Obama porn coming: fight fire with tsunami

The Federal Communications Commission under President Obama is apparently tired of banning profane language and soft pornography on television and conservative groups across the land are organizing email comments in protest.

That isn't the way to do it.

Not only is a torrent of emails unlikely to persuade left-wing feel-gooders in charge to stop trying to coarsen society as they have been working for decades to do, it's the wrong way to fight the fight.

My target is the people who provide the entertainment, not the government that regulates it. If ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox want into my home after this policy change occurs, they need to all make clear that ObamaPorn won't be broadcast on their stations. There are two weaknesses in this plan, though they aren't quite as bad as emailing the FCC: they are a package deal so if one goes Obama as far as I'm concerned they are all gone and, second, they won't have far to go because they are already pretty bad.

Still, demanding federal authorities prohibit service providers from delivering something they want to give consumers who want to get it to make those who don't want it happy is the wrong way to go. The path of government force deserves to lose this fight and it will.

So I will be unplugging the converter box that delivers these broadcasters into my home until such time as I'm convinced ObamaPorn is off their stations. If we really want to win the battle of the airwaves, that's our approach.

Two new plaintiffs join Adams v. Beshear

Two very active tea party leaders in Kentucky have joined the lawsuit to force Governor Steve Beshear to follow Kentucky law and stop trying to set up the ObamaCare health insurance "exchange" without legislative approval.

Sarah Durand, President of the Louisville Tea Party, has represented liberty issues on the state and national level extremely well for several years.

Dawn Cloyd would probably be president of the Lexington Tea Party if there were such a thing. Her boundless zeal in supporting free markets and free people has also been an inspiration to many.

These extraordinary women bring significant intellectual and organizational firepower to this effort merely by lending their names to it. Stay tuned for more exciting updates.

Another fun case of mistaken identity

In February, liberal Super PAC Progress Kentucky gained international attention for tweeting about Mrs. Mitch McConnell. Due in part to confusion in the similarity between their name and my blog's name, I got a few unsolicited nasty phone calls from people who thought I was them. I got a good laugh out of it and no harm was done.

Well, I'm still not them.

I figured that wouldn't help much with the most recent "wire-tapping" issue stirring our names up again, but it may be even worse than I thought. I just noticed the Department of Homeland Security has taken a break from sorting out good brown people from bad brown people to check on a couple of liberal activists in Louisville and their search appears to have inadvertently brought them here.

The President promised he wouldn't send drones out after American citizens, right?

Mitch McConnell caves on gun control, betrays 2nd Amendment

U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell broke his recent silence on guns this morning with an anti-Second Amendment statement inconsistent with the beliefs of his constituents.

"I believe the government should focus on keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and those with mental issues that could cause them to be a threat to society," McConnell said in a press release.

This is the same kind of faulty reasoning that leads big government politicians like McConnell to support anti-liberty legislation like the Patriot Act and NDAA. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." There are no "ifs and buts" and there is no wiggle room in the Second Amendment.

If Senator McConnell thinks he has figured out some magical way to keep guns out of anyone's hands, let him take a timeout from gun-grabbing and list-making and explain to us just how that is supposed to work.

Will the left help tear down ObamaCare in Kentucky?

Just got off the phone with Huffington Post's Howard Fineman about the new lawsuit to rescind Governor Steve Beshear's ObamaCare executive order filed in 2012.

Beshear has been hiding behind staffers and attorneys since Monday on this issue, but may not be able to keep that up for long. The main issue here is not whether socialized medicine is good or not. The main issue in this case is whether the Governor of the Commonwealth can violate state law and the Constitution to do whatever he wants in office.

This case may reach the point quickly at which Democrats want it to end faster than Republicans do.

David Adams sues Steve Beshear over ObamaCare exchange

Exactly three months after a January 8, 2013 Capitol Rotunda rally calling for an end to ObamaCare, I have filed a lawsuit in Franklin County Circuit Court to force Governor Steve Beshear to rescind his Executive Order 2012-587 and shut down the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange.

Governor Beshear cited as his authority for creating the exchange by executive order a statute requiring him to get approval from the General Assembly. KRS 12.028. This statute permits the Governor to create new government entities by proposing them to the General Assembly "for its approval."

He has obtained no such approval.

He also claimed constitutional authority, in the Kentucky Constitution, but didn't specify where that authority could be found.

Assuming no one has been able to locate a "Good and Plenty" clause or something else we don't know about that might make this legal, the only thing I can think of is Section 80, which allows the Governor to call a special session.

He could, of course, call legislators back in solely to approve Kentucky's continued head-first dive into ObamaCare's empty swimming pool of promises. It would make much more sense, though, to admit defeat and shut the whole thing down right now before this mess is supposed to take effect October 1.

Greg Stumbo should change House "discharge petition" rule while he still can

Governor Steve Beshear says he will sign Senate Bill 3 today, possibly ending the state's decade-long harassment of Christian MediShare, a religious alternative to government regulated health insurance.

The bill nearly died before a discharge petition was filed by Rep. Stan Lee on March 5. Discharge petitions in legislatures allow a minority of members to force a floor vote on a bill being held up by leadership. As it turned out Lee's discharge petition was ruled out of order and negotiations by Senator Tom Buford broke the bill free from House leadership's grasp.

House rules relating to discharge petitions render useless what could and should be a very beneficial tool for better representation in Frankfort. House Rule 48 should simply be amended to require 25 House member signatures on a petition to force a floor vote within one day of its filing. As it is, the rule has been gunked up with nonsense about reporting a bill in a "reasonable time" and then only kicking it back to the Rules Committee where more games can be played to forestall actual action on the bill.

Given the increasing probability that Kentucky Democrats will lose their House majority in the 2014, they should move now to straighten up House Rule 48 to work for the people and not just a tiny group of power-hungry politicians.

Mitch McConnell's earmark/bailout downgrade

When running for re-election in 2008, Sen. Mitch McConnell campaigned heavily on his ability to bring home bacon. He proved the point by voting for bailouts and massive piles of debt most Republicans realize we can't afford.

As the wind has shifted, so, of course, has Sen. McConnell. In fact, he took a break recently from caving in on the next debt ceiling deal to post a web site promoting a "Team Mitch" rewards program. Featured items include a War on Drugs protective helmet (for entertainment purposes only) and a Stimulus Package, complete with a broken window and coupon for a free pretzel at a mall near you.

It seems, however, not everyone is impressed with this latest offering (click to read):

KY Republicans shame themselves, again

How surprised can anyone be that 75% of Kentucky state Republican Senators and 83% of Kentucky state Republican members of the House of Representatives who pledged to never vote for a tax increase failed on that pledge in the waning moments of the 2013 General Assembly?

A bipartisan cabal inserted approximately $100 million a year in tax increases into HB 440 on the evening of March 26. It's likely most of these people were unaware of what they were voting for, which would be horrifying if our expectations weren't already so low.

The supposed purpose of the bill is to provide additional funding for public employee pensions.

You can look up the final vote on HB 440 by clicking here. And you can cross-check it with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge these people signed when they wanted your vote. 

Policy, process must trump politics

Welcome MSNBC viewers!

You may be visiting this web site because you saw me on MSNBC on Saturday March 30 at 2:50 pm speaking with Craig Melvin. If that's the case, thank you!

These are very interesting times in America and if we have anything to say about it they are about to become much more interesting. Please stay in touch as we continue this grand experiment to bring the most diverse collection of people on Earth together as Americans seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You and I will agree on some things and disagree on others, but I hope to develop the kind of conversation that will lead to greater understanding and friendship even when our points of view can't align.

---------------
By the way, if you are interested in looking at a program to improve your health through better nutrition and perhaps even a business opportunity to increase your income, click here. Thanks again!

"No kidding," also not serious

I went to East Jessamine High School yesterday after classes to meet my son's teacher. I walked into the school and walked almost the length of the building before I saw a single adult among the mass of students.

But I did see this.

The only thing missing from this absurdity is a televised Cry-A-Thon about how scary guns are and maybe a buy-back program to "get them off the streets." And this is in Jessamine County, where individuals probably own two guns for every man, woman and child.

We need to stop this kind of brainless behavior about the U.S. Constitution and what its protections mean in an institution that is supposed to be teaching future generations things they need to know. Time for a real discussion about safety in our schools.

Kentucky's ObamaCare "least risky" in America

If you haven't made it to one of the monthly meetings of the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange, you are missing out on a real trip.

The big news from Thursday's meeting is that federal regulators have deemed KHBE the "least risky" state ObamaCare program in the country. I'm not kidding.

Kind of like being the tallest deck chair on the Titanic.

In other news, officials announced a white paper on the state's "navigators" will be released in about two weeks. Of particular interest is the number of people expected to be called on to provide personal assistance for people who need help using the website that was supposed to make purchasing health insurance easier. That will be interesting, too.

And the question of where the actual money will come from to finance this boondoggle will now not be answered for several months. There are no indications KHBE will do anything but waste time and money.

Kentuckians should demand their legislators seek hard answers right away on the sources of funding to be used for the exchange. The continued delay is completely unacceptable.

Shooting, burning, burying ObamaCare

If you are coming to Frankfort TODAY Thursday, March 28 for the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange advisory board meeting, please note that the location of the meeting has been changed. We will be at the Department of Insurance 2nd Floor Hearing Room, 215 West Main St in Frankfort.

Look forward to seeing you there. This is a pivotal meeting for fighting back against the federal healthcare takeover atrocity.

Who is afraid and why?

Steve Beshear's new ObamaCare decision

Leaders in both chambers of Kentucky's General Assembly have agreed to pass language protecting employer associations across the state from the mess we call ObamaCare. The bill will go to Governor Beshear as either HB 365 or as House Floor Amendment 1 to SB 152.

Either way, this legislation speeds up the implosion of the Kentucky Health Benefit Exchange (KHBE). So the choice for Gov. Beshear is this: shut down the KHBE now -- or at least create a partnership with the federal government so they share more of the cost and blame -- or veto this language, harming more Kentuckians sooner directly as a result of the federal "Affordable Care Act."

All the more reason to join us this Thursday in Frankfort for the advisory board meeting of the KHBE. They should be talking about the massive new, illegal taxes on Kentuckians to pay for this ridiculous scheme. And by then, they may have to discuss how Gov. Beshear and the legislature just made their ride on the big government gravy train a much shorter one.

My tea party statement for Friday, March 22

"Interest in better political leadership representing Kentucky is exploding. Several potential candidates representing conservatives who respect all constitutional rights equally are looking at entering the U.S. Senate race for 2014 and some of us are creating a process to reduce that group to one candidate. That process must be completed by June 1 and it will be. I believe this process will give us a better candidate to not only win in November, but to represent Kentuckians better going forward."    

Rand Paul is 100% pro-life, same as always

Another firestorm has resulted from another television interview with Senator Rand Paul in which people on both sides of the political spectrum have misunderstood his words and jumped immediately into attack mode. Despite the hysteria, this one will calm down very quickly and I think a very useful and productive conversation will come about as a result of it.

Rand was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, who asked about Rand's proposed legislation defining personhood as beginning at the moment of conception. You will hear the question from Blitzer about whether or not Rand has changed his position on abortion, but what happens after that is, I think, the beginning of a real discussion that transcends the usual talking points on the issue.

Rand isn't even talking about abortion. That's the key point causing confusion. He's talking about defining the beginning of life in order to protect it. Watch the video and see if you can make that distinction. You may have to watch it twice to catch it.



It didn't take long for a reporter with Louisville's second-largest newspaper, LEO, to start the following email conversation which I've reproduced below with my replies:

Joe: Rand's switching his abortion position, too? Man, he's starting to act like McConnell.
Me: He has the same position he has had on abortion. Talking thoughtfully about the issue's unusual cases out on the margins as he was doing will always create a hubbub like this. It's just the nature of the beast. Here is what's different: Rand has introduced again a thoughtful approach to a thorny issue and, again, he will be given the stage long enough and often enough to try to move the country more to a pro-life position with a greater understanding of liberty. People can look all day long for a 'gotcha moment' here, but not only will they not find but Rand will come out of this with more fans and a higher profile. Keep swinging at him, though. That helps too.

Joe: How does advocating for no exceptions (public statements and candidate surveys), then saying there should be "thousands of exemptions" and "privacy between families and doctors" not a switch? conservatives are the ones swinging at him right now, fyi
Me: You have to view any proposed law way out on the margins in terms of the most extreme possible unintended consequence. If we define life as the very moment of sperm penetrating egg, that opens all kinds of problems with regard to the law. Without being too graphic, you can use your imagination to think of any number of privacy issues there that don't have anything to do with deciding to terminate a pregnancy. I know the response ultimately from the other side will be that this is why government should not be involved at all in any part of the reproductive process, but government has to be involved now because those same people are the ones who dreamed up the idea  that it is okay to kill a child if he or she hasn't yet exited the birth canal.

Joe: Right, so he used to think there should be no exemptions, and now he does. That's an obvious change, David.
Me: This isn't about a woman going to her doctor and explaining that she has been raped or a victim of incest or learning that her pregnancy may put her own health or life at risk. If the law is to state that life begins at the first moment of conception, there will be many cases involving death that shouldn't involve the government but might with a law stating that it does. Fixing that weakness in such a law is a very complex topic of discussion. We'll get past the political gamesmanship soon on this and more people will discover that they agree with the pro-life position. 

Joe: If Rand truly thinks that this is a private decision between a woman and her doctor, and is now open to exemptions for rape and incest, that would certainly be a welcome (and ideologically consistent) change. But you can't honestly think that this is the same position he's always had. A fertilized egg is either a person with rights, or it isn't, yes?
Me: He hasn't said that at all. According to his proposed legislation, a fertilized egg is a person which has been as position at least as long as he has been speaking publicly and answering candidate surveys.

Joe: Yes, and now he thinks there should be "exemptions" to "kill" this "person," in certain circumstances. Unless he didn't mean anything he said on CNN.
Me: No, he's not talking about "killing." Your mistake is that you are trying to turn this into a gotcha moment and it just isn't one unless you put words in his mouth. I see another round of attack ads with tiny sound-bites designed to create a false impression, but that's all this amounts too. Again, once we get past this distraction it will be a very interesting philosophical discussion and more people will come toward the pro-life position.

Joe: He either meant what he said and softened his position, or he didn't and hasn't changed. You can't have it both ways
Me: Slow down, Joe. Breathe. This isn't a discussion about abortion. This is a discussion about the moment life begins and how to protect that life without going to absurd lengths. Given that the entire "pro-choice" movement is based on the absurd idea that a baby deserves protection at some magical moment in which he or she suddenly becomes human but not before, it may take you a while to get here with us. We'll be waiting.

Joe: David, I may sound like a broken record on this, but if Rand now thinks there should be an exemption for rape, that is a clear an unambiguous switch from his previous position. 
Me: You aren't a broken record, you are just playing on the wrong track. Blitzer's question was the standard one about when abortion should be allowed. Rand's answer, which he began with "I think that puts things in too small of a box," did not involve the standard way of looking at the issue. Again, this is about defining life at a precise moment and not about deciding to abort or not abort a pregnancy. Go back and watch the interview as if you are trying to understand his point of view rather than as if you are trying to find the next Todd Akin and I think you will get it pretty quickly.

Joe: you're in knots David. 

Rand Paul 2010: no exemptions for rape (clear and unambiguous) 

Rand Paul 2013: exemptions for rape (your words) and whoknowswhatselse (unless he doesn't really believe that)

you're the only one talking about gotchas and "philosophical" questions. This is a clear cut policy change.

Me: I hope you are going to blog this whole conversation. I am.

Joe: David, slow down and take a breath, you're getting really worked up. The point is not that he's suddenly "Todd Akin," because Rand Paul has always agreed with Todd Akin. The point is that he's no longer in the Todd Akin no rape exemption crowd, if he meant what he said. To quote Rand Paul: "Comprende?"

Me: I understand that you are trying to make the conversation about abortion procedures but that is not what it is. This is about the difficulty in defining the moment life becomes a thing for which protection is necessary and how we go about it. Difficult discussion made more so by people trying to score political points.

Joe: also, your contention that the discussion with Blitzer had nothing to do with abortion is hilarious

Me: Keep laughing. That's still my contention. The reductio ad absurdum argument is often applied to abortion, so let's apply it to this conversation. This one is about a personhood definition bill that specifies the beginning of personhood as beginning at conception. If we are to protect two-cell humans, there will be literally thousands of exceptions necessary in the law to protect people from all kinds of unusual circumstances unless we want law enforcement officials literally climbing in bed with couples checking for any signs of a productive coupling. Is that clearer? 

Joe: David, I've never seen you so defensive, take a deep breath. l, for one, welcome Rand Paul's move towards the middle on abortion. You still agree with him on a lot of other things though, so don't be too mad at him.

Me: Now I'm laughing, Joe. Thanks

Joe: David, that position remains 100% clear. Just like it is 100% clear that Rand has switched to this position. Which I welcome! I hope he continues to move more towards my way of thinking in the future, as well.

Me: Not a chance. 

Joe: Tell me how his new position is 100% consistent with this: http://c0469351.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/KYRTLresponse.pdf 

Me: Explanation of the bill: http://nationalprolifealliance.com/rlacv_video.aspx

Massie and Paul have other 5 surrounded

The federal government won't be shut down next week in order to protect ObamaCare funding. And that's supposed to be the good news. At least that's the case if you get your Republican talking points from Senator Mitch McConnell.

It's a different story, however, if you ask Senator Rand Paul and Representative Thomas Massie.

In the last 24 hours, Senate and House bipartisan majorities both passed the Continuing Resolution to keep government operating through the end of the fiscal year on September 30. With a Democratic Senate and President, this power of the purse is the only congressional bargaining chip to stop ObamaCare.

Senator McConnell was joined by Reps. Ed Whitfield, Brett Guthrie, Hal Rogers and Andy Barr in throwing away this leverage. Sen. Paul and Rep. Massie did not follow suit. Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth also voted against the bill, but he is upset that it doesn't spend even more so he doesn't even count.

Kentuckians want ObamaCare repealed. Even more Kentuckians will want it gone when they start to feel more of the effects of it this fall. Those who played go-along-to-get-along on this may come to regret their trepidation pretty soon.

GOP should become party of cannabis

The late Gatewood Galbraith’s ardent advocacy of marijuana and hemp was easy to lampoon, but the endurance of his message can revolutionize American politics for those who now embrace it. In short, the Republican party should seek to become the party of cannabis. 

Most opinions about repairing the Republican Party now focus on tweaking messaging or more aggressively courting various demographic groups. This approach reflects the current disconnect between much of the political class and the people.

The GOP can box out Democrats for temporary marginal gains with rhetorical tricks or outreach efforts, but a more fundamental shift is in order to really benefit the party and the country.

Republicans should focus more broadly on working to restore individual liberties to all people. In fact, they should visibly and repeatedly challenge Democrats to see which party can out-liberty the other and then run hard to win that race.

Government assaults on individual rights are often successful because most people haven’t learned to respond viscerally to attacks against the rights of others that don’t directly and immediately impact them. German holocaust survivor Martin Niemoller famously remarked in the 1950’s how apathy caused most people like him to ignore Nazi attacks on various groups of people, leaving no one to speak up when they came knocking on his door.

We are making that same mistake in this country presently and it shouldn‘t cause anyone a moment‘s comfort because the jackboots aren‘t coming for our neighbors just now. The destruction of liberty in America will have to be a more subtle effort than any before in history because we are an extraordinarily peculiar people. But the idea that “it can’t happen here” should have gone out the window with such liberty-destroying laws as the Patriot Act or NDAA. Such innocence dies slowly every time an innocent citizen is groped by a federal employee before boarding an airplane. Because of the increasingly brazen abuses against liberty in America, I suggest a specific mindset shift for our new age to pull us together despite our differences, elevating the individual over the bureaucracy and protecting the rights of the few from the appetites of the many.

Let us say, before it grows too late, that in 2013 we decided to end the massively wasteful and counterproductive “war on drugs” even though most of us are not recreational drug users. Let’s stop the colossally stupid prosecution and intensely counterproductive incentives of prohibition, lessons most learned nearly a century ago with regard to alcohol but haven’t managed to extend to our treatment of cannabis.

A tragically ironic joke among recreational pot users is that government expresses concern about marijuana ruining lives but devotes tremendous resources to beating weed to the punch by ruining young lives first with jail sentences and enforcement efforts leading to far worse crimes. Republicans stand to gain by first drawing down the exorbitant cost of the “war on drugs” at least as it applies to cannabis, for fiscal reasons. Next, they should move quickly toward protecting liberty in all its aspects and defining their positions in terms of how they help that effort.  

We should dare Democrats to match our efforts in defense of liberty and meet voters where they live by giving them confidence our candidates consider leaving them alone to be our highest priority.

Politicians repeatedly like to declare big government dead, until their rhetoric puts them in charge of it. No one expects the Republican party to grasp the power of a shift toward competing for greater personal freedom, but that is exactly why it can work. Please spread the word.