Posted by Chris Hand on 06/08/11

Legislation was passed in committee and introduced to the Senate that prohibits the use of "Insense" and "Bath Salts" for ingestion. So once again the State decides what you can and can't put in your own bodies. Does that make you Government Property?

The legislation by state Rep. Ricky Templet, R-Gretna, intends to close any loopholes that would prevent Businesses from changing the ingredients to keep the products legal.

These types of Legislative Action deletes the responsibility of: Parents to teach their children what to do about Drugs; Individuals to choose for themselves; Store Owners' decision on whether he/she wishes to sell these types of items or ban them from Their Store.

When they take away the right of the Individual to decide for themselves, they are Not choosing Liberty.

Louisiana State Legislators, YOU are Not my Owner or Parent. Just because you are in office doesn't mean that you are a Ruler... You are the Servant. Get your heads strait.

 
Posted by KevinYeaux on 05/23/11

On Monday, May 23rd, the Senate voted on cloture for the PATRIOT Renewal Act.

• Vitter didn't vote
• Landrieu voted yea.

Final passage in the Senate is expected by Wednesday.

 
Posted by thedeadpelican on 04/03/11

A recent report has alleged that Louisiana's tax cuts have lead to budget shortfalls:

In Louisiana, lawmakers essentially passed the largest tax cut in  state history by rolling back an income tax hike for high earners in  2007 and again in 2008.

That's a dubious claim anyway, but even if it's true, well... so what? What's the problem with cutting government to make up for the shortfall?

Without those tax reductions, Louisiana  wouldn't have had a budget deficit in fiscal year 2010, the 2011 deficit  would've been 50 percent less and the 2012 deficit of $1.6 billion  would be reduced by about one-third, said Edward Ashworth, the director of the Louisiana Budget Project, a watchdog group.

 
Posted by thedeadpelican on 04/01/11
Last updated 04/01/11

I ran across a piece yesterday that is all too typical of  the left's "tea party narrative."   Self- described progressives are incapable of talking about the tea party movement without mentioning Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh.   They mostly omit any mention of Rand Paul, and with good reason: he does not fit their narrative in any way, shape or form.  (Yeah, I know about the whole Rachel Maddow thing. That's an exception to the rule I'm discussing and everyone knows it).  It is simply not possible to paint him as a mindless loud mouth or an anti- intellectual, or a racist, or any of the nasty things the left uses to describe the tea party movement.  And so they mostly ignore him.  The piece excerpted below is typical progressive drivel about the tea party movement.

In essence, the article claims progressives have a monopoly on rational thinking, and the tea parties are (you guessed it!) all about emotion, specifically mindless anger.  And of course they try to say that  Glenn Beck is the face of the tea party:

Progressives don’t need to abandon rationality altogether. Instead,   they need a better theory of it that shows how emotions and reason not   only influence one another, but are interdependent. In this regard,   psychoanalysis is one of the most powerful theories humans have ever  invented.

Take  the important and thorny issue as to how should one treat mass   psychosis. From the hateful and incendiary rants of the Tea Partiers; to   the unrelenting, over-the-top behavior of Glenn Beck and Rush  Limbaugh.

Whatever the merits of Beck and Limbaugh,   it's simply a lie to say that they are literally  the faces of the tea party movement and/ or the guiding force behind it.  They are not.  Beck and Limbaugh  entertainers, and that's it.  They are entertainers with a distinct world view that they articulate very well, but they are entertainers nonetheless. I resent the left's attempt to attach them to the tea party movement as if they were literally the sole inspiration behind it.



They are not.

The person who does represent the tea party and what it stands for, the tea party "rock star" if you will, is Senator Rand Paul. But this poses a real problem for progressives who insist on portraying the tea party as a bunch racist, anti- intellectual yahoos: Rand Paul is none of the above and there's no way he can be portrayed as such. That's why the above-mentioned article doesn't mention Rand Paul even once.  


The Hill summed up what Rand Paul is all about in this recent piece called Rand Paul Rises.  The article notes that "Rand Paul's speeches on the Senate floor are thoughtful,  informed by history and tradition and appropriate to current events,  and so are his frequent conversations with Judge Andrew Napolitano on  Fox Business."   Think about this. The Hill is describing a Republican Senator as being   "thoughtful and informed!"  So naturally, progressives have to leave him out of their tea party musings.

But this part is the best:

...the times are moving toward Rand. Invariably, widespread social  movements like the Tea Party move to one champion and representative.  She or he has not yet been found. But it will not be any of the  so-far-announced Republicans, nor will it be one like Wisconsin Gov.  Scott Walker or Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who primarily serve the  Republican traditions. The traditions are eroding. The world is  beginning again. It may be Rand Paul.

The "traditions" alluded to in the article are indeed eroding, or at least I hope so; the GOP's survival literally depends on it.  It cannot survive, nor can the United States, if the GOP continues to be the party of big government, as opposed to HUGE government.

Rand Paul is a thinking- man who shatters every stereotype that the left can throw at him, and is a breath of fresh air indeed.

 
Posted by thedeadpelican on 03/28/11
Last updated 03/28/11

I've been commenting about the ongoing debate about the president's authority to authorize military action.  My contention is that the president should not have the power to unilaterally get us involved in a war.  It's an idea that seems to be catching on:  two GOP lawmakers are actually pushing a bill that will demand that the president get authorization from congress before attacking another country.  Here's the amazing part: neither one of them is named "Ron Paul."   Via the Kansas City Star comes this:

Two House Republicans are pushing a bill that would force President Barack Obama to stop military operations in Libya until he gets congressional approval.

Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, a freshman, and Timothy Johnson of Illinois sent a letter to House colleagues on Monday seeking support for their legislation that they said they would introduce on Tuesday. The bill would stop the use of military force against Libya until Obama seeks and receives authorization from Congress.

This has great significance.   Up to now, congressmen in both parties have pretty much let the president set loose the dogs of war when and if he has seen fit to do so.  The only person I know to insist on congressional approval first is Congressman Ron Paul.  These two lawmakers stand in stark contrast to the hawks in the Republican party such as Senator John McCain who has only gushing praise for Obama's war:

“I welcome the President’s strong defense of our military action in Libya,  and I appreciate that he explained why this intervention was both right  and necessary in light of the unprecedented democratic awakening now  sweeping the broader Middle East.

Eh... did we see the same speech, Mr. McCain?   Or am I somehow lacking in comprehension skills?  I guess it's the latter.  McCain continues:

“Had we not acted in Libya,  Benghazi would have become a scene of mass slaughter and a source of  international shame. Libyan refugees would now be streaming into Egypt  and Tunisia, destabilizing those critical countries during their already  daunting political transitions.

Well, ok. But what vital national interest is at stake for the United States? How is America threatened by Gaddafi's reign?  It appears as though neither McCain nor Obama is even pretending like there's any real threat here to the United States.   And if there isn't then why are we there?