Much greater men than us long ago took substantial risk and sacrificed so much to make America the greatest country the world has ever known, and they crafted a brilliant document that has endured for over two centuries. Lesser men - and women - have managed to tweak it along the way to make it conform to changing times but thus far it has, for the most part, remained the unwavering protector of our liberty, ensuring that our enslavement to those whom we choose as leaders cannot happen.
These men, the founding fathers, specifically referred to our country as a union; a group of individual states peacefully agreeing to adhere to a common set of standards while reserving the right to individual sovereignty regarding issues of locale. The body overseeing the commonwealth, i.e., the federal government, was intentionally restricted to the role of arbiter in the event of state's disputes. My, how we have sullied such a masterpiece.
"Enemy of the state" is a term often used to label one a traitor to the union, not to describe one who violates a rule of a particular member of that union. Since the constitution clearly enumerates power to the member states of the union while reining in the abuse of power by the federal government, it is obvious that that revered document is now considered an enemy of the state by virtue of its explicit refusal to allow what we are witnessing today. The constitution stands between we the people and the Obama administration and current session of congress.
And so it is little wonder that our elected officials are gleefully trampling on the constitution in similar fashion to William Ayers on the American flag. For them, it is imperative to render the founders' writings archaic in order to achieve the control they now attempt to wrest from the states. To be certain, they began a few decades ago, slowly whittling away at the tenets of the constitution, but now they have released the jack-hammers and are in full destruct mode. I equate it to a long distance runner's second-wind burst to the finish line.
What I find most amazing in the midst of this frenzied and wanton shredding is that the media seem to be taking it all in stride, and many people - way too many, in fact - seem oblivious to it. Yes, there are a few of us left who see it for what it is, but we can't get anyone to listen or see. All eyes have been successfully diverted to the manufactured crises of which we are reminded daily, and the subversive work goes on nearly undetected.
Our only hope is a strong opposition party rising like a phoenix before the ashes go cold. Once that happens, we are finished as that which we once cherished.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Much greater men than us long ago took substantial risk and sacrificed so much to make America the greatest country the world has ever known, and they crafted a brilliant document that has endured for over two centuries. Lesser men - and women - have managed to tweak it along the way to make it conform to changing times but thus far it has, for the most part, remained the unwavering protector of our liberty, ensuring that our enslavement to those whom we choose as leaders cannot happen.
I've seen the lights go out on Broadway-
I saw the Empire State laid low.
And life went on beyond the Palisades,
They all bought Cadillacs-
And left there long ago.
We held a concert out in Brooklyn-
To watch the Island bridges blow.
They turned our power down,
And drove us underground-
But we went right on with the show...
I've seen the lights go out on Broadway-
I saw the ruins at my feet,
You know we almost didn't notice it-
We'd see it all the time on Forty-Second Street.
They burned the churches up in Harlem-
Like in that Spanish Civil War-
The flames were everywhere,
But no one really cared-
It always burned up there before...
I've seen the rats lie down on Broadway-
I watched the mighty skyline fall.
The boats were waiting at the Battery,
The union went on strike-
They never sailed at all.
They sent a carrier out from Norfolk-
And picked the Yankees up for free.
They said that Queens could stay,
They blew the Bronx away-
And sank Manhattan out at sea....
You know those lights were bright on Broadway-
But that was so many years ago...
Before we all lived here in Florida-
Before the Mafia took over Mexico.
There are not many who remember-
They say a handful still survive...
To tell the world about...
The way the lights went out,
And keep the memory alive....
He may have been talking about a different method of New York's demise, but the lyrics are prescient nonetheless. David Paterson, New York's Governor, has a budget in place that the legislature will vote on today, and it spells bad news for the people of the state.
Touted as a necessary and reluctantly-arrived-at plan to raise taxes on the "wealthiest New Yorkers", there is much the people don't know about this $132B budget and the means by which it will be implemented. Suffice it to say, it will cost everyone in the state, not just the "wealthy".
According to New York State Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos, the state squandered roughly $6 billion in federal stimulus money. Paterson said they used the money for deficit reduction. And yet, we're still about to be hammered from every direction. While some will escape an increase in their personal income taxes, they are not to be spared from the increases coming on all services and goods.
Among the things we're to be hit with if this budget passes today's vote:
DMV registration fee up 55%
Driver's license fee up 55%
A $100 state fee on tax preparation
Increased taxes on beer and wine, hunting and fishing licenses, tobacco (on top of the federal government's recent 62 cents per pack tax increase), health insurance premiums, gas, phone and electric surcharges and cell phone fees.
Add to this the cessation of the star rebate for senior property owners, and it is plain that the pain will be spread much more widely than "just the wealthy". The legislature is split thirty republicans to thirty-two democrats, so we must hope that at least one democrat votes nay on this monstrosity, as virtually every republican is opposed to its passage. As Skelos points out, this bugdet will place an additional burden on a typical family of four of $2,400.00 per year. That is unacceptable in this current ecomomic state. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, March 30, 2009
If it weren't so terrifying it would be funny, this new administration and its machinations. I distinctly remember liberals shrieking at every move the Bush administration made as bringing us a step closer to a dictatorship, yet they seem to have no qualms whatsoever with what the brand new administration has been doing.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time in U.S. history that the CEO of a corporation has been ousted by the president of the United States. General Motors chairman Rick Wagoner has been ordered to leave his post by Obama, something which should be cause for extreme alarm in any American. It's not, though, because too many people have bought into the class envy successfully perpetrated by liberal politicians. They believe that the federal government has the right to meddle in private business affairs by virtue of the money being doled out like so much candy at a day care center.
So it is with great irony that these same people, blinded to reality by their Obama-lust, do not see the intrinsic encroachment of liberty that is inevitable with such practices. If the federal government can hand out money to corporations and then lord over them absolutely, it is certain that when it pays for an individuals health care it will also own the individual and every decision he makes. And yet, this is what they clamor for anyway despite the obvious dangers.
Speaking of danger, we may soon have some new neighbors, courtesy of the benevolence of Obama. This will be a great opportunity for all those who wailed about the rights of Guantanamo detainees to welcome them into their communities when Obama releases them on U.S. soil. After all, they have never been charged with a crime, so just the fact that they were captured in the process of fighting U.S. soldiers should be no cause for worry. I'm sure they're very nice people, nothing like the others who have previously been released and subsequently recaptured as al-Qaeda operatives.
In fact, not content with merely setting them free, the president feels that they will need public assistance once released in America, which could explain why that "tax cut for 95% of working Americans" was taken out of his budget. If anyone can afford it, will you please bake a cake for the welcoming committee to deliver?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Four years ago a natural disaster played out on our television screens for weeks. News crews and celebrities clamored competitively for face time on the news, and public servants salaciously slashed at one another in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. While all of this political posturing was going on, the entire population of a certain city merely sat, waited and complained. That city's elected officials - along with the state officials, right on up to the governor - joined in on the finger-pointing to the detriment of the hapless population, only exacerbating the problems they had created by fostering a dependent constituency in the first place.
Fast forward to Fargo, North Dakota, where the Red River has been threatening that populace for the past week. Despite the threat to that city, as well as others along the same river, media coverage has been comparatively tepid in contrast to that of New Orleans in 2005. And while a rising river is vastly different from the relatively sudden onslaught of a hurricane, the fact remains that the citizens banded together and worked tirelessly to manually fortify the levees in an effort to protect their homes and their city.
In New Orleans, residents were warned days in advance of the impending storm and its likely consequences for a city located below sea level and yet they still neither heeded the pleas to flee nor did anything remotely resembling proactive to save their city. They simply sat and waited for an incompetent government to "take care of things".
Now it is being reported that the Red River may have finally crested, giving a slight respite to the weary residents who have been out working as a community to shore up the river's levees, doing what they could to stave off the loss of property. I have still not heard one report of FEMA being involved, and I doubt that the proud people of Fargo would even accept any assistance at this point.
This is what separates the peoples of this country. This is also what frightens the powers who wish to control us by "taking care" of us. New Orleans perfectly illustrates the mindset of the controlled, peoples who have grown generationally accustomed to having everything handled on their behalf. Fargo conversely reflects the society that I have always embraced; that of a free people who will reluctantly accept help in dire circumstances, be incredibly appreciative if that time comes, but resist it until it must be requested, however regretfully.
Bad news sells, and no one cares about a success story. God bless the people along the Red River. Job well done, and you should all be very proud.
This argument has been raging between the deniers and the purveyors of anthropogenic global warming for years now, and it's always been about whether the motives were genuinely noble or covertly nefarious. Now the proverbial cat is out of the bag, as Fox News has unearthed a United Nations document on climate change that will be distributed next week to a contingent of cronies who share that body's vision of a "new world economy".
According to Fox News, the document outlines the pending disaster preachers' planned machinations that will "likely [involve] trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body."
These are the projected consequences that will arise from the implementation of the Copenhagen Accord, a dressed up "improvement" on the Kyoto Treaty, which the United States has thus far rejected. The bad news is, President Obama has already signaled that he is in favor of this abomination. Perhaps that is why the U.N. has been so careless with this document that Fox discovered its existence. They may feel that, with his perceived popularity, Obama will be able to singe-handedly abet in the restructuring of the global economy. They underestimate the American people. I just hope that enough of them learn of this cabal since the mainstream media will probably largely ignore its significance.
In other news, Al Gore has also tipped his hand. On his "lecture and slide-show tours", he promotes investments in products that will benefit him personally. After telling his audiences that we must change our laws as well as our light bulbs, and calling for prohibitive taxes on carbon, he shows on screen some companies that people should invest in and acknowledges that he "has a stake" in them. In the video below - which is a long one - you can watch him at the fifteen minute mark go into sales-pitch mode.
Somewhat related to all of this is the fact that Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann has introduced a resolution that would prevent the U.S. dollar from being replaced by a multi-national currency. This is in response to calls from China, Russia and other countries calling on the International Monetary Fund to look into that very thing. Chris Matthews of Hardball indirectly called her crazy and paranoid, saying, "It's not clear why she did it since nobody on the planet, least of [all] here in America, is talking about switching to some new multi-national currency here." Maybe someone should direct his attention to the news of the U.N. document.
I have complained for years that leftists in this country and around the globe have been creeping out of the shadows and telling us what they plan to do. Now they are shouting it from the rooftops and yet still insist on telling us we're imagining things when we rail against their telegraphed intentions.For that reason, I am going to say this loud and clear and people can choose to believe me or believe that everything will be just fine.
The U.N., Al Gore et al, and developing countries around the world who have always been envious of America and successful western nations, are absolutely planning to change this world by making every country virtually equal in the misery-sharing index.
Do not let that happen.
Cartoon Used By Kind Permission
Brett Noel, Patriot Art
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Usually, I do not post the works of others but rather rely on my own opinions to power this blog. There are times, however, when something is brought to my attention that is just too good, too powerful, or too pertinent to sully with commentary. For that reason, I now present this speech by Ronald Reagan, thanks to a good friend of mine who had posted it in one of my favorite haunts.
A Time for Choosing
Given as a stump speech, at speaking engagements, and on a memorable night in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. This version is from that broadcast.
I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.
It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."
This idea -- that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power -- is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."
The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.
Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.
Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.
We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....
We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.
We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....
Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.
Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
It's very early 2009 and we're already getting a chance to see how well conservatives may fare in 2010 in regards to congressional seats. If the first two months of the Obama administration are an accurate indication of what we can expect in the next four years, it will become imperative that republicans reclaim at least one of the houses in order to slam on the brakes.
In what is being billed as an early referendum on the policies of this administration, New York's 20th Congressional District is holding a special election on March 31st to replace Kirsten Gillibrand, who accepted Governor Paterson's appointment to fill the U.S. senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. The race pits Democrat Scott Murphy against Republican Jim Tedisco, and while a Tedisco win won't do much to alter the balance of power in the House of Representatives, it could reveal the mood of voters where Obama's economic policies are concerned.
For Obama's part, he's throwing his full support behind Murphy, a move that could prove politically dangerous if Tedisco wins big. In an email sent to 60,000 people in the 20th district yesterday, Obama had this to say about Murphy:
''He supports the economic recovery plan we've put in place, and I know we can count on him as an ally for change.''
Somewhat telling about Obama's political courage is the fact that he waited until yesterday to publicly back Murphy, who pulled even with Tedisco in the polls for the first time...yesterday.
Nevertheless, I am urging all readers who live in the 20th district of New York to get out next Tuesday and vote for Jim Tedisco. This is where we begin to take back congress, and every seat counts.
If you live within the shaded area on the map, it's your day. Registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by 70,000 so go get 'em, kids! Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Despite his absolute inability to fluidly form a sentence extemporaneously without interjecting a myriad of stall words such as "uh", "and" (pronounced "aaaaand"), or "that" (pronounced "thaaaaaat"), President Obama is quite adept at ("aaaaaat")...reading words - prepared by others - off of a screen.
When it came time for the question and answer session, however, last night's press conference became downright painful to watch. In halting, pensive fashion did the president respond to reporters' questions and on more than one occasion I found myself yelling at the tv, "Spit it out, already"! It's quite possible that water boarding would have been preferable to what I experienced last night.
His opening remarks were at least delivered smoothly, with but a few moments of hesitation, perhaps when the rolling words on the screen didn't keep up, but they were confounding, nonetheless. Right out of the gate Obama claimed that his fledgling leadership has "already saved jobs". How does one begin to measure such a thing? It is a claim that can neither be proved nor disproved, so it's a safe one.
He then said that the stimulus provided cash to banks which in turn were able to help 40% of homeowners to refinance, which he actually equated to a "tax cut". That may have been a preemptive response to Jake Tapper's question, "Will you sign a budget bill with no middle class tax cut and no cap & trade"? Part of Obama's response to the Tapper question was, “Now, we never expected, when we printed out our budget, that [Congress] would simply Xerox it and vote on it….The bottom line is—is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit.”
What? He says he wants to reduce our budget deficit, but the CBO is forecasting a 9.3 trillion dollar deficit in ten years. Exactly when does the president expect to get to work on reducing it? Further, if the ability to refinance one's mortgage is equivalent to a tax cut, why doesn't the administration consider forcing energy and utility companies to raise rates to consumers as a punitive tax increase?
Chip Reid with CBS News also mentioned the spectre of energy and education spending inflating the deficit to 9.3 trillion dollars. After Obama indirectly accused Reid of using a republican talking point, and once again defending himself by crying about this problem being "inherited", the president actually made the absurd declaration that his budget would "drive down the deficit in first 5 years. Not quite satisfied to leave that whopper hanging in the air, he followed up by saying that Medicare is wasteful spending while his budget eliminates waste. Whoa! No earmarks, eh Mr. President?
Next, calling on Kevin Baron of Stars and Stripes Magazine, the president was asked how he would cut military spending. Obama responded that he would seek to change military procurement practices in order to save millions, while claiming that he wanted to provide better health care to our veterans. This, after he recently tried to save a paltry $550 million by making them pay for their health care.
Perhaps the most bizarre exchange came when Ebony Magazine's Kevin Chappell parroted an erroneous report from National Center on Family Homelessness, which said that approximately 1.5 million children are homeless, or 1 in 50. Not only did the president fail to point out that the report grossly misrepresented the actual number, he further embellished by using the phrase "roof over their heads".
But according to Fox News on March 13th, there are not nearly that many children sleeping in doorways or on park benches:
But rather than using the definition of homelessness established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Massachusetts-based organization used a standard adopted by the Department of Education that includes children who are "doubled up," or children who share housing with other persons due to economic hardship or similar reason.
The difference? About 1,170,000 children.
An estimated 330,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless children were identified in HUD's July 2007 report to Congress as those who are "literally homeless," or those living in homeless facilities or in places not meant for human habitation, according to the report.
The remaining 1.17 million — those who are precariously housed or who may be doubled up with friends and relatives or paying extremely high proportions of their resources for rent — are not included in HUD's report.
I doubt the president was even aware of this, but decided to pull at the heart strings of an equally ill-informed television audience. After all, that's how he's gotten this far anyway.
I'll not soon forget the tortuous event I witnessed last night, and I'd be willing to wager that Human Rights Watch is working industriously right now preparing a petition to prevent Obama from visiting and speaking at Guantanamo Bay, ever. Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, March 22, 2009
While the odds are clearly stacked against proponents of liberty and capitalism, it is nevertheless somewhat encouraging to see that the battle lines are being drawn anyway. To coin a phrase from a certain state lottery campaign, "You gotta be in it to win it". To simply roll over and accept the crushing advance of socialism from this administration and 111th Congress would be completely unfathomable.
So it is with great cheer that I read this morning that republicans have a growing resistance to the Obama plans of massive government intrusion into every aspect of Americans lives and businesses. What's more, they are venturing so far as to actually call it what it is; socialism. Bravo.
According to David Moss, professor of economic history at Harvard Business School, "The question I think we need to figure out as a country is what is the proper role of government?" Excellent question, and one that needs to asked of virtually every member of congress, in both houses, because as we learned from the heinous passage of House Resolution 1586, government has completely forgotten what its role is. Either that, or they have willfully disregarded the boundaries.
As the GOP pointed out on their website gop.gov, democrats are largely responsible for the state of our economy and seem to be deliberately suppressing it for purely grandstanding purposes. A few years ago in my town, a volunteer firefighter decided to start fires so that he could be the first responder, making himself the hero. That didn't work out very well for him, either.
Yet, this administration still insists on undertakings that exacerbate the failing health of our economy rather than allowing it to convalesce. I remember a story of a mother who mildly poisoned her young daughter each day so that the child would forever remain dependent on her. Speaking at a town hall meeting in California the other day, the president had a backdrop of a bear, understandably the symbol of the state, but what of the subliminal message it conjures in regards to our markets, where the bear is bad news?
Perhaps it is simply paranoia on my part as I fully realize that a great many people -particularly Obama voters - would not have a clue as to the significance of the bear, but there are other signs of measures by democrats to prolong the misery in order to effect the dramatic changes they have sought for decades. Under the guise of benevolence, the administration has attempted to force cash onto financial institutions that have resisted the overture. The reason, I surmise, is to force the institutions into subjugation by way of debt.
AIG was set up as a straw man by the democrats so that congress could swoop in and knock them down, much to the delight of those suffering bouts of severe class envy. At least the republicans seem poised to rise up and let the people know that they've been duped, once again. Keep your fingers crossed. As Mel Gibson said to Danny Glover in the first Lethal Weapon movie, "We could get bloody on this one".
Saturday, March 21, 2009
We've probably all said at one time or another that there ought to be a law, usually against some act of stupidity we've just witnessed, but few of us actually meant it. Moments of frustration are usually accompanied by strong reactions that we end up regretting later.
So it is when we allow class envy to cloud our judgment that we clamor for a quick remedy that will make us feel vindicated, albeit temporarily. But as congress has listened to the shrill cries from people who have demanded that others be prevented by law from offending them, all of us - even the plaintiffs - have lost more and more of our liberty. Lest those who have caused this ripple effect forget, liberty was attained through a very violent process; once it is gone, it is likely not to return except through the same means. It's a classic case of being careful what you wish for.
The AIG fiasco is one such illustration of the dangers of an overreaching government, for we've just witnessed a blatant violation of our constitution by the very people who have sworn an oath to uphold the tenets of that cherished document. The House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 1586 which is a bill to tax AIG executive's bonuses at 90%. Many people, outraged by the prospect of these executives receiving bonuses at all, are applauding this act and praising congress for "having the courage" to commit it. Many people also are not aware that congress is prohibited from this type of bill of attainder by the constitution.
(Article One, Section 9). "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." A bill of attainder is a legislative act declaring the guilt of an individual or a group of persons and punishing them. Only the courts can determine whether a person has violated a criminal statute. An ex post facto law declares an act illegal after it has been committed, or increased the punishment for an offense already committed.
Two paragraphs from GOP.GOV explain how this happened, and the insulting way that democrats have feigned their surprise and outrage before the American public:
The conference committee also stripped a Senate-passed provision from H.R. 1, which would have completely prevented the $165 million in AIG bonuses. The conference committee removed an amendment sponsored by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) that would have forced any TARP recipient to repay any bonus paid in excess of $100,000, or face a 35% excise tax on any TARP funds that were not immediately paid back to the Treasury. The amendment was accepted in the Senate by voice vote. However, the Snowe-Wyden amendment was taken out before the final vote. Despite their strong rhetoric, Democrats in Congress made the AIG bonus payments possible.
While Democrats have facilitated the payment of bonuses to employees of companies that have received taxpayer assistance, Republicans have attempted to enact legislation that would restrict TARP recipients from paying excessive bonuses and protect taxpayer money. On March 18, 2009, House Republicans attempted to offer legislation on the floor that would have required Treasury to recoup the AIG bonuses and would have denied AIG any additional TARP funds until the bonuses were returned in full. The Democrat majority blocked consideration of the Republican proposal. Instead, Democrats will offer a constitutionally questionable 90% tax on some bonus recipients.
Our elected officials are supposed to work in our interests and above all, perform their duties while upholding their oaths. This latest outrage, however, proves that they are not what they appear to be. If only more people would stop and think before they demand action. If only they'd familiarize themselves with our founding documents.
If only they'd use a little more common sense and stop demanding that there be yet another law. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, March 20, 2009
Two months; eight weeks of the Obama administration and his cabinet is still not filled. The reason for that is that he has found it nearly impossible to find any democrats who have paid their taxes. Some have been brought on board despite being tax delinquents, such as Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, which is the epitome of irony.
There are much deeper problems for the administration, however, than merely an inability to complete the filling of cabinet spots. The eloquently loquacious speaker that graced the people on the campaign trail has been exposed as nothing more than an accomplished reader, and even that skill has been somewhat questionable of late. The teleprompter gaffe with Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen is example enough of that.
The trouble goes deeper still when we get into the financial mess that is AIG and other bank bailouts. AIG in particular has become quite a tangled web, however, as Senator Chris Dodd has been at odds with the administration over bonuses being paid to AIG top executives. At question is whether the administration, or anyone in it, knew about the planned bonuses.
Obama, the first sitting president to appear on a late-night television show, told Jay Leno that he was "stunned" to learn of the pending bonus payments. The show was previously recorded, so it is unclear if the president knew of Geithner's admitted knowledge of the bailouts at the time he spoke of his being "stunned", but Geithner himself said days ago that he had "just learned" of the payouts. He lied. Did Obama lie as well on national television?
Now we find out that Obama's special envoy, Richard Holbooke, the administration's point man on Pakistan and Afghanistan, served on the board of AIG between 2001 and mid-2008. While it may be true that "Mr. Holbrooke had nothing to do with and knew nothing about the bonuses," as spokesman Tommy Vietor said, it is nonetheless incredibly peculiar coincidence.
One must wonder what made Obama reward Holbrooke with such a position. It may be that the president feels compelled to surround himself with people who have proven to be failures in a narcissistic need to appear superior, but I'm no doctor. What I do know is that Holbrooke joined AIG's board in February 2001 and resigned in July 2008, two months before the company nearly collapsed. Then, in another attempt to deflect blame at his predecessor, Obama said, "Nobody here was responsible for supervising AIG and allowing themselves to put the economy at risk by some of the outrageous behavior that they were engaged in."
Pardon me, Mr. President, but Robert Litan and AP disagree:
Boards are expected to give the company's top leaders unvarnished advice. But with AIG on life support, the quality of the guidance the company received from its board is under fire.
"The role of a board is to keep a company from going over a cliff," said Robert Litan, an expert on financial institutions at The Brookings Institution in Washington. "I wouldn't be surprised if, in a future lawsuit, a court were to find the (AIG) directors behaved negligently."
If that should happen, don't be surprised if Holbrooke finds himself looking up at the undercarriage of Obama's bus.
And don't expect the stench from Washington to suddenly dissipate. Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, March 19, 2009
"The science is settled", we've been told, and if we don't act swiftly and boldly we will destroy the planet through our greed and avarice. Yet, despite the fact that there are now some 700 scientists who protest the notion of settled dispute, the Obama administration is planning a massive cap and trade scheme that is being estimated to potentially cost two trillion dollars, nearly triple the administration's initial estimate.
The entire global warming industry - for that's exactly what it is - is designed to make people feel good about being "responsible stewards" of the environment. No one desires harm to befall our planet, but those who resist the machinations and manipulations of the Al Gores of the world are seen as heretics who actively plot to facilitate our demise.
Of course, like any liberal cause, the cure-all is money, and lots of it. The plan seeks to reduce pollution by setting a limit on carbon emissions and allowing businesses and groups to buy allowances. Cap and trade will generate plenty of money at the expense of virtually anyone who works and breathes. The only ones who will not feel much fiscal pain are the "vulnerable". According to a White House official, the vulnerable will receive free money in the form of "rebates". He said, "Any revenues in excess of the estimate would be rebated to vulnerable consumers, communities and businesses."
There, my friends, is the pill in the pudding. It has been well established that Barack Obama is a redistributionist. He admitted as much to Joe The Plumber during the campaign, and he has been recorded stating his philosophy on more than one occasion. He knows the prospect of overtly taking from the rich to give to the poor is a radioactive notion, so he uses the old trick mothers use to give foul-tasting medicine to their kids.
I applaud anyone who takes it upon themselves to conserve energy if it makes them feel better about their futures, but I beseech them to think about the value of a cap and trade system that will only be implemented here in America, while China, India, and other rapidly developing countries refuse to participate. You are not going to save the planet, but you will aid in the process of making Obama's wealth transfer a success.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Usually, I am not so alarmist or melodramatic in my musings, and it was with some trepidation that I began this piece, but after a quick perusal of sites which conveniently group major headlines, I was struck by the rapidity with which our world is changing, and the timing is such that mere coincidence must be ruled out.
The dizzying ascension of a young neophyte such as Barack Obama to the most powerful position on planet Earth has mesmerized most of its inhabitants, seemingly to the point of catatonia. The citizenry of the planet appear utterly beguiled while the leaders seem to have finally gotten what the United States has kept from their clutches for a few centuries; a leader of America who shares their goals, the very same goals that have allowed America to leapfrog over them in record time. Why these other nations continue to covet the failed ideologies that have left them floundering in our wake is a question I cannot answer, but they cling to them nonetheless, and now feel that the final cog in the wheel has fallen into place; Obama has succeeded and the machine is ready to churn.
What will this mean for we the citizens of what may be the former greatest country on Earth? For one thing, we may no longer enjoy the status we have come to know as the most prosperous and peace-loving people in the world. Many of our freedoms will have to be sacrificed and our security forfeited. We are about to enter an era in which we are allowed to consume only that which the government deems safe and proper, and an era that will reduce us to adolescents earning an allowance for our labors.
Our language will soon be spoken, in our own homeland, in the presence of others who will glare menacingly at us because they cannot understand what we say and will interpret that as a threat. We are to become strangers in our own home.
One must wonder if the machinations required to propel such an unknown quantity to such an immense station in life were not mostly nefarious, for the policies we see emerging at a startling pace seem destined to cause our ruin. The rate at which this new administration - aided by a completely sympathetic congress - is spending as-yet non-existent money will do little more than cripple our economic clout, thus knee-capping us.
Internationally, we are about to witness the demise of the one true ally we treasured in the midst of the otherwise tumultuous Middle East. Formerly powerful and, hence, dangerous foes have begun to regain their adversarial footing with a confidence that, quite frankly, is a considerable cause for concern. Even smaller nations once viewed as those who could never conceivably pose a threat have ramped up their antagonistic rhetoric as if to dare anyone to challenge them.
Obama, in my view, is the piece of the jigsaw puzzle that was lost in the heating duct, thereby eluding every world leader who sought it out in order to facilitate the downfall of the "evil empire" they call America. Whichever nation found it matters not, for it seems that they all rejoice in its final recovery as one, and are now poised to create the New World Order that has for too long been just beyond their grasp.
There couldn't possibly have been a worse time in our history for complete democrat control of both the Executive and Legislative branches of our government. I pray that we regain the Legislative branch before we tumble into the abyss of history.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Gaza Strip the first week of March. Part of her visit was to inform the region that it could expect to be receiving $900 million dollars from the U.S. in aid. Careful not to anger critics of such a move, the Obama administration was quick to point out that the money would be funnelled through non-governmental agencies and not through Hamas.
Despite what the money was going to be used for, at the time I didn't think much of it since it amounted to slightly more than one tenth of one percent of the alleged "stimulus package" and as such, did not seem to hold much significance in the grand scheme of things. Then something happened to change my mind.
On Monday, American Legion Commander David K. Rehbein had a meeting with President Obama regarding veteran's affairs. In that meeting, Commander Rehbein learned of Obama's plans to make wounded soldiers' private insurance companies reimburse the Department of Veteran's Affairs. Just a year ago, the President had this to say about the U.S. military (from the Barack Obama Web Site):
"We honor their service to this ideal every time we fly the flag," Senator Obama said. "But the true measure of our patriotism is not taken on Veterans Day or Memorial Day - the true measure is how we provide for those who serve, and for their families, after the guns fall silent and the cameras are turned off. And it is my strong belief that over the last few years, we have not always kept that sacred trust - we have not served our veterans as well as they have served us."
This plan to make the soldiers pay for injuries they received in service to America is designed to save 530 million dollars. This speaks volumes about the Commander in Chief's priorities. He feels comfortable sending 900 million of our tax dollars to rebuild a region that begged to be destroyed by launching rockets into the territory of our ally, but he wants to save us 530 million dollars by abandoning the people who make our way of life possible in the first place.
If anyone reading this is as mad as I am right now, contact your Congressman and Senator and tell them to save the $530 million by giving the $900 million to the people who deserve it far more than the Palestinians do. You can find them here:
Contact Your Congressman
Contact Your Senator Sphere: Related Content
Chuck Schumer seems to tip our government's hand, showing the arrogance of congress and their belief that they can just tax the daylights out of anything they don't like. They've been doing it with tobacco for a long time already and now Schumer tells AIG that congress "will tax it 100%", referring to the bonus money the company's top executives are slated to receive.
Personally, I find it rather frightening when politicians begin to flex their imaginary muscles in such a manner.
Monday, March 16, 2009
For anyone actually concerned and paying attention to the state of affairs currently underway in America, the news that the Obama administration is going to force states, using stimulus funds for construction projects, to pay union wages should give one pause. I'll leave the part about no-bid contracts for others to debate, as that is another venue entirely that will lead to ideological finger pointing and heated rhetoric.
Fiscal responsibility is something that all candidates base their campaign rhetoric upon, and something which many soon abandon shortly after swearing the oath to uphold the constitution, on the Bible. This last campaign season gave new meaning and import to that philosophy based on the collapsing economy being its main backdrop. So it is with uber-particular irony that the new administration has so quickly and so shamelessly abandoned even the slightest pretense of monetary restraint.
I am not alone in my past prognostications and current concerns that Obama is an overt socialist seeking to radically alter the very fabric of America. I and others tried valiantly - and ultimately in vain - to convince voters during the election period that Obama was somewhat akin to a living version of Poe's The Purloined Letter, and was met with nothing but scorn. How anyone can now deny that accusation as reality is beyond me, since Obama is behaving like a Leon Trotsky labor movement activist.
Never mind that Robert Reich wished that stimulus project jobs be kept from white male construction workers; the president is now saying that all stimulus jobs workers must be payed at union wages and that the edict is non-negotiable. Competitive bidding will be ignored and small businesses excluded. What's worse is that, while spending our money, we will pay more for less. For example, instead of possibly getting ten miles of road for "X" amount of dollars, we'll get only seven or eight. But the rule does not only apply to federal highway projects, as the 1931 Davis-Bacon law usually covers. This provision, under the current Obama plan, will extend to energy, housing, and agriculture as well as construction.
Many "shovel ready" projects were already bid at a lower non-union wage, but now businesses that have won the contracts will either have to surrender the contracts or pay a prohibitive wage to its workers. A good example of the effect this will have is evident in Los Angeles. According to Fox News:
Los Angeles County officials who received $8 million in Community Development Block Grant money to weatherize homes for low-income people said they typically bid the job low and pay about $15 an hour for a worker to caulk windows. However, under union scale, that job pays $25 an hour and $5 in benefits, so instead of repairing 100 homes, they might do 50 homes for the same price.
Elsewhere, the union wage for a plumber on Long Island is $45 an hour, the market rate is $30. In Las Vegas, the Davis-Bacon wage for a glass worker is $57 an hour, a job the Nevada State Housing division currently pays $15 to do.
We were worried about the effects of Saul Alinsky's influence on Obama, but he may have learned more from Leon Trotsky, for just as Trotsky was involved in organizing the underground South Russian Workers' Union in 1897, Obama seems to be back to his own organizer roots. He may just be reorganizing us into the New Soviet Union. Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Talk about a snowball effect. Stress is one of the things that causes many health-related problems in people and there is an abundance of it these days, what with the economy running downhill like a spring melt in the Rockies and the democrats using a flame thrower on the snow at the summit. Many people are thankful for the health benefits their employers provide, albeit at a still-substantial cost to the individual. Now, however, the Obama administration and congress are preparing to heap more stress on the people in the form of taxation, once again. Yes, change is in the air.
Despite his campaign rhetoric last fall, Obama is now signaling that he will be "receptive" to a plan being prepared by congress to begin taxing employer-provided health care benefits as income. The first thing that comes to mind, at least to me, is that this is a precursor to socialized medicine or, for the more politically correct thinker, "universal health care". It is a way to smoothly transition the American people into the mindset that government is now providing your health care plans through taxation. Once everyone settles in and gets used to the notion, government can formally seize the reins and we'll be socialized once and for all.
There is a side note to this possibility, however. When John McCain floated this idea during the presidential campaign, the Obama camp trounced it soundly. Obama called McCain's idea “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” And we all know that Obama is going to cut taxes for ninety-five percent of all working Americans, right? As we're now learning, that was simply the sales pitch for the magic elixir, that which was designed to land Obama in the White House. Mission accomplished, but now we know what snake oil tastes like and that is has none of the benefits and all of the side effects.
It is peculiar how all of the broken campaign promises from this young neophyte - and in such a truncated time frame - have gone all but unnoticed by the press that were once such vociferous watchdogs for the country. Whether they share the same ideology as the president - something which seems a rhetorical point - or not, one would at least expect them to do their jobs and point out the obvious. Whether well meaning or not, a lie is still a lie, a broken promise just that.
Without a strong voice of opposition from that other party in congress, we may as well resign ourselves to the fact that stress will increase and continue to tax our health. Now Government is going to tax it as well.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
233 years doesn't quite seem long enough, but still, it was a heck of a run. Who would have thought that a bunch of guys with white wigs and wooden teeth could have built such a wonderful place and set it up to run so smoothly for so long? Who would have thought that it could come crashing down so suddenly?
The Democratic Party has veered hard to the left, hard enough to lift the wheels on the driver's side. Emboldened by the misunderstood message of Obama's electoral victory in November, they have abandoned the practice of baby steps and have lunged forward with their fatal agenda. There was a time when I believed that liberals were simply wrong in their ideology while having good intentions. That time has passed. I can no longer subscribe to the notion that they could be so horribly and willfully stupid in the face of what they have already done and plan to do.
From the rampant spending to the arrogant dismissal of their critics, democrats have most certainly gone 'round the bend and seem intent on ending the way of life we as Americans have come to know and love. Now they want to institute something called "card check", a way for workers to form unions simply by signing a card. The irony is rich, in that democrats are so named while they are engaged in destroying democracy.
"Card check" will do away with workers' ability to vote by secret ballot, leaving them exposed to the possibility of intimidation by their co-workers or more strong-armed union organizers. Further, if more companies are forced to accept organized labor, many will simply close their doors or be forced to raise prices and fees.
While Obama promised wage earners who make less than $250,000 annually that their taxes would not go up "one dime", he has already succeeded in making goods cost more and taxing people of every tax bracket through punitive increases on everything from energy to tobacco.
The very landscape of America is being altered so as to be almost unrecognizable, and it saddens me. I am certainly going to miss this old place. Last one out, please turn out the lights.
That is, if the electric is still on.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Charlie Rangel forgets who he works for, telling a U.S. citizen with the temerity to ask a question to "mind his own Goddamn business":
Uh...excuse me, Congressman Rangel, but it is his business as well as my business and the business of every American.
Monday, March 9, 2009
As a kid growing up in the late fifties and early sixties, one of the coolest toys ever to receive on Christmas morning was the the Flintstones Building Boulders. Kids could make the fort of their dreams based solely on their imaginative ability combined with the available inventory contained in the box. Mothers were thrilled at the prospect of we kids entertaining ourselves for hours with the lightweight pieces. Until, that is, we realized our primal nature and began conducting tribally competitive raids on one another's structures. They were not nearly as durable as they appeared and the resulting styrofoam pellet residue proved to be more than the average canister vacuum of the era could handle.
There were two men who used such an innocently faulty toy manufacturing campaign toward their ultimate goal, which was the destruction of the very nation that afforded them the education and the very freedom to pursue that goal. Those men were also "respected" professors in education at Columbia University.
In 1966, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven developed The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis, in which the demise of American capitalism would finally be accomplished. To be certain, I do not lay the blame on the Flintstone Building Boulders, but rather rely on their existence as evidential example, for it is in the very nature of their deceiving appearance and actual weakness that I believe the premise of Cloward-Piven was borne.
Since it has been a long established fact that the United States is much too formidable to attack from without, through force of any military, folks such as Cloward and Piven have made it their business to devise methods to cause her demise through less overt means. Those means to the end have been studied at length by subsequent radicals, many of whom have been the acquaintances of the current president.
I often fret over the possibility that my posts may be viewed as alarmist rhetoric, but the longer I live, the more I fear that I may not have done enough to warn my fellow citizens of the perils that are right outside the gates. Further, as I watch the gates' wood strain inward with the weight of impending doom, I grow less concerned with the perception of my own grasp of reality, because I firmly believe that time has come for bold action. I borrow the mantra of the current administration, I know, but what better method of delivering such an important message?
I knew it would happen eventually, I just had no way to know how quickly it would be evident that President Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like a "strong man". And part of me believed that Obama's rhetoric of "change" really meant nothing more than a change from the Bush era. However, it seems that he is moving with breakneck speed to radically alter the very face of the nation.
It can't be said that he didn't warn us, we had ample opportunity to understand his intentions from the campaign. Some of us heard and tried to tell the rest, but they weren't listening. He said he'd talk to Ahmedinejad with no pre-conditions, and he has hinted that that is not far from happening. He basically conceded that the Taliban is too powerful for the U.S to handle, so he now wants to seek a reconciliation with them. He wants to "talk to the Taliban".
Now, he is going to relax a forty-year-old policy the U.S. has had towards Cuba because of the Communist ruler's tyrannical regime. Obama wants to ease restrictions on travel and trade with Cuba, and he hopes to end the embargo. Additionally, in this economic climate, he will lift limits on cash remittances that Cuban-Americans can send to the island, so now Cubans living here will be able to send even more cash off our shores.
Iran is boldly telling us and the rest of the world that they are building nukes and there is not a damned thing we can do about it. Russia is becoming a bear once again. North Korea is threatening to attack any country - one can only assume that means us, as well - who shoots down the launch of what they call a "satellite". And Hugo Chavez is calling for Obama to follow the path of socialism.
With all of this, referring to the president as obsequious may be too timid an assessment. But if anyone is looking for a good investment opportunity in these troubled times, white flags may be all the rage by Spring.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently visited the U.S. with his family, an occasion usually marked by great pomp and circumstance. This time, however, the results were embarrassing for us and infuriating to the Brits, as evidenced by the lack of press coverage here at home in stark contrast to the blaring headlines from the Olde Country.
For those not familiar with the incident, first I must say that you are not to blame for your ignorance since, if all you do is read the paper or watch network news, you would have no way of knowing the particulars of the events. The venues mentioned suddenly seem to have no interest in embarrassing the president, so information is only available as they see fit. I imagine George W. Bush in the same predicament. The average citizen would never have had to actually dig for detrimental coverage of the former president during his eight years in office. Such is life.
In the meantime, we have a young president - both in chronology and tenure - who has demonstrated a startling ineptitude for the position thus far, which is now being excused by aides as fatigue. Um, pardon me Mr. President, but we never heard about fatigue during the long campaign to win the brass ring. Then again, there were no added pressures throughout the campaign other than not mispronouncing the rolling words on the teleprompter, so in a sense, the words of your defenders have a modicum of merit. What is most worrisome, however, is the accelerated pace at which respect for the highest office has been eroded, and all because of the claim of lack of rest.
I have heard and read from many people who have expressed alarm over the prospect of a President Obama, and all for a variety of reasons, some that I subscribe to and some that I am skeptical about, but all of which I have entertained in the spirit of educational curiosity. What we are seeing though, this early in a fledgling administration, is an urgent clarion call for closer scrutiny of what we have wrought with our impetuous election of a man who, admittedly, has bitten off more than he can chew.
If a faltering economy is so cumbersome that our new leader cannot practice proper protocol for our most prized ally's visiting dignitary, how can we feel confident for the rest of his term, when events in the world are likely to present challenges that will dwarf the significance of a visiting world leader?
It is a sublime irony that opponents of George W. Bush revelled in the notion that "a grown-up would once again occupy the Oval Office". Irony continues unabated in the fact that those voices are now mute, for no one has had the gumption to admit that a vote for Obama was an un-Godly error.
My dear old Grandmother often used a term when we left food on the plate; "your eyes are bigger than your stomach". If she were still around, I'd wager that she'd have a good tug on the ear of the adolescent president.
What may have been a glimpse into the future of talk radio or perhaps even politics proper was the guest speaker at the recent CPAC Convention. A day after his fourteenth birthday, a young fellow named Jonathan Krohn spoke eloquently and passionately about conservatism, and the crowd loved him.
He may have some knowledge on the subject since he's written a book on it called Define Conservatism. Watch his speech to CPAC below. He's quite an impressive young man. Perhaps there is something to home-schooling, after all.
Of course, not everyone is so enamoured. Those of the liberal persuasion have already begun to attack him. That can only be a good thing.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Friday, March 6, 2009
I have suffered a slight bout of half-century envy of late partly because, for the first time in my life, the President of the United States is younger than I am. It is quite an adjustment to realize that the leader of the free world was still in high school while I was reciting my wedding vows and later waiting for my first-born to be...um, born.
But this guy...he is something special, someone with an oratorical gift and an education to die for, so I was somewhat at ease when he was sworn in, political angst notwithstanding. At least I could sleep at night knowing that America was in good, smart hands. This president was no frat boy like his predecessor...we finally had a grown-up at the helm. Whew!
Barack Obama was sworn in by Justice Roberts 6 weeks ago, and in that time my Ambien costs have tripled, so much so that Patrick Kennedy was recently seen jonesing for a fix on a Boston street corner while complaining that he had a crucial vote to attend and time was of the essence. Sorry Patty, but you can blame the head of your party, sport. He's the one (or The One) responsible for the run on sleep aids.
There are reports that President Obama is seeking the financial counsel of the founder of Twitter, as well as a former Google guy, in an attempt to get a handle on the economic bus heading for the Depression cliff. Perhaps it's fitting for the Twitter geek to help this administration. While Twitter boasts a membership of 6 million and 700% growth, the endeavor makes no money in the U.S. Sounds like a match made in Heaven. For Lucifer.
John Stewart had a funny take on the Twitter phenomenon, which you can enjoy here:
I have some valuable advice for the Kid in Chief; contact the head of Tonka for help with the auto industry.
Heck, maybe the mustachioed Monopoly man can apply for the deputy position under Timothy Geithner? Sphere: Related Content
For the past decade the liberal machine has waged a relentless war on God and, peripherally, Christmas. All the while, one front has busily chipped away at the pillars of religion while their more congenial cohorts have assured the rest of us that we were just imagining the whole thing. They weren't trying to destroy the very concept of God, we were told, they were simply trying to preserve the Constitution and the American way. Poppycock.
The ideal that they were trying to convince us was under attack was the imaginary wall, the separation of church and state. Supposing that such a thing actually existed, it is quite a stretch to contend that school children singing Christmas carols would place such a revered stanchion in jeopardy, but that was indeed part of the fight. So I have a question for the lunchbox liberal who would venture to march in the streets with placards or petition the Supreme Court to immediately halt such a heinous activity; why the double standard?
The Freedom of Choice Act, which failed to get out of subcommittee in 2004, is once again simmering on the back burner, ready to move to the first position on the stove. The bill's original sponsor, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is prepared to re-introduce FOCA in the hopes that its co-sponsor will readily sign it into law. That co-sponsor is now President of the United States.
The Freedom of Choice Act is a bill that would make a Supreme Court precedent a law, that precedent being Roe v. Wade. What's worse, it would force any medical institution to provide an abortion to anyone who wanted one. This is causing quite a bit of consternation amongst the Roman Catholic Church, which operates 624 hospitals, nationwide; 624 hospitals which may close if they are forced to murder children in direct violation of their belief system.
So where is the double standard, you ask? It is in my wondering why children singing in school is so dastardly that it must be stopped to preserve the imaginary wall of separation, but government dictating to private religious hospitals that they must violate their creed is not a cause for concern, so much so that they would deprive people of other care they might benefit from had the hospitals stayed open. If you want religion out of government then government must be prevented from interfering in religion. You can't have both.
There is an old saying; What's good for the goose...well, you know the rest.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
First, I must qualify the title as it seems to suggest a nefarious collusion between the principles about which this article is designed, which is neither the case nor my intent. I will defend the title, however, on the grounds that the apparent ensnarement of Rahm Emanuel is all the indication needed to conclude that, as inadvertent as the setting of the trap may have been, it yielded the same results of one who would have intentionally set it.
Rush Limbaugh brought the house down at the CPAC convention on Saturday, something I am benchmarking as the beginning of the Conservative Renaissance, and the demise of liberal dominance in the early 21st century. Oddly enough, I also applauded the election of Michael Steele to RNC Chair a few weeks ago, and as fate would have it, he and Rush have become embroiled in a bit of a tiff. What a delight for the main stream media who have made a cottage industry out of misquoting Limbaugh for personal gain.
Michael Steele was being interviewed by CNN's D.L. Hughley on Saturday night shortly after Limbaugh's speech to CPAC. During one exchange, Steele referred to Rush's show as "incendiary and ugly", something that begot an inspired response from the radio host on today's show. Michael Steele was quick to correct himself, saying that he said something he didn't mean. To be honest, I am usually skeptical when someone complains of being taken out of context, but I believe Steele in this instance.
The problem, however, is the reason that he said what he said at all, and that was made abundantly clear in Limbaugh's tirade. Michael Steele found himself in a position with Hughley that - in Steele's mind, at least - compelled him to behave in precisely the manner of which Limbaugh complains where alleged conservatives are concerned; he briefly abandoned integrity for the sake of appearing to understand the left's disdain for Limbaugh.
This has become an unconcious habit amongst conservatives who for too long have felt inferior to - and therefore in need of - a level of acceptance from the left. What Limbaugh has been trying for quite some to time to get across is our ability to rise up and fight, and approval and acceptance by the opposition be damned.
Make no mistake, liberals are the opposition and they have been stepping on our throats for much too long. They rail on about Limbaugh's wish for Obama's agenda to fail, yet they predicted, hoped for, and ultimately claimed that President Bush had failed. At least Limbaugh is honest about it, even as the media deliberately distorts his words.
The reaction of the crowd at the CPAC speech was heartening. Steele's haste in apologizing is also encouraging. The only thing that can keep us down this time is for the Obama administration to suddenly co-opt our philosophy. I am not worried in the least about that ever happening.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
One of the things I never thought I'd see in my lifetime is a conservative protest. That has always been the bastion of the liberals; something I have always scorned yet something that has been very effective for the past 40 years, much to my chagrin. Even in the Clinton era, conservatives were always too busy making things work to take time out to march with placards, while the liberals - despite having complete control during Clinton's first term - still found not only the free time but the necessity to hold demonstrations. (Sidenote: that just proves they'll never be happy.)
Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, et al, have finally succeeded in making pigs fly; conservatives are now finding it necessary to make time to protest, because it's just that damned important.
According to STLtoday.com, "Critics of President Barack Obama's stimulus plan gathered beneath the Arch Friday to cheer speeches over a bullhorn and toss tea into the Mississippi River."
The photo doesn't match the intensity of the original Boston Tea Party, but the organizer of the St. Louis event, Bill Hennessy, estimated that there were more than 1,000 people in attendance. Some will scoff at such a paltry number but you have to remember; this is all new to us.
There is something happening, though, and it's heartening to see it begin so soon after Brack Obama's inauguration. Conservatives are mobilizing with a haste to match the jack-rabbit start this administration has gotten off to, and I am encouraged that our dark horse candidates are preparing for a wonderful showing in 2010 and 2012. Rush Limbaugh spoke at a CPAC conference yesterday and it was an electric performance.
What I am hopeful for is that more politicians on the republican side do the opposite of what Colin Powell and Obama have advised, and that is finally begin listening to Limbaugh. After his speech I am firmly convinced that his direction will be our greatest hope for success in taking back the congress with the ultimate goal of recapturing the White House in 2012.