Revenue isn’t the problem

Yesterday’s post dealt with the precarious financial situation Uncle Sam is in.  Interestingly, today I happened to stumble onto U.S. News and World Report’s ranking of the “Best States for Fiscal Stability.”

The top three are Tennessee, Florida, and South Dakota, in that order.  What do all of these have in common?

They are three of the eight U.S. States that still don’t have a personal income tax.  Tennessee does tax dividend — investment — income, but not wages.  But it relies mostly on sales taxes to pay its bills.  So why is it so stable?

For one thing, its Constitution requires a balanced budget.  Spending in a given year cannot exceed revenue collections and reserves.

Maybe Uncle Sam should take a trip to Nashville before he has to face the music.

UPDATE: as I was saying…

Life and death in America

The battle lines are being drawn ever more starkly in this country, between those who believe in the sanctity of life, and those who believe it to be just another disposable commodity.

Pro-abortion activists believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg is their last hope of protecting the travesty known as Roe v. Wade.  And perhaps they’re right.  Interestingly, the “Notorious RBG” hasn’t been seen in public in over a month, having missed several oral arguments at the Supreme Court due to health issues (out of character for her).  Has anyone done a wellness check on her lately?  Some thought Tuesday’s State of the Union address might confirm whether she’s still an active Supreme Court Justice or we’re seeing a Democrat reenactment of the movie “Weekend at Bernie’s.”  But now we’re told she’ll be skipping it due to a schedule conflict.  How… convenient.

Sensing their time is short, abortionists are moving quickly to emplace laws at the State level that would allow the slaughter of the unborn to continue regardless the fate of the Roe precedent.  In their haste, they are dropping any pretense this is somehow about making abortion “safe, legal and rare,” as the tagline used to go.  No, this flurry of activity is about making abortion available on demand at any time, for any reason…

…including just after birth:

Virginia’s governor has drawn backlash after suggesting that a pregnancy could be terminated after the baby’s birth, as the state debates a bill relaxing restrictions on third trimester abortions.  Governor Ralph Northam, a Democrat, made the shocking remarks in an interview with WTOP-FM on Wednesday, as he attempted to explain a Democrat delegate’s earlier remarks.

Northam, a pediatric neurologist(!), described a hypothetical situation where a severely deformed newborn infant could be left to die.  He said that if a woman were to desire an abortion as she’s going into labor, the baby would be delivered and then ‘resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue’ between doctors and the mother.

So does this mean that for a period of time after a clump of cells fetus baby leaves the womb and draws breath it is still fair game for abandonment and death?  How long is that period?  Hours?  Days?  Weeks?  What if an impaired child affects a mother’s “mental health” when it reaches two years old?  The current crush of new laws go to great lengths to remove criminal penalties for killing an unborn child while assaulting the mother.  Activists correctly realized the contradiction in charging “fetal homicide” while still permitting abortion.  Their solution is to completely dehumanize the unborn in the eyes of the law, so they only become a “person” when born to a woman who wants them.  “Women’s rights” do not include being allowed to play God.

We’re constantly berated that nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. But an unborn child is not the woman’s body. It is a distinct individual, with its own DNA, fingerprints, and future.  Any person’s choices are limited by society to the extent they impact others, and this, above all, should be no exception.  Aside from rape, every woman exercises her ‘choice’ in this matter by choosing to abstain from, or engage in, sexual activity.  Abortionists like to “what if” all manner of horrific but statistically insignificant scenarios, but the conclusion is inescapable the overwhelming majority of abortions are simply birth control after the fact, at the cost of a human life.

It’s only a small step, not a slope, from this point to arguing that any inconvenient life can be terminated.  The concept of “assisted suicide” already allows people to end their own life if they find it “too painful.”  But last year the Netherlands began an investigation into a doctor who allegedly had family hold a patient down while he inserted a fatal IV drip against her will.

I commented recently on the willingness of political opponents now to say things that would have been considered beyond the pale just a generation ago: “Put the MAGA hat kids in the woodchipper,” “Burn their school down,” and of course an alleged comedian holding a simulated severed head of the president.  Add this to the general devaluation of life that abortion and euthanasia represent, and we have an explosive cocktail indeed.  Earlier generations of Marxists had no qualms about “breaking a few eggs” in the quest for their socialist paradise.  Given the opportunity, I suspect their ideological descendants today would feel the same way.

Still wonder why many of us are determined to protect the right to bear arms?  In a culture of death, the means of self-defense are essential.

Do you know what direction your State is headed on this issue?  Will it protect the first heartbeat, or enable the murder of a person on the verge of birth?  How will you help ensure your State chooses life?

The forgotten Amendment

I’ve written before about the 10th Amendment — an essential but now mostly overlooked part of the Bill of Rights that makes clear where the bulk of authority lies within the federation known as the United States:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

A number of years ago there was a vocal national debate about “unfunded mandates” — Congressional legislation that requires States to fund the activity.  Several States (rightly) considered this encroachment on their State’s sovereign right to spend its tax revenue as it wishes.  The 1990s-era “Contract with America” produced legislation to curb the practice, but in reality it has continued unabated.

But passing laws may not be the costliest burden the Feds impose on the States:

Can states just say “no” to foreign refugees? Tennessee is testing that proposition in federal court.

Tennessee vs. U.S. Department of State is a case every state and taxpayer should watch closely in light of new FAIR research showing per-capita refugee costs running nearly $80,000 over five years.

During the Obama regime, the Federal government dumped tens of thousands of ‘refugees’ across America.  The term ‘refugee’ itself is misleading in this context.  True refugees are expected to return home at some point when the immediate crisis has passed.  But we find that hasn’t really been the case here.  Bringing refugees to the U.S. isn’t even the most cost-effective way to “do something,” as the emotional cry goes.  The Center for Immigration Studies suggests 12 refugees could be supported in countries adjacent to a crisis for what it costs to bring over and sustain ONE in the U.S.

Then there is the issue of what the American people want.  Since World War II, the U.S. has been incredibly generous and compassionate toward others by historical standards.  But even that big heart has limits when the public starts to perceive their leaders putting foreigners ahead of U.S. citizens.  A contributing factor in the election of Donald Trump was increasing resentment of the number of immigrants (legal AND illegal) and ‘refugees’ pouring into America.

It’s good to see the 10th Amendment being cited in a challenge.  But here’s another angle that might not be as obvious: at a time when the ballooning national debt already threatens the contractual obligations the government has to various citizens through programs like Social Security, etc, how much tolerance should there be for the government to spend scarce resources on non-citizens?  As it now stands, the country’s fiscal resources are a zero-sum game (excessive printing of currency notwithstanding); every dollar spent on foreign and refugee aid is a dollar taken from Americans — and largely against their will, as current polls show.

The States are the final bulwark against the Federal Government.  Only acting in concert can they tell Uncle Sam “you’ve exceeded your mandate — get back in your box.”  Here’s hoping the current lawsuit, along with the progress toward a Convention of States, brings that reckoning a little closer.

A picture worth a thousand words

Or, if you prefer, “the futility of the leftist worldview, starkly illustrated.”  Note carefully that not a single bullet hole was prevented by the sign proudly declaring that the recruiting station was a “gun-free zone.”  Posting black ribbons on your Facebook profile isn’t an adequate response to this event.  Expressing solidarity is nice, but perhaps it’s time you call your Congresscritter and demand to know why U.S. troops seem to be most vulnerable here in their own country.  Better yet, demand your Congresscritter ask for the Secretary of Defense’s resignation.  After all, the Defense Department made several “scary” announcements in recent months about threats to our troops… and yet force protection remains woefully inadequate.  When military members have to leave the country before they’re allowed to carry a weapon for self-defense (a right that is supposed to be secured by the Second Amendment for ALL Americans), something’s amiss.  But I guess that’s par for the course for an administration that’s only too happy to sign a nuclear deal with Iran that will free up $150 billion in assets for one of the world’s largest state sponsors of terrorism.

When will America get angry enough?

I try diligently not to write on this site when I’m freshly angry about something.  Today, I don’t care.

For several years after 9/11 we were told we had to fight wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan so that we would “fight them over there instead of over here.”  Well, it should have been obvious on the face of it that when you simultaneously import large numbers of people from those same parts of the world that you’re probably bringing trouble home with you.

And now, four Marines have been gunned down in Tennessee, unable even to attempt to defend themselves because military recruiting stations are “Gun-free zones” (?!?)  The killer?  A now-deceased Kuwaiti import named Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, who apparently has been living here for some time but failed to magically transmogrify into a loyal American the way open borders advocates assure us all these millions of immigrants do.

While it’s nice to see the response to Donald Trump’s highlighting of the illegal immigration issue, that’s but one part of the problem.  On top of that floodtide, our very own State Department continues legally to bring over large numbers of people steeped in a worldview that is antithetical to the one our nation was founded upon.  Remember, the 9/11 hijackers didn’t slip across the border — they were admitted under various visa programs by our own government.

At the same time, every incident like this is wrung dry by liberals as a talking point for further disarmament of the American public at large.  Newsflash for the gun-control zealots: it was the Americans — members of the US Marine Corps, no less — who were unarmed in Tennessee today.  And they DIED.

America is divided enough — we don’t need to be importing more partisans and factions.  It’s long past time for a “time out” on immigration.

– Secure the *&^% border the way you secure anything you truly care about.  Stop with the charades and the kabuki dances.

– Stop trying to import the world via legal immigration.

– And most importantly, stop playing games with the 2nd Amendment.  When we’re told repeatedly that terrorists are targeting U.S. military personnel in our own country, but isolated military personnel on duty are not permitted access to weapons, that is CRIMINAL NEGLECT for force protection.  And let this point sink in: when Marines–trained riflemen, every one–can be killed in the U.S. by an attacker who knows they won’t be able to shoot back, NONE OF OUR LIVES ARE SECURE.

An armed society is a polite society.  So is one that isn’t a polyglot of every crazy creed on the face of the planet.  And if half our own society can’t figure that out (or childishly refuses to face reality), maybe it’s time for the rest of us to part company with what used to be “the land of the free, and the home of the brave.”

“A nation preserved with liberty trampled underfoot is much worse than a nation in fragments but with the spirit of liberty still alive…”  I fear the spirit of liberty — TRUE liberty, not just mindless licentiousness and materialism– is all but dead in the United States.  God grant that I’m wrong.  And if I’m not, God grant those of us who still care the ability to carve out a place where that spirit can flourish once again.

Rest in peace, Devil Dogs.  You didn’t fail your country — it failed you.