Consistency: Worth Its Weight in Airspace

Actually, it's worth even more than that. ;)

Recent news indicates that the FAA has declined Idaho's request for use of additional horizontal airspace for military training. 

The rejection of that request makes it highly likely that neither Mountain Home AFB nor Gowen field will win the F-35 training mission that the State has been practically counting on.

It is also highly likely that the denial of this request is at least *a little* related to Idaho's rather blunt rejection of another federal agenda: the Obama health insurance mandate.

While I'm far from surprised that the federal government appears to be dealing less-equitably with a State who's leading the charge in a campaign to directly challenge their unconstitutional federal mandate, I'm not shedding any tears over the likely loss of eligibility for the F-35 mission.

When I decided to support Idaho's challenge, the F-35 campaign was in full force.  It occurred to me then that there could (and probably would) be repercussions for the federal challenge; and that they could (and probably would) be exercised via the federal treats we were courting.

I anticipated a federal slap in return for smacking a federal hand, yet I fully supported - and still support - Idaho's challenge to Obamacare and everything that "health" "care" mandate entails.

Why complain?  If we honestly believe in the principles we're defending, we should be willing to accept the consequences, just or not.

Commie Cowards

The Senate has passed their version of the "stimulus" bill.

Open Letter to Senators and Representatives:

I hold each one of you elitist cowards who voted, "aye," individually accountable to me for the loss of my family's freedoms.

I hold each one of you "aye" votes accountable to me for sabotaging my country's prosperity.

And I hold each of you "ayes" accountable to me for your utter contempt and disregard for the Constitutional restraint of government delivered us by our Founders, replacing it with a fascist corporate oligarchy.

I just thought you should know.

Sincerely,
A US Citizen

(Birth) Control-ing the Economy? *Updated*

**Update 27Jan2009/10.00: Looks like that provision might be dropped. To quote: "House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income..."

Note the choice of words for the phrases - making it sound as if low-income families are being thrown carelessly overboard like so much ballast, by being denied additional *federal* funding specifically for birth control. *sigh* (Yep, I wonder where that "skewed news" perception amid much of the public is coming from...)
---

Nancy Pelosi says birth control is cheaper, so it's okay to include that in the upcoming stimulus package.

Cheaper than what, exactly, Madame Speaker? Well, cheaper than a lot of things - big-screen TVs, for example - but what she's specifically referring to, is helping states with their health care. It's cheaper than funding abortions, in other words. Or, heaven forbid, funding births.

I was under the impression - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that birth control is already widely available and vastly affordable. Every insurance/prescription plan I've come across pays for it, since like the Speaker said, it's cheaper than most alternatives.** Barring insurance, it's available on Medicaid (or at least it's listed under RxIdaho.org, and I figure if IDAHO covers it, pretty much everywhere does).

That sounds pretty comprehensive to me, already.

And yes, it is cheap. I doubt that it makes up that big a portion of any state's healthcare budget, (hmm... research idea); and it still depends on people actually using it.

So, of all the things to call for, to receive a federal subsidy, that's a pretty odd one.

Since it seems like such an odd thing by itself, I have to wonder what the deeper objective is for this particular inclusion...

**Cheaper alternatives include a) simply not having sex, and b) educating yourself beyond the 28-day pattern "taught" in schools.

Okay, Tell Me These Are Unrelated.

FBI hiring spree

Obama wants a civilian national security force

Federal military training for civil defense (btw, the last word in the second linked article there should be "dissidents," not "decedents." I'm just sayin'.)

I'm going to have to start using cash more often, aren't I?

(Feel free to contribute your own "coming nanny state" links...)