Here is an image that was recently being passed around on a conservative, Tea Party group on Facebook.

HERE IS ALL I WANT:

OBAMA: GONE!

BORDERS: CLOSED!

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH!

CULTURE: U.S. CONSTITUTION & THE BILL OF RIGHTS!

DRUG FREE: MANDATORY DRUG SCREENING BEFORE WELFARE!

NO FREEBIES TO: NON-CITIZENS!

ALSO…

BALANCED BUDGET!

TAX REFORM!

TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS & SENATORS!

ONLY 86% WILL SEND THIS ON. SHOULD BE 100%.

So, just to re-cap:

Conservatarian: Here’s all I want: a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT, the harshest possible BORDER FASCISM. GOVERNMENT ENFORCED LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS. A culture of CONSTITUTION FETISHISM, PUBLIC REVERENCE FOR STATE FOUNDERS and LEGALISTIC NATIONALISM. DRUG PROHIBITION and RIGHT-WING SOCIAL ENGINEERING THROUGH THE WELFARE SYSTEM. Also, SAVING THE WELFARE STATE FOR U.S. CITIZENS WHO CONFORM TO MY FAVORED LIFESTYLE CHOICES. And 100% CONFORMITY ON QUESTIONS OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPORT. I’m for small government!

So, seriously conservatarians, if this is what you want, what you want hasn’t got anything even remotely to do with liberty. If you thought that this did have something to do with liberty, then you need to re-think some of your life choices.

Nationalism is the death of liberty.

(Via Lew @ The LRC Blog.)

In which Chairman Ron does his bit to fill the coffers of the U.S. Department of the Treasury:

Like him or hate him, Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk a big game about fiscal conservatism, he lives it. In 2008, his congressional office returned $58,000 to the Treasury. In 2009, his office returned $90,000. Now, according to an official press release, Dr. Ron Paul’s congressional office has just paid back $100,000.

— Ryan Jaroncyk, California Independent Voter Network (2010-03-01): Congressman Ron Paul returns a whopping $100,000 of his office budget to the US Treasury

… And that’s why I’m against fiscal conservatism. Why the fuck would I think it’s a good thing for the U.S. government to get back $100,000 more to spend on bailing out failed bankers or on hurting and killing innocent people? What I’d like most is for that money to get back into the hands of innocent working people (whether under the cover of Congressional featherbedding, or by any other means). But failing that, we’d still all be better off if Ron Paul took the $100,000, piled it up on the National Mall, and set it all on fire, rather than giving it back to the United States Treasury.

At a time when Wall St is running wild, the national debt is $14 trillion, and the federal government is running $1.4 trillion deficits, Dr. Ron Paul’s congressional office is running a surplus and paying back the American people.

No, he isn’t.

He’s paying the American government. The American people, if that means American people like you and me and our neighbors, will get back not one cent of it. Instead, the money will go directly into the operational budget of the government that oppresses and robs us.

Of course, none of this is to say that I like big government spending. But the problem with government spending is not the fact that money goes out of the Treasury; it’s that government spending is financed by expropriation from working people (whether through direct taxation or through the effects of the financial-political complex’s coercive money monopoly). And that government spending goes to fund more expropriation and more violence — in the form of government wars, government borders, government surveillance, forced development schemes and eminent domain seizures, police brutality, prisons, tax-men, hang-men, or the arming, training, and employment of government law-enforcers to inflict their myriad unjust laws on the rest of us without our consent. The problem, in short, is not government spending at all; it’s government violence. But just giving surplus money back to the government, without doing anything to constrain the violence that the state commits — going out of your way to help government balance its budgets and get leaner and meaner in the use of the resources that it has on hand — is as nice an example as you could want of exactly the kind of stupid conservative trap that limited-statism passes off as if it had something to do with freedom.

See also:

• GT 2007-12-13: On the dole
• GT 2008-03-06: On crutches and crowbars: toward a labor radical case against the minimum wage

Did you know that your marriage license is a property title to your spouse’s body and affections? Just ask Jake Knotts, conservative Republican and arbitrary legislator over the state of South Carolina:

COLUMBIA — Men and women who seduce married people could be sued by jilted spouses under a proposal that won initial approval from S.C. lawmakers Thursday.

You know, we protect our automobiles. We protect our homes. There’s laws to protect everything, and we just need laws to protect the family, said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jake Knotts.

— Jim Davenport, Myrtle Beach Sun Times (2008-04-18): Bill aims at marriage interlopers

Here’s where the bill is at:

The S.C. bill says someone can recover unspecified damages if they prove wrongful conduct between their spouse and the defendant during their marriage and that the defendant caused them loss of affection or consortium of their spouse.

The bill was approved by a Senate subcommittee on the heels of a study this week that found divorce and out-of-wedlock births cost S.C. taxpayers $469 million each year and $112 billion overall for U.S. taxpayers. The study was done by groups that advocate more government action to bolster marriages.

The chairman of the subcommittee said failed marriages are damaging society and there should be repercussions for interlopers in marriages.

Whatever we can do to strengthen the bonds of matrimony, we ought to try, said Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens.

— Jim Davenport, Myrtle Beach Sun Times (2008-04-18): Bill aims at marriage interlopers

You might have thought that the best way to strengthen a marriage is to be kind and respectful to each other, to talk things out that need to be talked out, and generally to treat your spouse like a free and equal human being rather than as one of your precious possessions. You might also have thought that a husband or wife remains her own person after the wedding, and can do what she will, even if she makes choices that are foolish, hurtful or wrong, because her spouse has no enforceable claim on anything more than she freely gives of herself. But Knotts, Martin, and their colleagues think you ought to be able to call out the force of the State in order to punish interlopers, if you don’t want other people touching your things.

I’ve heard no word yet whether or not the South Carolina senators are considering an amendment to the criminal code for branding cheaters with a scarlet A.

(Thanks, Holly @ feministe 2008-02-01.)

Hey, everyone, it’s Mississippi House Bill No. 282, introduced by Republican state representative W.T. Mayhall, Jr.!

HOUSE BILL NO. 282

An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the state department of health; to direct the department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Mississippi:

SECTION 1.

(1) The provisions of this section shall apply to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) or more seats for customers.

(2) Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person.

(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food establishments to which this section applies for compliance with the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this section.

SECTION 2.

This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2008.

Sandy Szwarc, Junkfood Science (2008-01-31): No fat people allowed: Only the slim will be allowed to dine in public!:

I called lead author, Rep. Mayhall, and asked if this was serious legislation or tongue-in-cheek to make a point. He kindly took a moment to answer my question while the legislature was in session. He said that while, regrettably, he doesn't believe his bill will pass, this is serious. He wrote it, he said, because of the urgency of the obesity crisis and need for government action. He hopes it will call attention to the serious problem of obesity and what it is costing the Medicare system.

Remember, citizen, your body is public property, and if you’re letting it get blighted, there’s always some conscientious state legislators ready for a bold campaign of eminent domain and cosmetic renewal.

Further reading:

• GT 2008-01-16: Well, thank God #8: Civil Tongue edition
• GT 2007-09-19: Well, thank God #7: Sagging and the new sumptuary laws
• GT 2006-06-27: Well, thank God #4
• GT 2006-02-23: Well, thank God #3
• GT 2005-10-07: Small-government conservatives

(Thanks, Vanessa at feministing [2005-10-07].)

In Indiana, state Senator Pat Miller has decided to withdraw a bill that would have required government parenting licenses for people who want to conceive through artificial means.

Senator Patricia Miller of Indianapolis says the issue has become more complex than she thought. So she is withdrawing it from consideration.

Actually, the issue is not complex at all. This is complex:

Sec. 5. (a) A petition to establish parentage may be filed by an intended parent.

(b) The intended parents must be married to each other, and both spouses must be parties to the action to establish parentage.

(c) An unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

Sec. 6. (a) A petition to establish parentage must be filed in triplicate.

(b) The original copy of a petition to establish parentage must be verified by the oath or affirmation of each petitioner.

Sec. 7. (a) A petition to establish parentage must be made under oath and specify the following:

(1) The:

(A) name, age, and place of residence of each petitioner; and

(B) place and date of marriage of the petitioners.

(2) The name and place or residence, if known, of the donor or donors.

(3) The name and address of the agency that performed the assessment under section 12 of this chapter.

(4) The name and address of the physician who performed the medical procedure that resulted in the pregnancy of the child who is subject to the parentage action.

(5) The type of assisted reproduction procedure that was used.

(6) Whether a petitioner has been convicted of:

(A) a felony; or

(B) a misdemeanor relating to the health and safety of children;

and, if so, the date and description of the conviction.

(7) Additional information consistent with the purpose and provisions of this chapter that is considered relevant to the proceedings.

(b) The following documents must be attached to the petition to establish parentage:

(1) The consent of the petitioners required under section 13 of this chapter to the medical procedure that resulted in the pregnancy for the child who is the subject to the parentage action.

(2) The consent of each donor, if known, to the use of the donation for the assisted reproduction medical procedure.

(3) The certificate of satisfactory completion of the assessment required under section 12 of this chapter.

(4) The certificate of the physician required under section 14 of this chapter. …

Sec. 11. … (b) A physician may not commence an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of the assessment required under section 12 of this chapter. …

Sec. 12. (a) Before intended parents may commence assisted reproduction, the intended parents shall obtain an assessment from a licensed child placing agency in the intended parents’ state of residence.

(b) The assessment must follow the normal practice for assessments in a domestic infant adoption procedure and must include the following information:

(1) The intended parents’ purpose for the assisted reproduction.

(2) The fertility history of the intended parents, including the pregnancy history and response to pregnancy losses of the woman.

(3) An acknowledgment by the intended parents that the child may not be the biological child of at least one (1) of the intended parents depending on the type of artificial reproduction procedure used.

(4) A list of the intended parents’ family and friend support system.

(5) A plan for sharing any known genetic information with the child.

(6) Personal information about each intended parent, including the following:

(A) Family of origin.

(B) Values.

(C) Relationships.

(D) Education.

(E) Employment and income.

(F) Hobbies and talents.

(G) Physical description, including the general health of the individual.

(H) Birth verification.

(I) Personality description, including the strengths and weaknesses of each intended parent.

(7) Description of any children residing in the intended parents’ home.

(8) A verification and evaluation of the intended parents’ marital relationship, including:

(A) the shared values and interests between the individuals;

(B) the manner in which conflict between the individuals is resolved; and

(C) a history of the intended parents’ relationship.

(9) Documentation of the dissolution of any prior marriage and an assessment of the impact of the prior marriage on the intended parents’ relationship.

(10) A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, include a description of individual participation in faith-based or church activities, hobbies, and other interests.

(11) The intended parents’ child rearing expectations and values.

(12) A description of the home and community, including verification of the safety and security of the home.

(13) Child care plans.

(14) Statement of the assets, liabilities, investments, and ability of the intended parents to manage finances, including the most recently filed tax forms.

(15) A review of the local police records, the state and violent offender directory, and a criminal history check as set forth in subsection (c).

(16) A letter of reference by a friend or family member.

(17) A written consent from each donor, if known, to use of the donation in the assisted reproduction medical procedure.

(18) The recommendation for participation in assisted reproduction.

… (f) After completing the assessment described in this section, and if the child placing agency approves the intended parents to commence the assisted reproduction procedure, the agency shall issue a certificate that the intended parents have satisfactorily completed the assessment and are ready to commence assisted reproduction.

(g) A certificate issued under subsection (f) is valid for two (2) years.

(h) A physician may rely upon a certificate issued under this section to commence assisted reproduction with an intended parent.

(i) A certificate issued under subsection (f) must be filed with the petition to establish parentage.

… Sec. 14.(a) After a viable pregnancy has been achieved by artificial reproduction, the physician who performed the artificial reproduction procedure shall issue a certificate to the intended parents stating:

(1) the child was conceived under the care of the physician;

(2) the type of artificial reproduction procedure that was used;

(3) whether the donor is known or anonymous; and

(4) whether the physician is aware of any compensation being paid to the donor.

(b) The certificate must be:

(1) on the physician’s letterhead stationary; and

(2) notarized.

(c) The certificate required under this section shall be filed with the petition to establish parentage.

(d) form by x agency?

Sec. 15. (a) If the court finds that:

(1) the petition to establish parentage satisfies the requirements of this chapter;

(2) the certificate from a licensed child placing agency required under section 12 of this chapter has been filed and meets the requirements of this chapter;

(3) the certificate by the physician required under section 14 of this chapter has been filed and meets the requirements of this chapter; and

(4) the consent required under section 13 of this chapter has been obtained; the court shall grant the petition to establish parentage and enter a decree establishing parentage without a hearing or further court action unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that granting the petition is not in the best interests of the child.

(b) The court may deny the petition to establish parentage if a petitioner has been convicted of a crime described in section 7(a)(5). …

Sec. 17. (a) If the court dismisses a petition to establish parentage, the court shall determine the person who should have custody of the child. …

Sec. 20. (a) An intended parent who knowingly or intentionally participates in an artificial reproduction procedure without establishing parentage under section 15 of this chapter commits unauthorized artificial reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor.

… but the issue is simple. Our bodies are not public property; reproductive totalitarianism is wrong; the State has no business imposing a ridiculous set of requirements like that on anybody. And movement conservatives’ idea of limited government and ordered freedom is a government that limits and your freedom to take orders from it.

Good thing they lost this one.