Archive for the 'Elections have Consequences' Category

A plan to take back the GOP:

We need more than feel-good Tea Parties. Do not get me wrong; the Tea Parties are great for networking and for physically demonstrating our numbers and wrath to the existing officeholders. The April 15, 2008 Tea Parties affected Obama and his minions. They first tried to ignore them. After the Tea Parties received media coverage, Obama and those who write his teleprompter scripts started to bad-mouth them. Obama’s friends in the mainstream media ridiculed the Tea Partiers. But, we need more than rallies and choir-preaching on internet blogs and web sites. Let’s face it – no Tea Party on April 15, 2008, had the numbers that Obama had at many of his rallies. Not one of those Tea Parties would have even filled up half of a Major League ball park. Those are the facts. With Twitter and Facebook, etc., those numbers increased, as we saw on 9.12.2009 in Washington, DC and around the country. But, here’s the bottom line: unless those Tea Parties translate into election victories in 2010, they are worthless.

A pretty good way to take back our country. Lets takeover the GOP and turn it into the Party of Jefferson, with the irony that the GOP inherited the reigns from the party of Adams and Hamilton. I’m going to explore this some more. Perhaps you should as well…

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” – Thomas Jefferson

That’s right. After much reading, studying, thought, deliberation and careful consideration, I have decided that it is time for me to become more active in politics. No. I’m not ready to run for office, nor do I consider myself to the consummate politician, as I speak my mind too much and I don’t have enough pragmatic bones in my body.

However, I believe that I can help be part of a movement to retake this country from the progressives, of both major political parties, as they try to institute even more nanny state controls and continue to put the final nails in the coffin of our Constitutional system of government.

Just as our Founders believed that government closet to the people would be the most accountable to the people, we must start taking back our local governments and start breaking our fellow citizens of the “What can government do for me” mentality that has come to dominate our politics.

Just as the quote attributed to Andrew Tytler says: Read the rest of this entry »

Unless you’ve been under a rock, and you follow politics, then you are aware of the dust up surrounding the recent U.S. Supreme Court CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION decision. It comes complete with President Obama chastising the Justices during his State of the Union, and Justice Alito’s equally firm “Not True”.

Anyways, its causing a big stink on the left right now, pretty much being pushed as an example of what happens when you get a conservative majority on the court and why its important to get the true judicial activists back in charge.

But what caught my eye the most in the dissent, written by Justice Stevens, was this bit of “logic”…

“If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by “Tokyo Rose” during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could ” ‘enhance the relative voice’ ” of some ( i.e., humans) over others ( i.e. , nonhumans). Ante, at 33 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 49). Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.”

Really? If logic has ever been tortured, it has been now, and therefore I must assume that Justice Stevens supports torture. Or something.

Still, its an interesting argument… on the surface anyways. Dig a little deeper and it is not so analogous.

Tokyo Rose was providing aid to the enemy during a time of war, easily an act of treason by trying to sabotage the war effort by attempting to demoralize soldiers and sailors. While I understand that the counter-argument is that now “foreign” companies can give money to campaigns after the ruling (ChinaGate being a better example), the particular act of Tokyo Rose is more of a non-sequitur in this instance…

I wonder if Justice Stevens is aware that Article 88 of the UCMJ would prevent the general officers in his example from saying anything contemptuous concerning the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of Defense, or the Governor of Texas, just to name a few. (Link to Article 88 of the UCMJ here: CLICK!), even contemptuous political speech. Free speech is not exactly “free” in the military. While I know that it isn’t readily enforced (as I’ve heard many times military members disparage Clinton, Bush and Obama during a heated political debate in the office and no one thinks to turn anyone in), it has been before when such speech was made public and by high profile individuals… such as generals..

Another problem I find with his argument is that of “voting” as a matter of “speech”. Why would we need the 15th and 19th amendments if people, regardless of the race or sex, have the freedom of speech, through voting, in the 1st!

Now, I know I’m not an expert in constitutional jurisprudence, nor do I claim to be an expert in platonic logic. However, I have read a book once or twice (Run Dick Run and a Star Wars : A Phantom Menace [LARGE PRINT EDITION} if you must know) in my life, and the Justice’s argument has a hole in the side of it caused by quite a massive iceberg methinks.

These started to get old, but this one seems to be pretty well done…

Sorry it has been the “Bigfoot Show” the last month or so, but thanks for picking up my slack there guy!

Now that the Senate Democrats (and their fellow-traveler independents) have found their way to pass the current health care bill, we will have seen an historic event presaging the very end of the American experiment in a Constitutional federal republic comparable to the repeal of the 17th Amendment and other events that opened a hole in the Constitution to allow the growth of an all-powerful central government.

Here is what is unprecedented:

1) Both houses of Congress have voted that to annex from states and individuals responsibility for and control of the provision of health care to every American citizen. This is a breathtaking expansion of the Federal government’s claims over the citizens and individuals that will irreversibly alter the balance of power between the Federal government and the states or people, putting a nail into the coffin of limited central government. Having reached a critical mass of power, there will be no limit to future expansions of federal power.

In other words, Congress (in conjunction with the Executive Branch) have now laid claim to health care as its exclusive province.

And as history demonstrates time and time again, once the Federal government accrues and arrogates power unto itself, it does not willingly surrender it back to the people (or states). The flow of power almost always runs towards greater centralization at an accelerating rate.

Read the rest of this entry »

“President Obama, for whom I voted because I believed he was the best choice available, is a profound disappointment. I now regard his campaign as a sly bait-and-switch operation, promising one thing and delivering another. Shame on me.“

Dude. It wasn’t like no one was saying that Obama was an empty suit at best, and a rabid leftist running as a hawkish centrist at worst. Shame on you? No Mr. Goodwin, sir. You don’t get off that easy, complete with a editorial in the NY Post that will somehow absolve yourself from being partially responsible for the lunatics currently in charge of the asylum. From watching the plethora of (pinatas?) youtube videos with Obama spouting off his leftist agenda (It’s not that I WANT to punish your success he tells Joe the Plumber, but he’s going to anyway for “greater good”) to his associations with the “Reverend” Wright and Bill “I’m gonna blow stuff up” Ayers, it was quite evident what we were getting into. Only those who had the equivalent of 10 year old puppy love massaged by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC and were so easily bedded are now waking up from their infatuation with “making history”. Just because you guys now have a rabid case of coyote ugly the morning after doesn’t really make me feel sorry for your poor decision that we all get to now equally “enjoy”. Thanks douche…

(/rant off)

Read this first.

Reaction??

Some things speak for themselves:

First:

President Obama is becoming a great disappointment, as the Democrats slowly dismantle Medicare and Medicaid.

…then:

And I am disappointed, hurt, worried, and depressed that the Democrats were the ones who got the cuts passed. I feel sure they wouldn’t have done so if Teddy Kennedy had been there. And Obama, what do you have to say for yourself? Were you sitting cozily in front of the fireplace too, watching a Walt Disney movie with your adorable daughters?

I smell a fox, in fact several. We are in a democracy; I accept that we don’t all agree. But I worked hard to get Obama elected. I have fought hard to encourage others to support health care reform, and to support Obama’s plan, and now I feel betrayed.

..and so on. There are many disappointed people. But who cares? They’re all old, or have some vested interest in our elderly.

Obama’s losing his mojo. If he keeps pissing people off, he’s going to be fired.

Damn the science: full speed ahead

According to a Fox News story today, the EPA is set as soon as tomorrow to “officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy”.

And since every living being is an emission source for CO2, coming soon, mandatory CO2 scubbers for every American man, women, and newborn? Or perhaps breathing taxes – and meters so that heavy breathers pay more?

Want to do those aerobic exercises? Or how about those erotic exercises, those night-time romps in the sheets? Be prepared to pay for those additional emissions.

Plus, the EPA will now have power to regulate every source of CO2 emissions, from power plants to industrial production to farming lawn mowers or backyard barbecues. Don’t you just love that enumerated powers section of the Constitution that gives an unelected Federal executive agency the power to control every waking moment of our lives?

The story also goes on to state this:

The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.

How’s that hope and change, evidence-based EPA working out for you Obama voters? There’s no deliberate attempt to use science manipulate the political process here, is there? Nothing here about politics trumping science, right? It’s only Republican administrations that we are allowed to (wrongly) levy such charges against, now – got it.

With its remarkable sense of timing and “sticking its fingers in its ear and humming louder” – the EPA looks determined to respond to Climategate and previous accusations of suppressing scientific dissent among its staff by simply ignoring the evidence and proceeding to ram the icebergs dead ahead, since these icebergs really aren’t there according to the climate global warming models.

Well the only sure thing from here is that this EPA announcement will only exacerbate CO2 emissions by lawyers, while killing millions of CO2 mitigating trees for legal briefs. And we all lose with that.

Responsible environmentalism takes another, perhaps fatal, blow in the face.

Un. Freakin’. Real.

“The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 … so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers,” Obama will say, according to excerpts from his speech at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York.

Obama will say that the additional U.S. forces “will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011,” according to the excerpts released by the White House.

The president has a goal of withdrawing most U.S. forces by the end of his current term, senior administration officials told CNN Tuesday. Obama’s first term ends in a little more than three years.

The President is planning to get those 30,000 troops into theater in six months, which gets his “surge” to full strength around June 2010. The President then plans to begin the withdrawal of American troops in July 2011, with the majority of troops to withdraw by the end of 2012.

They have ONE year to do the job, and the message is loud and clear to the Taliban and Al Qaeda that all they have to do is hold out ONE year, and the U.S. will then declare VICTORY, and then get to enjoy “peace with honor”, much like our experience in Vietnam.

Sigh.

Ha! After I read this article I came up with some of my own answers.

Understanding the pros and cons of health overhaul

Q: How many people would be covered?

A: The Senate bill would cover 94 percent of eligible Americans under age 65; under the House bill, it’s 96 percent.

That’s a major improvement over the 83 percent now covered, but the safety net would have holes.

Some 16 million eligible people would remain uninsured under the Senate bill and 12 million under the House bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s not counting illegal immigrants, who would not be eligible for government assistance under either bill.

We shouldn’t be counting illegals! They should be LEGAL first.

Q: Why don’t lawmakers just provide coverage for everyone?

Uh because it would cost so much even the rich couldn’t afford it.

Q: How affordable is the new middle-class coverage going to be?

A: It depends.

Most people would remain in their employer plans. Self-employed people and those working in small businesses would be able to buy coverage through a new insurance marketplace, with government subsidies available for many.

The aid is substantial for lower-income households, but drops off rapidly for the middle class.

The evil IT DEPENDS answer. Red flag. As for many people remaining on employer sponsored plans, that’s a joke! Employers will drop the benefit of health insurance and pay the fine for it because it would be cheaper. The idiots crafting this bill KNOW this. And their counting on US to crawl to them for insurance.

Q: Twenty-year-olds don’t have many health problems. Would they be required to get coverage?

A: You bet.

Unmarried children could stay on their parents’ plan until age 27 in the House bill, 26 in the Senate plan. That change would start in 2010.

20 yr olds loose freedom. And unmarried adult children will remain children, who depend upon Mommy and Daddy until they’re seriously grown up and should be fending for themselves. A generation of free loaders in the making.

Q: Older people are concerned about what’s going to happen to Medicare. Should they be?

The article explains that NOOO, old people have nothing to fear because benefits won’t be taken away. Nope. Just by reducing the fee paid to the docs is ALL that’ll happen. What happens when they have less docs? Hmm.

Besides, old people hog all the resources anyway…they are useless to society so let’s cut them loose and let’em die. It’s gonna happen. We see it already with government panels changing the game by suddenly claiming breast exams and tests aren’t necessary until a woman is 50. That’s the beginning of OLD…and hell if they kill off enough women look at all the money saved…