Not only was I not ready to hit 50, admittedly for reasons of overt vanity, but I also had the prospect of the inevitable first AARP mailing looming on the horizon. Oh sure, I joked about my angst in that regard and laughingly brushed aside the vindictive taunts of those my senior, but I had more than the spectre of my own mortality to account for the dread I experienced. I knew the thing was coming and there was nothing I could do to stop it.
Once I came to terms with conceit and learned that resistance to life "over the hill" was an exercise in abject and senseless futility, I reasoned that my first "invitation" packet from AARP would arrive shortly after my 50th birthday, at which point I resolved to immediately toss it in the trash. That was because I had earlier learned that AARP did not share my personal convictions and values and that they were yet another liberal organization formed to make a profit off of their members, which is fine, but also to lure those with opposing virtues into the same trap.
Then they reminded me of both my limited longevity and my disdain for being manipulated, while simultaneously adding insult to injury by sending my packet a full two months early. When it arrived, it dawned on me that perhaps they were attempting a fundraising drive for the Presidential elections of that year. Still, it took a full two years for me to make the decision to write a post eerily similar to a commercial endorsement, something I had long ago vowed never to do, regardless of the risk of remaining in relative obscurity.
Today, however, while perusing the site of a fellow blogger and someone who has become a friend, I learned of the existence of competitors to AARP. Some may wonder why I never actively sought out an alternative, and I can only attribute that negligence to my stubbornness in the belief that I was still "young" enough not to worry.
I was looking over The Edisto Joe Outlook and noticed an advertisement for AMAC (Association of Mature American Citizens). Conceived in 2006 and launched the following year, AMAC has a website that explains the groups' mission statement and what they have to offer to seniors who don't subscribe to the liberal agenda run amok in this country. It could very well be that many of those who came before me know this site already, so I appeal to my contemporaries who may be as new to the market as me.
Odds are that if you're reading this, you are Conservative and, as such, will relish the prospect of enjoying the same benefits as your liberal counterparts without having to contribute to the same agenda. While I must say that commercial endorsements were never the intent of this site, I also have to point out that when I can aid in the benefit of my compatriots, I have no reservations in doing so.
I am not suggesting any purchases here, but only the endeavor of the reader to research on your own the information I have provided. Thanks to Edisto Joe for making me aware.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Not only was I not ready to hit 50, admittedly for reasons of overt vanity, but I also had the prospect of the inevitable first AARP mailing looming on the horizon. Oh sure, I joked about my angst in that regard and laughingly brushed aside the vindictive taunts of those my senior, but I had more than the spectre of my own mortality to account for the dread I experienced. I knew the thing was coming and there was nothing I could do to stop it.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Try to imagine the euphoria of your long-awaited introduction to Saint Peter shattered by demons clawing at your back.
My apologies for the opening melodrama, but I have it on good advice that such an attention grabber works wonders. It seems that miracles and wonders are in great demand these days as many Americans have lost their zeal and their appreciation for the bounties that have been bestowed upon them. Sometimes a reminder from someone not born into such splendor is required.
On a less grandiose scale than any reference to the Kingdom Of God, try to imagine suffering through the gray-scale misery of Soviet Russia for much of your life. While that may not compare to Hell in my American world - I have no reference point other than the imaginary, for I have been spoiled by the splendor of my blessings - listening to people who can personally make such a comparison paints a picture of relative similarity.
There are people who fled the oppression of the old Soviet Union, people who witnessed the horrors of consolidated power at the hands of the government. Some were born into the bondage, but others are old enough to remember its advance.
Still others fall in between, but know well the history from parents and grandparents and are old enough to have spent the sum of too many years in such squalor. These people who finally made their way to America were both stunned and elated at the freedoms we enjoyed. They were also grateful to God for their good fortune at finally living a life of relative bliss in their new land.
For decades some had found that the memories of their former lives had faded like an old Polaroid, something that still could be seen, but only if one squinted and tilted the photograph a certain way. Now, just as we have developed rejuvenating technology that makes the old new, those immigrants are seeing the bad reveries coming back to life courtesy of a government seemingly intent on recreating that which they fled.
One such immigrant is Regina Barker-Barzel, a Russian woman in her seventies, who married an American man and came to this country with the utmost gratitude. Here's what she has to say about our current course:
Just as many of us have become complacent and have taken for granted the blessings of our birth, we have also convinced ourselves that such a scenario could never happen here. We need more convincing apparently, but try to imagine Regina's horror at having the spectre of deja-vu rear its ugly head.
Please people, think. Not only can it happen here; it already is. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, March 26, 2010
Whether they welcome it or not, the Supreme Court is likely to be hearing arguments very soon on the question of the Constitutionality of ObamaCare.
What a tangled web this health care reform has become. The road to this
place has been bumpy, and we have seen many new things along the way. We have seen an unprecedented audacity in the way Congress behaves, witnessed blatant and brazen bribery and exceptional extortion, and a complete contempt for the demands of the American people who - last time I checked - are still "the boss".
We have been lied to and we know it, as do the people who did the lying. Adding insult to injury, a complicit press has aided in that deception and tried to pretend that they didn't, opting instead to portray their consumers as either idiots or liars. And they wonder why circulation is down at print outlets and viewership is abysmal for the electronic venues.
Congress and the President have manipulated fiscal calculations and massaged projections in a clear attempt to dupe not only members of their own party in both houses, but also the media and their constituents. Many bought the story, and we now have the history of the 44th President of the United States signing this rubbish in the textbooks of days beyond.
One would have thought that with the overwhelming majority the Democrats have enjoyed that this would have been a smooth process, but that wasn't the case. The main reason was because an almost equal majority of Congress' employers were opposed, and were not timid in making that sentiment known. Rather than respect that opposition, politicians elected instead to portray those plaintiffs as dangerous and mistaken or worse, evil racists. (Love that one).
Now we face the reality that the president has signed the legislation into law, and all that remains is the tedium of dotting "I"'s and crossing "T"'s, right? Well, it may not be that simple. It seems that "We the Opposition" may well yet be victorious. Despite claims that the bill was not being "rushed through" the process by Democrats - who claimed that exhaustive work and diligent attention to detail was exercised - we learn that they have sold, and the President has signed, a work unfinished.
Still, that is not their downfall, and not even close to an error worthy of scrutiny by the Supreme Court. That body, being the third and co-equal branch of our government - as erected by this countries Founders - deals solely with issues of the founding document, The U.S. Constitution. Both hailed and vilified at different times in our history, that body is also the final barrier protecting our guaranteed liberties.
So it is that 14 State Attorneys General have determined that the requirement of the new health care legislation that every citizen of the U.S. purchase a product sold by the federal government is a direct violation of the Constitution. They are also filing suit that, as a result, the entire bill is null and void. If this doesn't perk the ears of the nine justices, nothing will.
Democrats claim validity through the Commerce Clause, but as the latest Attorney General to join the coalition - Washington State AG Rob McKenna - says,
"First of all, we are talking about forcing people to enter the stream of commerce, not about those already in, and need to be regulated. This will force people to go into the private market and buy a product on penalty of fine or going to jail. That is unprecedented, and there is no principal distinction between forcing Americans to go out into the private sector and buy a private product and forcing them to buy anything else that Congress gets in its mind to do."
Not content to violate the intent of "some old guys who wrote the Constitution", Democrats added the twisting of the rule written by one of their own, Robert Byrd. They negated the significance of the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts through the Reconciliation process by claiming that the Health Care bill would reduce the deficit, but they did so by citing incomplete budget projections by the Congressional Budget Office, which were based on a series of assumptions. Add to that simple fact the disclosure of coverage gaps in the original bill and the additional, uncalculated costs, and the minute deficit reduction touted by the Democrats is in serious jeopardy. That didn't stop the steamroller.
As we move forward, and as the details of this travesty sour the public mood even further, we can expect the legal challenges to snowball. We can also expect to see a Supreme Court recently stung by the president at the State of the Union address as receptive to the prospect of some form of retribution. While I don't expect the honorables to engage in the same chicanery as our Congresspeople, and believe that they will exercise stringent scrutiny of the cases presented, I must also believe that they are hopeful of an ironclad case being brought before them. Sphere: Related Content
True to Democrat form, Ed Schultz whines that if he can't win, Congress should change the rules. Hey Ed, if you want more listeners, maybe you should try offering a product that people actually want and stop trying to get the government to supply you with customers.
As we're about to find out, the federal government has no constitutional authority to compel people to purchase a particular product, like health insurance. The same holds true for media preferences. Suck it up and try to improve your show. In the real world there are no trophies for merely showing up.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Everyone is familiar with the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back", but the colloquial consequence of reaction to such has been socially stigmatized to the point of zero tolerance for the brief flair of violence that usually results. Fair enough, score one for civilization.
How many times have we seen a cretin of the worst kind jovially taunt the grieving parents of the child he is accused of brutally murdering? And while the parents - who have remained true to the pacifistic tendencies they displayed throughout the investigation - remain stoic, how many of us watching on the evening news wanted to jump through our television screens to throttle the bastard?
Check me off in the column of the juris prudent, up to the point of that in-your-face-display. Afterward, I am solidly in league with the mentality that would leap over the courtroom banister and tear asunder such a creature.
I write this not to justify the unfortunate and violent behavior of the bereaved and enraged, but to understand the motivation that would cause the peaceable to become dangerous. After all, haven't we been systematically conditioned to coddle the criminal? "Sure", we're told, "they did a bad thing, but they must have had a reason".
So if we are to take at face value the accusations of the Democrats in the case of the racial epithets being hurled at passing Congresspeople, we must also consider the motivations of Tea Party members as a result of a taunting designed to break the camel's back. There are photographs of the House Speaker and her entourage walking through a crowd of angry but peaceful protesters of the passage of the Heath Care bill, and they are laughing in a way that can only be characterized as uncharacteristic with the significance of the event.
Combine this with the fact that - having known that the demonstrators were present - the House members could have easily made their way between chambers by way of tunnels, but chose to wade through a hostile crowd, and one can't help but wonder if they were not fishing for controversy. Or perhaps they were seeking actual photo evidence to combine with fictional dialogue. In any event, I am reminded of the acquitted strolling past the house of the mourning parent.
I can't help but wonder what may be next from this cabal on Capitol Hill, but people have developed a very high tolerance for governmental abuse in this country by virtue of steady inoculation. They still have a bad reaction, however, to having their faces rubbed in the byproduct.
A final thought: Unlike the Left, Conservatives remain committed to the peaceful redress of grievances and will condemn actual acts of violence and hate. But just as gloating over the murder of our country is perhaps more enraging than the act itself, there will be zero tolerance of false accusations levelled. As it is, Democrats face a rough time in November, and most people have better memories than given credit for.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Forty years ago, folks like William Ayers had visions of overthrowing the government of the United States through the use of nail-filled bombs and the mobilization of like-minded radicals. It wasn't until they learned the hard way that bringing a knife to a gunfight was an exercise in futility that they found a new route to traverse toward the destruction of the nation.
They did not come to this new way on their own - having been years before their own academic stature - but they succeeded in becoming noticed as useful tools by more seasoned enemies of the State. Beneficiaries of the vilification of Senator Joseph McCarthy - emancipated from the scrutiny of a wary people - suddenly became champions of "free speech", able to propagate the most nefarious of motives virtually unfettered. The time was right.
Saul Alinsky became required reading for radicals, as did the doctrine of Cloward and Piven. Just as sinister were the tunnels under the Gaza Strip, those who despised America's system of personal liberty and wealth burrowed into society and blended in as best they could. Then they set about the task at hand.
They learned much earlier than your garden variety Palestinian that fighting tanks with rocks is a losing proposition, so they began rotting the structure of America like termites in the foundation. They exploited the discontent of workers and fomented the resentment many harbored about their plight, working hard and barely getting by. They fanned the flames of envy and convinced ordinary employees that they were being used.
This soon transcended into the realm of education, and the seed began to sprout. Not only were the workers on board, but they included the teachers who would now shape future generations from the sanctity of the classroom. Legions of fellow "warriors" could now be cultivated, nurtured, and ultimately "sent to the front lines". Motivation works wonders, and activism keeps the focus keen.
While the multitudes of normal, America-loving people kept their noses to the grindstone, toiling day after day to make a life for their families, they were nearly oblivious to the signs all around them that something just wasn't right. They angrily questioned their childrens' homework assignments, effectively venting their frustrations on the kids and eventually letting it go with an aggravated wave when the bewildered child couldn't explain why they were being taught the things they were. That was perhaps our greatest failure.
It allowed for the brainwashing to continue with little challenge, and it alienated the generations, a perfect equation for the architects of ruination.
Many of my generation navigated this gauntlet unscathed, thanks largely to parents who remained grounded in solid convictions they were unashamed to bestow on us, but not nearly enough of us to stave off the onslaught that has culminated in what we see today. Despite being several years my junior, the president must fall into my generation, but it is clear from his own words that he never received the same inheritance that I was fortunate enough to have bestowed upon me.
While he is wealthier by far, his is a poorer life, for it is tainted by a hatred I could never fathom and tragically devoid of a typical family life. And while I have never been one to excuse abherrent behavior because of upbringing, I do believe that Barack Hussein Obama was selected by an element that saw in him the perfect palette on which to complete its ultimate masterpiece; the final defeat of America. The tunnel was nearing completion.
I cannot claim to know how these associates of his may have seen in him the makings of a president, but I believe that he invited the solicitation of this element and demonstrated the unique marketability early on that they sought. I cannot accept that it was all simply providence that placed him here and placed him now. There are too many switches in his troubled past that had to be thrown at just the right moment, lest the train be derailed.
His past is as clear as a Mississippi swamp, and the education this troubled orphan received remains a mystery. No one knows how it was all funded, or by whom, and his academic credentials remain unclear despite gushing claims by leftist pundits that his is a welcome and rare intellect in the Oval Office. There is one clear declaration to be made, however.
Barack Hussein Obama has just proved this past weekend that the termites have succeeded, albeit temporarily. The house is tilting on its foundation, but it can be corrected, or rebuilt, if necessary. Perhaps more importantly, however is that he has also proved that the new bombs of the revolution bear no resemblance to the William Ayers days, but are much more effective. A big one was dropped on the Capitol Building this weekend. The bright spot in all of this is that the Tea Parties are akin to the 9-11 first responders, the brave and compassionate souls that sprang into action to mitigate the carnage and save lives.
The enemy has revealed itself and the sentry has noticed.
Monday, March 22, 2010
I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore, Toto.
I don’t feel like I’m in America anymore, either. I cannot believe this is happening here. Our democracy has been hijacked by those in Washington DC, that refuse to represent those that sent them there. They clearly have not heard the majority of Americans, democrats, republicans, and independents that wanted no part of a nationalized health care plan. In a civil manner, we tried our best to be heard across the nation, in our town halls and at our tea parties. They did not listen. They were too busy calling us domestic terrorists and mocking us. And, now they are dictating to us.
They used strong arm, back room tactics, and full blown lies to get this bill passed, and in doing so they have taken away much of our freedom, along with hurting our health care here in this country, rather than helping it. You do not have to believe me. Just read the bill for yourself. It cuts medical care to many. It puts limits on what can be done for you. They decide. They said it did not have health care rationing. It does. Read it.
How in the world they can justify charging hard working citizens here, to supply medical care to some 12 million illegals is beyond any kind of reason. They say this is a job creator? They couldn’t be more wrong.How many small businesses will this force to close? How many jobs across the nation will be lost? Millions! The biggest employer in the nation is your neighbor, the small business man, and he/she cannot afford this kind of burden. You and I will not be able to afford not only the taxes that will rise, but the cost of goods that will be forced to go up, to keep the bigger businesses afloat, after what they will be charged for their employees, along with their own taxes. Earnings of those in the medical field will be controlled. Don’t think for a moment, that will stop with them. Do you want your earnings capped?
They tell you that you can keep your insurance. Just how long do you think your insurance company will be in business? Not long! You will be forced to be on the Government’s plan, like it or not, and they will have 17,000 new IRS agents assigned to audit & monitor us To make sure we are covered . You will be issued a national ID card, with a number. You have no choice, just as you will have no choice about your medical care. It will be reviewed, and they will determine your end. Read the bill!
This bill has very little to do with health care, and much to do with controlling our every move. I for one, will not give up my freedom so easily. I want it in tact, for my grandchildren to be ensured they grow up in a free land, not in under a dictatorship. I will help vote out everyone across this nation that voted for this Shameful bill, and I will be flying my American flag that I have always been so proud of, upside down, until We get our democracy back, and we the people once again control our freedom. Please do yourself a favor now, and read the bill. Then, make sure you vote in November.
We have a dirty house to clean!
Sunday, March 21, 2010
I'm not sure whatever happened to decisive action on matters of great import, but this is one instance in which I am grateful for a process that allows for the temporary victory of the irresolute. As a body, our Congress has proven as such, even as the combatants have not.
To be certain, that is not as true of Democrats as of Republicans who - despite having earned well the ire of their own constituency over the past few years - have fought the good fight, as one, in this battle of the health care revolution. Democrats, on the other hand, have exposed themselves as the invertebrates most people have known them to be, albeit to little fanfare thanks to a media all too eager to see them succeed.
As a result, too many citizens have been lulled into believing that Democrats were on the right path with ObamaCare, despite the chicanery employed to get it passed and the candor by which such subterfuge was waged. While that last may seem contradictory, I remind the reader of the concept of hiding in plain sight.
Congressional Democrats, known for a low pain threshold, were understandably queasy about the Slaughter Solution. They did not want to be tied to a procedural rule that was never intended to be used in an instance of this magnitude. They were more willing to squeal at the mere grabbing of their arms by the "leadership" long before the act of twisting was even contemplated.
But now, as we near the final capitulation of Congressional members with alleged principles, and as the House of Representatives moves to pass the Health Care Bill, Republicans have already mounted a counter in the Senate to fight this travesty, and they claim to have the backing of the Senate Parliamentarian.
Tonight, Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Judd Gregg had this to say:
“Immediately after receiving the final reconciliation bill language, Senate Republican staff was ready and willing to meet with Senate Democratic staff and the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss the fact that the House reconciliation bill may be brought down by the 310(g) point of order in the Senate. Senate Democrats are mysteriously unavailable until after the House votes on the health care bill tonight. The Senate Democrats appear to be pushing off this meeting so that House Democrats will remain in the dark about what is likely to happen to the reconciliation bill on which many have staked their careers in Congress. House Democrats should be alarmed by this latest development, since the survival of the reconciliation bill is clearly at risk in the Senate.”Considering the political jeopardy Republicans place themselves in, especially when the media will most assuredly attempt to portray them as uncaring bastards, this stand is somewhat remarkable. Is it possible that the Republicans have merely felt the winds of rage from the Tea Parties blowing on their raised, wet fingers?
That is also a distinct possibility, but I for one am comfortable at the moment to accept an obsequious representation in light of the majority of which it is borne. This is an historic time. The stakes of this legislation are enormous, and the mark it makes on our nation cannot be ignored nor taken lightly. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, March 19, 2010
Well, the goal line is in sight for the final destruction of America, and the team with the ball is playing dirty and pulling out every trick in the book to get into the end zone. The most frustrating part of this two-minute drill is that the referees (the media) have made this a much closer game than it really should have been through their myopic and selective officiating.
The road leading up to this weekends vote on health care "reform" is strewn with broken promises, bribes and outright lies. Those on the left - who probably bought every product Billy Mays ever sold - try to say that the outright lies belong to the opponents of ObamaCare, but that's what makes them so gullible. Let's examine the fuzzy math of the Democrats and the chicanery they have engaged in that is responsible for the littered avenue.
The inflated and exaggerated number of "uninsured" Americans was the catalyst for the journey upon which we now find nearly completed, but that was quickly supplanted by the economic crisis that befell us at the end of the 43rd presidency. Fortune - for lack of a better term - had it that Obama and his fellows of the Triad were handed the vehicle by which to facilitate their wicked dreams.
So Universal Health Care was suddenly being advertised not only as a compassionate product, but one of alleged fiscal responsibility. In the run-up to tomorrow's vote, the books have been cooked so badly it's a wonder they didn't suffer the same fate as the book-victims of Nazi Germany. We have been told of the benefit enacting Obama's heinous program would reap, saving tons of cash while healing the lepers at a lower cost. So Utopian were the promises that it seemed a given the media would investigate and report with vigor. That never happened.
Left to the role of sole messengers, talk radio and Fox News were easily cast as the propagandists, while "genuine" journalists such as Whoopie Goldberg and Jon Stewart were hailed as the defenders of truth. While they gleefully regurgitated the wonders of socialized medicine and its savior status for all things fiscal, none of them ever exercised cognitive skills in analyzing the numbers.
While we were told that the plan would insure 30 million "previously uninsured" people, we were also told that costs would come down and care would not be rationed, taxes would not go up, and the deficit would be reduced. Still, no one in the mainstream media thought to question the ludicrousness of such an equation.
We were led to believe that the majority of doctors were behind Obama's plan by the clever use of photo-ops of "doctors" - who needed to be supplied with white lab coats by White House staffers - applauding Obama's soaring rhetoric on the virtues of "health care reform".
Democrats still had trouble mustering support from their own majority party, so the administration and the other two members of the Triad - Reid and Pelosi - resorted to buying the votes of Democrat dissenters, with our money. Republicans, smelling blood in the water, quite naturally began tearing flesh and, this time, the media had to notice. Those arm-twisters had to alter course as a result, opting not to veer from the destination, but rather to take a different route.
Desperate, as they seemed to understand that things weren't going quite as planned, and reeling from the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat to Scott Brown, Democrats looked for ways to skirt the common rules of governance. Equating their massive overhaul of Americans' lives with mundane procedural motions, they tried to cite precedent in the Reconciliation process. Vigilant reporters took note. Then they attempted the same with the Slaughter Solution, which would allow the House to pass a Senate bill with no recorded vote and, therefore, no accountability.
In the last few days, everyone eagerly awaited the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) assessment of the actual cost of the Obama plan, and they got a taste on Thursday, when the CBO released its latest estimate. The problem is, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat congressional cabal characterized the news as a banquet, claiming that the report vindicated their claims that their plan would save America money and cut the deficit.
That report was the CBO's best guess, however, working off of incomplete data and speculation. No matter, the Democrats proceeded before the cameras as though the numbers were gospel, but the CBO had a poison pill to disclose. Today, the CBO revealed that the preliminary budget projections Democrats touted as reason to proceed as planned was tainted by a secret plan to roll back planned cuts to doctors in the Medicare program, which aided in the illusion that the health care bill would reduce deficits over the next decade.
Did you ever wonder why the AMA backed the Obama plan? It was because that organization knew that the cuts in doctors fees was just a smoke screen designed to skew the CBO estimate. It turns out - as reported by the Associated Press - that one of the "fixes" being offered by Congress in exchange for the Slaughter Solution is the permanent repeal of the Medicare cuts.
Democrats, according to AP, planned to covertly roll back the cuts to doctors, which would "wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red." Politico.com had broken a "leaked" memo from the Democrats, but has retracted after protests from that party. Hopefully they will verify its validity and be able to re post.
It remains to be seen how this plays out over the weekend, but I pray that the media finally sheds the web of deceit and adoration that has seemingly been spun over them and reports the truth at last. This health care bill has been sold as the best product that you'll ever hate, reminiscent of the lofty promises of Billy Mays and Ron Popiel. The big difference is that this product offers no money-back guarantee.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Barack Hussein Obama the other day said the "time to talk was over", and that the time to vote had come. Yet even now the Democrats are preparing to stop talking and not vote, but to deem that the House considers that it has passed the Senate version of ObamaCare. Not only do we have 535 elected "leaders" who vote on bills they haven't read, they apparently have not read the Constitution that every one of them has sworn an oath to uphold and defend.
Or worse, they simply consider themselves above the tenets of that cherished document and plan to rule by decree. After all, it has become common knowledge that leftists sneer at the rigid constructs of the Constitution and its incessant insistence on the rights of the individual. They have expressed many times in the recent past - our president included - their disappointment with the Founders' lack of vision concerning modern America, and a deep-seated desire to right those perceived wrongs.
In fact, in 2006 then-Senator Obama gave a radio interview in Chicago in which he complained that the Founders laid out in the Constitution too much of what the Federal government can't do and not enough of what it must do. And now he is the president.
There once was a time when even Liberals cared about the will of the people even if they disagreed with it. Now, however, they have changed gears and have decided that the people really are too stupid to understand what they need, and so will make those decisions that need to be made for the good of all.
This became evident in the long and arduous negotiations for ObamaCare, and the subsequent birth of the Tea Party movement. Or perhaps it was earlier than that when, last summer, recessing Congresspeople were confronted by extremely agitated constituents over the bailouts and the alleged "stimulus" package.
Then, when the wheels began to fall off the Democrats' bus, with the loss of several seats - and votes - through both attrition and choice, Obama, Reid and Pelosi (the Triad) began formulating ways to circumvent the legislative process to facilitate their whims. Losing their super majority in the special election in Massachusetts, in which Republican Scott Brown became the 41st vote for the party, the Triad began dangling the prospect of reconciliation to further their wretched dreams of Universal Health Care.
While history sadly has become subjective, recorded history is irrefutable, and the video and audio record of Democrats in 2005 - when they were the minority party - railing against the use of reconciliation became too much for even the wicked to bear, so an alternate plan had to be drawn up.
In rides Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) with a convoluted and completely unconstitutional plan to run the end-around without reconciliation, perhaps relying on the stale notion that most people aren't paying attention to politics anyway. Being called-out on reconciliation should have provided a clue to these politicians, but we may have misjudged their acumen and understanding of the real world.
In effect, the Democrats are now planning to enact legislation that a majority of the electorate does not want, and they are planning to violate the Constitution in doing so. Slaughter's plan (The Slaughter Solution) is for the House of Representatives to pass legislation that they have not recorded a vote upon, marking the first time it has ever been done.
Some would call such a foray "innovative", while others would properly identify it - especially in this context - as illegal. For all of Obama's complaints about the way the Constitution was written, it remains true that it is not his place to rewrite it. He is merely the 44th steward of the structure and vehicle laid out by much better men, but I fear that he has not learned that lesson despite his generous education.
Perhaps the only lesson that will permeate such a skull will be learned at the polls, both in 2010 and 2012. Provided that there will still be free elections by then.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
He's had four years to learn and has not...or has he?The Obama administration and the Democrats on the Hill - in their zeal to get a massive entitlement program passed in the form of Universal Health Care - continue to tell the American people that it's all about saving money and cutting costs. Yet every time they come out with their projected costs, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) revises those numbers up.
According to reports, Obama's plans for the nation are modelled on the Massachusetts health care plan. Passed in 2006, the radical overhaul of the state’s health-care system has since experienced an "unexpected" ballooning of costs, forcing the state to raise taxes and cut benefits. In just the first four years of its existence, the cost of the state's insurance program has nearly doubled, expanding by 42%. A Rand Corporation analysis projects that health care spending in the state will double again in the next decade.
“In the absence of policy change, health care spending in Massachusetts is projected to nearly double to $123 billion in 2020, increasing 8 percent faster than the state’s gross domestic product (GDP).”As Obama continues to assail the insurance industry and pretend to be the "defender of the consumer" - portraying the battle as one against premium increases - the cost of insurance premiums are the nation's highest. According to The Daily Caller:
Meanwhile, the cost of insurance premiums in the state is the highest in the nation, and double-digit rate hikes are expected again in 2010.Is this what we need on a nationwide basis? Are the Democrats oblivious to the problems facing the state of Massachusetts, or are they actively seeking to duplicate that disaster on a grander scale? One must truly wonder. Nevertheless, the road to get there looks eerily similar the road Massachusetts took. Also from The Daily Caller:
The worry, shared across the political spectrum, is that the state’s health-care spending will overwhelm the state’s budget. Already, it has forced service cuts that have irked those on both sides of the aisle.
One problem the state has faced is that it failed to accurately anticipate the true cost of the program. At the time the program was signed into law, estimates indicated that the cost of Commonwealth Care, which is responsible for the program’s biggest single cost, its health insurance subsidies, would be about $725 million per year. But by 2008, those projections had been revised. New estimates indicated that the plan was to cost $869 million in 2009 and $880 million 2010, an upwards increase of nearly 20 percent.Perhaps it would be a great idea if - before we get too far down this familiar road and end up in the same place - someone slammed on the brakes. Are you listening, Congress? Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
This is a rare break from politics for me, but I grew up with Marvel Comics and remember well the heroes. While Iron Man was not my favorite as a kid, the movie version in the first movie was the best yet of all the movies about those old comics.
So, with the first sequel to the maiden voyage of Iron Man on the big screen set for release, here is the trailer:
Monday, March 8, 2010
It's a funny thing how Democrats circle the wagons when one of their "good soldiers" is exposed as a criminal, as was the case with William Jefferson of Louisiana. And in the case of Charlie Rangel, Democrat Congressman from Bronx, New York - who may not have been convicted but is clearly outside the laws he helped to write as former Chairman of the House Ways And Means Committee - failure to report income and pay taxes was "no big deal".
But if one of their own steps out of line on policy issues, they will attack like Jack London's huskies in White Fang. Eric Massa is the latest casualty, having resigned today over something so trivial in the grand scheme of things, but under heavy fire from his own party. The reason? He said something sexually inappropriate to a male staffer at a private wedding reception. As weak as that may be, it's not even the real reason. (Besides, they defended President Clinton - who actually sodomized an intern - and attempted to portray the act as "not really sex").
The real reason, according to Massa himself, is that he was in favor of the Republicans' idea to actually abide by the wishes of the American people regarding health care and the need to start over, take their time and get it right. Massa had announced his plans to retire by not running in the next election cycle, due to a recurrence of his cancer, but said, in light of the pending investigation, that he would step down as of Monday (today). He did not rescind his resignation, as speculated, and as of 5:00 PM today he is gone, another threat to Obamacare vaporized.
While the railroading of James Traficant is much more heinous than the relatively mild treatment of Massa - at least until all of the particulars are exposed - Traficant was actually imprisoned by a machine that should have been as obvious as the sonar betrayal of cavitating submarine engines. The particulars of that travesty can be found here. (* Note: I cannot vouch for the veracity of this site, but found the detail compelling).
The difference becomes frightening upon closer scrutiny, however, as Traficant was the victim of the Cleveland political machine. The Oval Office, to my knowledge, was never implicated in the proceedings. With Massa, the White House has left figurative forensics all over the place, and while Obama will personally be shielded from any form of culpability, his Chief Advisor Rahm Emanuel is knee-deep in it.
This has all the makings of a made-for-tv movie, and a feast for the likes of Woodward and Bernstein. Will the media seize an opportunity to return to form, or finally collapse in on itself in adoration of this administration? I fear that their sphere of influence was so great as to attract the undivided attention of the new regime. It makes me cherish my relative anonymity, but does little to assuage the sense of doom I feel regarding our freedoms.
In September 2009, Glenn Beck assured politicians on his television show that America would back them regardless of party affiliation if only they would come clean and stand against the assault on the nation. Today, he reiterated that vow. I pray that the loss of Massa is not a deterrent to that end. We must amplify the promise, and draw out the few politicians who have not yet sold their souls.
Massa could not be persuaded to reconsider, but there must be others who have clung to principles. For those, we must reach out. There is no time to elect new ones, and precious little time left to stop the assault currently under way.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Like any one of the myriad movies that emerged throughout the 80's and 90's, America has fallen prey to smooth talkers who have had nothing but contempt for her. Our once great nation has been hijacked by people who profess a love they claim we cannot fathom, all the while seeking to transform the majesty into travesty.
I can't count the number of movies where a nanny or a babysitter was invited into the home, only to slowly and methodically destroy the host family from within, playing on both the sensibilities of the family members and the suppressed animosities of those members who have felt slighted, but never to the point of violence. That is, until the newly introduced entity cultivated those near-dormant feelings.
The great difference between the America of old and tyrannical nations is simple; once, it was considered bad form in this country to speak ill of her, sometimes to the point of physical violence. Folks of my generation simply had no tolerance for bad-mouthing America simply because they loved this nation so much. Tyrannical governments were responsible for that violence because they could not tolerate dissent. Consider the former as akin to "sibling justice" and the latter to...well, tyranny.
We were once a people who defended our "home" as just that; our home, and the denigration of it was considered taboo. Then it became all too fashionable to tear it down from the plaster out. So, our enemies within decided to invoke their "rights" to defile our beloved home by claiming that our rights to demand they shut the hell up was unjust. "After all", they claimed, "how can you love something if you aren't willing to recognize its faults?"
Well, compared to a marriage, accepting faults works well, but screaming about them day in and day out will make for a quick divorce. And therein lies the problem today with America. It is the only rationale I can muster to explain the capture of American-born Adam Gadahn, the so-called "American al-Qaeda" man who grew up in Southern California. How could someone grow up in America and hate it so much?
Tolerance. Tolerance is one of the words in the English language that has been corrupted and commandeered to advance the demise of America. Discrimination is another. We are told that tolerance is mandatory for the furtherance of society, but who would actually tolerate the intolerable?
Furthermore, discrimination is what has gotten virtually every species on Earth to where they are now. Discriminating between the cliff ledge or the basin floor, for example. Discrimination is simply a choice which, oddly enough, the left claims sovereignty over and of which they pretend to champion.
Getting back to the siblings who rebelled, William Ayers comes to mind. He could be lumped in with Adam Gadahn. Oh sure, I can hear Timothy McVeigh's name gurgling in the throats of liberals reading this, but think about it...McVeigh committed a heinous crime. He didn't declare war on America.
What I find most disturbing is that we have not only encouraged such behavior, we have rewarded it. Once, we considered aberrant family members as "black sheep", and they were usually ostracized from the clan. I can only imagine the wails from the left regarding the closing paragraph, because only they could make the leap. But it needs to be said.
Judging strictly from his own rhetoric, and that of his mentors and associates, it must be noted that the American family has not only welcomed back the black sheep of the family, they have made him the patriarch. We are officially a broken home.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Convince the people that your opponents are lying about your lies by telling a bigger lie. If that isn't a bona fide part of the liberal/progressive playbook, it should be. Truth be told, I was too lazy to research the phrase's existence since I just made it up. If someone beat me to it, please advise in the comments section.
Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly and abundantly clear that Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress have nothing to fear from a media that once relished the prospect of exposing the lies of our government. It must be noted, too, that the fortunes of that media relic have turned south in direct correlation to their obsequious behavior regarding the system of which they have obviously dreamt. Talk about a veritable Monkey's Paw.
But I digress. Gloating over the self-inflicted demise of a once venerable institution such as journalism accomplishes nothing more than a brief and empty sense of vindication, with no real reward other than being proved right. Further, if no one steps up to accept culpability, the vindication is only imaginary, no matter how true.
So, casting aside the flotsam, lets examine the events leading to Obama's overhaul of America, and the subterfuge utilized to accomplish such a heinous goal.
He has complained bitterly of the "blatant misstatements of the facts" by his opponents, citing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data as some form of certification of his own numbers. Yet the CBO analysis of Obama's policies on Friday predict that they will add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
He also accuses Republicans of misrepresenting the facts on his health care agenda, then blatantly attempts to trick the public into believing that reconciliation has been used in similar fashion many times in the past, which is an outright lie. (Where's Joe Wilson when we need him?)
There have been twenty-two instances since reconciliation was created that the practice has been used, true. But for Democrats to attempt its use in this instance is the equivalent of using a screwdriver to hammer nails. It was never intended to exclude the opposition party, first and foremost, and it was never intended to be used for anything other than budgetary measures, not sweeping overhauls to anything on the magnitude being proposed here.
Of the twenty-two times reconciliation has been used, only seventeen of the measures passed, and virtually all of them had true bi-partisan support, many of them in large numbers. It has never been used when one party is united in opposition. So for Obama - who, along with his fellow Democrats were vehemently opposed to the use of reconciliation just five years ago - to suggest that it would be a pretty good idea now is ludicrous, not that the media has noticed.
One must also wonder if Obama called Senator Robert Byrd - a co-author of the reconciliation process - after a letter he wrote to his colleagues just under a year ago was brought to light to demonstrate his then-opposition to the use of reconciliation. Of course, Byrd has recently come out in support of reconciliation, but his April 2009 letter clearly says otherwise.
The disingenuousness lies in that Byrd now claims he is still against reconciliation being used for health care reform, but it's perfectly legitimate to use it for the "fix" currently being promulgated. I'm reminded of a father telling his teen that he can't have the car, but he can have the keys, and then being shocked to see a fresh hundred miles on the odometer.
It shall be interesting in the coming weeks to see if these inglorious bastards inflict this travesty on the American people, and then watching the reaction in November.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Any rebellious teen has certainly heard those words from their parents. When pushing the limits of authority by demanding rights that do not exist, the authoritarian correctly reminds the offending plaintiff that as long as he pays the bills, he makes the rules. The remedy is that of which every soon-to-be adult dreams; leaving the confines of a perceived totalitarianism in pursuit of their own domain, where they make their own rules.
Then it happens, and reality sets in...sure, it's good to be king of your castle, but as every kid eventually learns, adults cannot "do whatever they want". There are stringent responsibilities that require discipline. If managed properly and diligently, life can be good, but if neglected, life has a way of crushing the indecisive.
It is this rite of passage that we have all passed through that has me the most perplexed in light of the masses clamoring for a "nanny state". My only explanation is that our youth has been conditioned to fail and, therefore, beg for the expansive umbrella of "government care", somehow convinced that they can finally both be adults and "do what they want" without the worries of personal responsibility.
What they fail to realize is the simple truth of trading one cage for another. And the irony lies in the fact that the "cage" of their youth was guarded by parents who truly loved them and tried to guide them in the best ways possible and in their best interests, while the newer, larger cage which they willingly enter is administered by people who care not a whit about their well being but only about their votes and their tax dollars.
As the federal government expands its authority, it is already obvious that control of our lives is the ultimate goal. If they are going to pay for our health care, for example, they will tell us how to be healthy. This includes what we eat, drink and smoke. It also includes what we wear in certain weather conditions. As long as they are "paying the bills" we will be compelled to live by their rules.
So soon there will be no escape from an iron grip of any kind, be it the strict rules laid down by parents or the same by the government. We shall remain perpetual children subject to the declarations of others. The dreams of freedom will be shattered and along with them, the hopes we all once cherished and anticipated. Is this what we have fought, struggled and bled for?
The human spirit has historically been strong, and - I personally believe - the American spirit has been exemplary, but one must wonder what the tensile strength is and when it will succumb to the massive weight of the oppressive machinations of those who were once viewed as "public servants". How long can the will of people resist the relentless assault? Every person has his breaking point.
I pray that people wake up soon, and I also pray that they make their children acutely aware of the greatness America once represented. I would also suggest that those with adolescents begin asking their children - who may be on the cusp of rebellion - and their teens who are likely in the throes of the same, how they would like to abide by the same strict regulations for the rest of their lives.
Perhaps that cold "slap" in the face would wake up the youth to the attack currently under way on their desired and deserved freedom. It's an idea. Maybe if they're tired enough of hearing "not under my roof" they will launch a genuine rebellion and save themselves. And all of us.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Considering the fact that America was founded largely by disgruntled Europeans disillusioned with the homeland, our current state of affairs is quite puzzling. That is until one remembers that those who are attempting to affect the radical changes to our very fabric today are not descended from Europe, but from nations who have long harbored envy for America.
These are people who capitalized on the grace of America, perhaps in lieu of more stringent immigration restrictions in places that may have been their first choices, such as most European countries. Nevertheless, they seem to have settled here for the purposes of expediency while actually endeavoring to create the environment here that excluded them initially.
Certainly it can be argued that those in charge - with the exception of our relatively new president - do indeed share the heritage of the majority of us. But the constituency to which they pander is comprised increasingly of more recent immigrants, and when combined with the new Chief Executive of America, who has his roots entrenched in Indonesia and Kenya, it becomes clear that a complete restructuring of our nation is under way. The ideals of our founders have fallen into the cross hairs of those who would completely remake our image.
What is most frustrating is the perfect storm of emotion that has been fostered and promoted by these proponents of radical change, for they have successfully propagandized our citizens - through the public school system - into a sense of guilt that would be the envy of any over-possessive mother. Our kids - who now approach adulthood - have been conditioned to believe that they owe a debt to everyone considered beneath their own social stature.
Worse yet is that they have been convinced that the only way to atone for their "sins" is to sacrifice all that they have ever possessed to the government for redistribution to the "needy". They have also been conditioned to accept notions that any rational person would reject, such as the foolhardy concept that in order to save our planet, people should immediately surrender more of their earnings, despite evidence that our climate change has been manipulated to facilitate such ideas.
The question then becomes; where do we go next? America was a big continent that was mostly vacant when we first arrived. We did well way back when, eliciting the emulation of places like France and the respect of our former oppressors in Britain. Now, however, most of the land masses of the planet are inhabited.
Where do we start over should it come to that?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
History is strewn with the truths of those who were once considered heretics. Glenn Beck may not be Galileo, but the agenda he has been painting lately regarding the "progressive" takeover of America is chilling nonetheless, and the reactions of his intended targets have been predictable, to say the least.
Children in my day learned much more at the knees of our grandfathers than today's kids learn in government schools, which have switched gears toward more accelerated goals of alleged achievement at the expense of a more devoted bequeathing of actual history. Numbers - based on a government criteria - have become the desired end-game in what today passes for education. Sadly, the kids have really learned nothing more than how to satisfy the whims of their "masters" in order to advance to the next level, also set by the government.
Once set upon this path, which in actuality is nothing more than a maze with the human equivalent of a block of cheese at the end, students are conditioned to the ways of the teachers, never encouraged to reason but rather, to accept and recite the version of truth laid out for them. This then becomes a false reality to them which they in turn bestow upon their own children. This forges a path devoid of any form of resistance for future generations of students, who willingly - and unwittingly - accept as truth whatever is fed to them by the particular institution they attend.
The incredulous question, "What the hell are they teaching these kids?" has been asked by countless parents over the last few decades, and while some have marched to their children's' schools to demand answers, most have simply shrugged in resignation to the trends of the nation. And the few who have demanded valid explanations have been castigated as antiquated or, worse, relics who refuse to move beyond racist ways.
Yes, racist. It always comes down to that tried and true line of attack, which sends most people quietly to their rooms, unable to comprehend the charge, but somehow feeling that it may have merit. Usually, the ultimate response is to simply remain quiet and avoid further scrutiny.
That is, until the Tea Party Movement began to take shape. Comprised of people from all races and ideological aspects, the Tea Party is the culmination of the vast majority of average people who have become fed up with being pushed around and intimidated, both by extreme left and right wings.
Beck has been pushing the notion of Communists versus Nazis, and the idea does have merit. The left (Communists) insist that government should rule supreme and "help the downtrodden", spreading the property of ordinary citizens who labored for their fruits to those who have not, but whom the government deems "needy". The right (Nazis) espouse the elimination of unproductive citizens.
Then there are the People, the people of the Tea Party, who believe that government should stick to what it was originally intended for, at least in America, and decist from all other endeavors "on the people's behalf". The people I have met from Tea Parties don't care about the color of one's skin. They do, however, take an acute accounting of one's character. That concept has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
And has anyone noticed the glaring irony in the lefts philosophy that the labors of the industrious are fair game for the sloth of the rest? Further, is it not ironic that the most repressive regimes on the planet are named "the Peoples Republic" this or that? And that the engines of these despotic covenants more often than not are led by the "Labour Movement"?
It is small wonder that home schooling is on the rise. One can only hope that a new generation of Americans - about to achieve adulthood - will be armed with the true knowledge of historical events, and lacking in the indoctrination that so many of their peers have been victim to, for it may be the very salvation of our country that hangs in the balance.