FDA Wants To Regulate Medical Lab Tests

The latest target for federal regulation is medical laboratory testing.  The FDA sees lab developed tests as the Wild West.  This situation requires the FDA to be in charge of evaluating medical lab tests for both safety and effectiveness.  Industry objections are met with liberal arguments that if the FDA does not regulate medical lab test, we might as well get rid of municipal health departments.

Some VA patients see government controlled medicine as a vast Stalinist gulag that can kill them with delays.  Why do liberals always assume that government is actually going to help?  Bureaucrats don't become saints in employee orientation.  They stay just as self-interested as they were before they became civil service employees. 

It amazes me that government is always looking for more responsibilities to take on, especially given their poor record at accomplishing most of the things they are already responsible for.  Perhaps we should have a moratorium on expanding government responsibility until all of the fraud and abuse everybody talks about is reduced by a measurable amount.

My argument is that we have gone past the point of diminishing returns with governmental regulation at the federal level.  I do not advocate dismantling the FDA, merely stopping its growth.  

There is a difference between snake oil purchased by individuals who can barely read and lab tests purchased by doctors for their patients.  Doctors are government licensed educated consumers who should be allowed to make decisions based on their own education and experience.   Since liberals want a change, they have the burden of proof.  They need to show some evidence that doctors are not qualified to judge lab tests and that large numbers of lab tests are misused with a huge casualty rate which is not controlled by personal injury lawsuits.  Or liberals can pretend "The Jungle" was written recently about current events, instead of in 1906.

Naive Belief Government Will Care for Us

As usual, liberals use any shooting as an excuse to thump for gun control.  They accuse anyone who believes they have the right to armed self-defense of being corporate shills for the gun lobby, who want this entire country to arm up so you/they can turn dead bodies into profits.  They carry on like this even if the shooting was terrorists in France and California, both with very strict gun control.  It seems obvious to me that liberals have a hammer of a solution in gun control, and the whole world is a nail.

By liberal reasoning, liberals are just shills for a government that wants total power over our lives.  We are supposed to believe that the government will take care of us if we give up our own ability to take care of ourselves.

To believe government will take good care of us, you have to ignore how politics really works.  In Chicago, everyone knows if your neighborhood didn't vote right, Mayor Richard J. Daley wouldn't repair your streets and sidewalks.  This is still the rule in politics today.  The government seizes guns because then it can decide who gets police protection and who doesn't.  The government takes over health care so it can decide who gets treatment and who doesn't.  The government controls carbon dioxide emissions so it can decide who gets electricity and who does not.  The government already decides that left wing nonprofit groups get tax exemptions and right wing Tea Party groups do not. 

Imagine how many fewer people would have been hurt if two or three of the people in the room had been armed.  The Jihadi couple would have been shot dead before they could do much damage.  Gun free zones are target rich environments for terrorists and the insane.  They are a guarantee of no resistance.  Leftist gun control laws make sure all potential targets are totally defenseless.  This guarantees happy hunting for ISIS.

In Israel, terrorists are using knives or cars as weapons.  It's the hate, not the weapons.  

Liberal Road to Plutocracy and Religious Intolerance

Liberals like to say that Conservative policies will lead to plutocracy and Christian theocracy. Conservatives see the end result of ever more powerful government, which throws the Constitutional checks and balances under the bus, as the surest way to crony capitalism and religious intolerance.

Goldman Sachs, the big Wall Street bank, gives all of its political donations to Democrats because complicated regulations, like Dodd Frank, makes it easier for them to compete against smaller firms. It's called regulatory capture in academic circles. In Chicago, it's known as political clout. A powerful government with heavy regulatory schemes has influence it can sell. This leads to corruption.

The main reason that Evangelical Christians became Conservatives is because they wanted to home school their kids. The authorities tried to make that impossible. It was a religious freedom issue. Most Conservatives are strongly in favor of religious toleration.

It is not religious toleration to force Catholic Nuns to pay for abortions under Obamacare or lose all federal funds for their work helping the poor of all faiths. It is not religious toleration for the City of San Francisco to try to outlaw circumcision for everyone, including Orthodox Jews. It is not religious toleration to force private vendors to bake cakes or take pictures for gay weddings when they have religious objections to them. It is not religious toleration to try to sue them out of business when they refuse.

Before Liberals make stupid assumptions, I go to a Protestant church once a year for Easter. My Grandfather was Jewish, as is my wife. My sister in law is the best thing that ever happened to my little brother. She also happens to be black. I am in favor of gay marriage, as long as it's done by state law, and not a Supreme Court 14th Amendment ruling. I plan to attend a gay wedding this summer.

The difference is that I am willing to tolerate other religious views. Liberals are not.

Cap and Trade For Bureaucratic Regulations

I don't think it will take 30 years to halt the growth of the regulatory state. A single cap and trade bill and a slight change in court regulatory rules will do it. First, limit the total volume of government regulations and force bureaucrats to bargain with each other over which regulations are most important. If the government wants to add new regulations, they have to remove old regulations to make room for them. In addition, there needs to be a legal change in the deference federal courts give to regulatory agencies. Right now, regulations are given almost no court review because the regulatory agency is assumed to know what they are doing. The law should be instead that regulatory agencies deserve review on the relevance of the regulations to the original law authorizing the regulations. Regulators should be required to demonstrate that the effects of the new regulations will be to solve the problem they are supposed to solve at a reasonable cost compared to the benefits. Obviously, court injunctions would be allowed to delay the imposition of new regulations until they can be reviewed. With these two innovations, we will be using two of the Liberals' favorite mechanisms to restrain regulation. Liberals designed cap and trade to destroy conventional energy production.  They have always used the courts to stall construction projects with endless environmental lawsuits.  Under my scheme, when the regulatory process grinds to a halt, it will fall on the bureaucrats and courts. 
Aticle I reacted to:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390434/thirty-years-war-kevin-d-williamson

Obama's Legacy of Selective Enforcement

The Chicago Political Hack in Chief has a great record of selective enforcement. If Congress fails to pass the Dream Act, Mr. Pen and Phone creates a dream act on his own. Imagine what Dick Cheney could have done with power like this. For example, imagine unlimited oil and gas drilling on all western federal land, including all of California, offshore of any blue state and, especially, the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. If our Dear Leader can decide not to collect Obamacare taxes on employers without proper health plans, a future President Ted Cruz can refuse to collect taxes on oil companies. Unless you Progressives plan never to lose an election again, you better start thinking about how current precedents could be used against you. Or perhaps Progressives don't believe in elections with consequences any more. 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/06/opinion/kohn-john-boehner-nonsense/index.html

Guerilla Lawfare to Harass The One

Conservatives clearly need better legal tactics to bring home just how lawless Mr. Pen and Phone is. I think we need to act more like Mean Green Environmental groups and aggressive tort lawyers in a guerrilla lawfare campaign of harassment against the Prevaricator in Chief. What's at stake here is the survival of Constitutional government in America. The One's unilateral changing of the Obamacare law, as well as a lot of other laws, is a precedent for the complete destruction of Constitutional limited government. To paraphrase Joe Biden, this is a BFD. Checks and balances are being smashed, while the Chicago Hack in Chief pretends he's mayor of Chicago. If our current Dear Leader gets away with this, no future Dear Leader will feel bound by any law. Future presidents will be elected dictators. This is not the time to say nobody has standing to sue without filing a ton of lawsuits using every possible theory, no matter how far fetched, to find someone with the legal standing to sue. Sue early and often, just like the Mean Green Environmental groups do to preserve the delta smelt. To solve the legal standing problem, find some employee of a 50-99 employee exempted company who is willing to sue. Do as the tort lawyers do and advertise for people injured by the delays of Obamacare or other unilaterally changed laws. Keep filing using different theories until we get a favorable ruling somewhere. File in multiple circuits, so if you lose in one but win in another the Supremes will have to hear the case. Shamelessly shop for the most conservative venues. Don't you think the environmental groups do just that for every dam they want to stop? Ask for temporary injunctions to stop the lawless behavior. Just like the Mean Green groups, even if you lose, the free publicity is worth it. It would be a big tactical mistake to have only one lawsuit. Boehner's House lawsuit should be only one of many lawsuits filed.  If any outrage of the last 50 years deserved a conservative full court press, this is it. Why are we just rolling over and playing dead? 

Article on Congressional lawsuit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381453/boehner-bringing-whistle-gunfight-andrew-c-mccarthy

Is There a Constitutional Right to Free Contraceptives?

Freedom of Religion is in the Bill of Rights.  Every woman's right to free contraception is not.  It's not even a penumbra.  The pills we are talking about are relatively cheap.  Why can't Sandra Fluke buy her own contraception?  I think the real issue here is the Liberal/Progressive Democrat Party's desire for absolute governmental power.  This article gives the real motive away by making a slippery slope argument that once businesses can resist government orders on religious grounds, there's no end to the other government orders that might be resisted.  Sandra Fluke wants everyone to be forced to do the government's bidding no matter how arbitrary the rules are and no matter how often and capriciously they change.  Just to be totally clear, there is no desire on the part of the businesses involved to outlaw contraception.  They just don't want to have to pay for it.  If people think free contraception is a desirable outcome, they can set up charities to fund it.  Why does government coercion have come into the picture?  It's clear to me that private enterprise is a check on government power, and that's why enforcing arbitrary regulations is so important to Sandra Fluke and friends.  They want an all-powerful government. 

I don't understand why the government has to force businesses to pay for things. If government wants women to have free contraception, the government should pay for it directly. If the government chooses not to pay for contraception, then private charities can be organized to do this. Contraceptives are available for purchase legally at every corner drugstore. The folks who are forcing things down throats are the Big Government Democrats trying to coerce others to pay for things because the Feds are too broke to buy it themselves. Nobody is advocating making contraception illegal. The argument is about who has to pay. 

The left wants to claim more and more power for the central government. They will lie, cheat and steal to achieve their goal. Contraception is cheap and available at every corner drugstore. Why is the contraception mandate the only thing our Dear Leader won't change about Obamacare?  The reason is the left wants unquestioned obedience to government edicts. The level of outrage liberals are expressing towards religion in particular and diverse beliefs in general, is a measure of how badly they want to crush any resistance to any government edict. I think they object to the resistance to government edicts much more than to the specifics of this case. This is about removing any private organizational checks on the exercise of governmental power. The specifics are just a smokescreen. 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/03/25/a_women039s_rights_catastrophe_328428.html

Government Power Corrupts Government

 The article linked below expresses puzzlement about why Conservatives think Liberals are Socialists or worse.  My answer is that Liberal politicians are in it for the power.  The more control the Federal Government has the better for Liberals.  Liberals never explain the limits that should be imposed on government because they don't believe that there is any problem government can't solve.  For Liberals, government should be unlimited, so it can help people whenever and wherever needed.  Conservatives see this Liberal position as threatening tyranny.  Totalitarian governments have unlimited power to help people, but lack the motivation to do so.  Tyrants have more than enough power to maintain the government without the consent of the governed.  Power corrupts.  The greater the government's power, the more corrupt it is.  IRS harassment of Tea Party groups is what Conservatives expect of an over powerful government.  Conservatives believe that "helping people" is just a cover story for seeking more power.  The only reason the Conservative position baffles Liberals is that they believe the cover story, that the government needs to expand to help people.  Liberals are blind to the downside of expanding government power.  Liberals failed to see any risk in Obamacare.  Millions of canceled health insurance policies are the result of this Liberal blindness.  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-29/how-the-alger-hiss-case-explains-the-tea-party.html