicians get elected, by bankrupting future generations.” Nor can this be blamed solely on Democrats, as Republicans are more than willing to play the “give other people’s money away” game.

Read: Can You Guess How Much Of Obama’s Budget Goes To “Payments To Individuals”? »

Posted in Barry Obama, Government | 15 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove