Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Let's make sure he hears us loud and clear.
As usual, nobody. "The mother was just 15." "The aunt had to go to her job." "DCF can't be everywhere."
Ya know what? I'm throwing the B.S. flag. The homeless guy is not the only one who needs punishment here.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Hey! You "leaders" in the communities in which this happens. Whaddayasay you exercise some leadership and maybe these deaths will become rare. Oh, wait....most of you are too busy screwing your constituents (figuratively, of course).
Sunday, December 27, 2009
The media is not blaming the President, either. I agree with that (with the above caveat), but I have to wonder if Bush would have been given the same deal from the State-Run Media.
I doubt it.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
To claim this is the greatest social achievement of our time is arrogant and just plain wrong. The greatest social BLUNDER, maybe, but there is no achievement here. As has been pointed out at this site and numerous others, Obamacare does nothing to fix the problems inherent in American Healthcare, but rather, sets the stage for a European-style social-welfare state.
Regarding the 2000 election comes this piece of revisionist history:
Mobs of chanting conservatives harassed Gore at his residence day after day. Another such mob intimidated Miami canvassers into abandoning a recount then seen as potentially decisive. The left met all this with a shrug.
I'm sorry...the reference for this came from where? It is background, I suppose, but also evidence of the agenda of lies that permeates the Left.
The denouement of the health care debate has brought about a similar moment in the political culture. The opponents of the bill are full of passionate intensity. The right, of course, is subsumed in rage and paranoia.
Really? In what way is the Right paranoid? In our belief that this is a prelude to Socialized Medicine? TCO himself has proclaimed that as the end game. Or maybe our belief that this bill has no provisions to actually improve healthcare and make it more affordable (it doesn't).
In the interest of time - you can read the article, you don't need me to - there is one commenter to the article with incredibly tortured logic:
However, the Constitution does say that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. This is captured in the following esoteric passage: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ... to ... provide for the ... general Welfare ...."Progressive income taxation, which taxes welathier indiviuals at a higher rate, is plainly a "wealth transfer" in the way you mean -- that is, it "redistributes wealth." Whenever we have had an income tax in this country, enacted pursuant to this constitutional authority, ...
The commenter clearly does not understand what is meant Constitutionally by the passage he butchers for his own gain. The term welfare, as used in the Constitution means "prosperity". From a Constitution site: Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
Further, income tax was not authorized until the 16th Amendment in 1913.
But, this is what we get when we fail to pay attention for 50 years.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
At what point do we decide people don't necessarily have a "right" to something? The only "rights" I see are those enumerated in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, of assembly, of the press and religion. The right to be safe in ones' own home. The list goes on for quite some time.
And government does not confer these rights upon us. We already own them They come from GOD. None of these rights include the right to take anothers' money because you think you need it.
Those of you around my age, who grew up in the 60's recall this question from the teacher:
"Is it ok to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving children?" Of course, if one says no, one is a heartless bastard. The correct answer is, "No, it's not ok, but I may do it if necessary and I will be willing to suffer the consequences".
This is how we have been conditoned from birth to be passive cowards with no moral base.
This is what we have become.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
He believed that health care for all our citizens was a fundamental right, not a privilege, and that this year the stars -- and competing interests -- were finally aligned to allow our nation to move forward with fundamental reform. He believed that health-care reform was essential to the financial stability of our nation's working families and of our economy as a whole.
I still wonder at what point in the Constitution it says government has the right to force healthcare on everyone. Further neither are we "aligned" (the majority does not support this plan), nor is there any "reform". Unless of course, you consider government takeover some type of "reform".
There is no indication this will maintain current levels of care or reduce cost. I challenge anyone to tell me where a government program has come in at a lower-than-expected cost. The claim is,"we will cut waste and fraud". Again, the challenge is at what point has government ever been effective at cutting waste and fraud?
If this bill passes:
-- Insurance protections like the ones Ted fought for his entire life would become law.
I have no clue what she is referring to here.
-- Thirty million Americans who do not have coverage would finally be able to afford it. Ninety-four percent of Americans would be insured. Americans would finally be able to live without fear that a single illness could send them into financial ruin.
Here, again is the big Leftist lie. First, there are not 30 million chronically uninsured. Myriad sources indicate this number is closer to 12 million when you take out illegals and many fewer if you take out those who have chosen to go without. Millions are on state programs as well; technically uninsured, but not without healthcare. I also point out that it is virtually impossible to not get healthcare if you really need it.
The single illness-financial ruin thing is a lie as well. Again, many sources indicate the numbers are overblown.
But here again comes the question,"why is government supposed to 'lift this burden' from our collective shoulders. At what point does everyone "deserve" a house with 5 acres, a Lexus and a boat? And maybe a $200,000 annual stipend. That would lift a lot of "burden" from my shoulders.
-- Small-business owners would no longer have to fear being forced to lay off workers or shut their doors because of exorbitant insurance rates. Medicare would be strengthened for the millions of seniors who count on it.
No, they will shut their doors because the tax burden has brought them to ruin. Medicare is not strengthened by this bill, but cut.
-- And by eliminating waste and inefficiency in our health-care system, this bill would bring down the deficit over time.
I go back to this: At what point has government ever cut waste and inefficiency?
I don't know, call me crazy, but if I'm out there in Antarctic waters, doing my whaling thing (don't misunderstand me here....I'm not in favor of commercial whaling, but I am in favor of personal defense) and someone starts flying a helicopter around me from another ship and I know their agenda is to stop what I'm doing, I might throw a rock or two at them as well.
"This was an extremely irresponsible thing to do," helicopter pilot Chris Aultman said of the sonic equipment.
"That device can cause nausea and disorientation and the use of it against an aircraft is both extremely dangerous and grossly irresponsible."
No, it was dangerous to go flying around your enemy in Antarctic waters. What did these guys expect. They were the ones declaring war and they don't expect the enemy to defend themselves?
A Sea Shepherd statement said the Japanese Shonan Maru No.2 also fired water cannon "in an attempt to destroy the helicopter on the landing pad".
No, really? Get a grip dude. You are at war. Literally. Again, I'm not in favor of commercial whaling, but I'm less in favor of stupidity.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Referring to bailouts:
For instance, say Obama and his party had not muscled through a $787 billion stimulus package and spent nearly that much to rescue banks and car companies. Most experts say those steps averted the collapse of the U.S. economy. A collapse would have been, suffice it to say, far more upsetting to voters than the bailouts and deficit spending they are criticizing now.
This cannot be known or proven. She also fails to mention the incredible amount of pork in these bills. Seeking Alpha has a good take on this. It would have been better to let some of these businesses fail. GM and Chrysler are unlikely to ever make it. Not without huge taxpayer infusions.
She seems to think Obamacare will be better than anyone else's Socialized Medicine:
Do Republicans truly believe that health reform will be the beginning of the end of freedom, democracy and health care as we know it?
The answer is an unequivocal, "yes". At least for us Conservatives. First, no one has been able to pull off socialized medicine without rationing and a huge, Draconian bureaucracy. Second, never, in history has a government amassed so much power and information over their citizens and failed to use it against them.
At the same time, 69 percent in the latest Pew poll say the debate is hard to understand, up from 63 percent in July.
Maybe the Senate Majority Leader would be willing to post the bill on-line, then? hard to understand if it's not available.
The remainder of the article is more of the same.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
So, Mr. Newt....WTF? Change of heart? Or seeing how the wind blows for 2012?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
While the article brings up some really disturbing stuff, and they may be able to say that there is no evidence of fakery, proclaiming them "not faked" is ridiculous.
Now, I'm not going to pass judgment on Mandela, except to say I can name several better leaders.
Here is a nice display of Leftist "tolerance".
The Left isn't interested in debating (alleged) Global Warming. This is about money, power and control. November 2010 is not far away. We should be unelecting Congress for their transgressions against the people of this country. The Leftists have indoctrinated our children, bullied the country into silence, denied us our faiths and eviscerated our economy. The Republicans have been complicit in all.
No. TEA Party Groups (heretofore referred to as TPG's) are and should be non-aligned. Republicans have shown themselves to be largely little different from Democrats. TPG's are concerned about Big Government intrusion and high taxes. Republicans are doing no more to fix that little problem than Democrats. I will vote my conscience, not for party.
TPG's should not court candidates or political parties, but rather be courted.
Jim Ott....are you listening?
Thursday, December 10, 2009
If the GOP is smart (and want to keep their cushy jobs), they won't fall for it.
If you give a mouse a cookie.....
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Bicycle: Won't be any riding in a foot of snow.
The VRWC: This is going to be something of a mish-mash, I suppose.
I often bring up what, in another time would have been called "conspiracy theory" and get nothing but blank looks from those with whom I am speaking.
- It is the intention of this administration to destroy the United States Capitalist system and institute a one-party socialism.
- The administration and the Democrat party are Statists who wish to unite the US with the UN under UN control.
- This administration does not care what happens to those in the military. They are but a tool.
- Everything this administration does is tied to making more people dependent on the government.
- Life, liberty and property are all at risk under this administration.
- President Obama is a puppet; someone else is calling the shots.
It is nearly impossible that a "community organizer" could rise to the Presidency in roughly ten years with zero track record. It is nearly impossible for any President surrounded by a staff of reasonably intelligent people to do the following unless it is an intentional move to undermine the economy and liberty:
- Trillions of dollars in debt.
- Government ownership of two auto manufacturers ("We don't want to run a car company"...then where is the divestment?)
- Government ownership of financial institutions
- Attempted government takeover of healthcare
- Cap and Trade Taxes
- Apologizing for the United States.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Van Barfoot isn't hurting anyone and is certainly not hurting any property values. This is strictly an "rules are rules" issue. Make an exception. He was the guy laying it on the line while his neighbors were comfy and cozy in their homes.
IMHO, combat veterans should be given pretty much whatever they need or want. They made this country possible. I never saw combat, but I know plenty who did. I'm not fit to polish their boots.
Neither are you.
Edit 2235: Starman reminds me that Barfoot signed the covenants knowing full well what the rules are.
I'm not sure that changes my stand. Homeowners Associations are infamous for enforcing only those covenants they want to enforce.
As a card-carrying "TEAbagger", I'd have to say he's in for a really big surprise in 2010. And, as one of the commenters indicated, are we devouring the GOP in the same manner as (can't) MoveOn.org devoured the party of the jackass? The TEA Party movement is far less hateful and far more inclusive. In my experience, I have been with Right, Center and Left at TEA parties. This is less about Democrat/Republican than it is about Big Government vs. Liberty. I will forsake the GOP if they can't stop spending.They have been as bad as Democrats.
I get asked what part of government I would eliminate. My answer is simple: I would eliminate anything that does not conform to a strict-construction view of the Constitution. People were not starving to death in the streets without the Welfare State any more than they are dying in the streets because "they can't get healthcare". It's a lie. Politicians throw money at voting blocks to get re-elected. They make up crises. And I don't think I'm going to play that game any more.
Kaine should pay attention. I'm not alone.
Friday, December 4, 2009
But how is it, one must ask, that just as Congress has finally begun to address the issue, and the world is poised to focus on it more than it ever has, that Americans seem to be curling up into a ball of denial?
No mention of "Climate-Gate" or the hypocrisy of those who would fly a carbon-spewing private jet to some conference on how carbon causes climate change. Of course not. We're just deniers. Heretics in the Climate Inquisition.
The Administration claims cap and trade is "jobs bill"? How can the largest tax on business in history be a jobs bill? Here's the foggy answer:
This is all true, of course, so far as it goes: cap and trade will create strong incentives for innovation in an economy that badly needs them and will begin re-engineering the fossil fuel economy in a way that will surely create net job benefits. Over time, if we stick to it, it will also delink our foreign and military policies from the pursuit of oil. But those aren't the main reasons to pass the bill. Stopping the planet from melting is.
Zero-carbon energy at the same time utilities are dis-incented to use tried-and-true clean energy like nuclear? It becomes very clear that the idea is to use the "unlimited" energy available from solar and wind. As has been published on this blog several times, those sources are not unlimited. Strong incentives? Yeah...for unemployment. "Surely create job benefits"...based on what evidence? If we are to fundamentally alter our economic base, we better be sure there will be job benefits. Literally millions work in the energy industries related to carbon-based fuels. And under Waxman-Markey, they will be looking for work.
It's maddening that a well-funded industry of contrarians continues to wage a monstrous campaign of deceit, that the simple facts have to be fought for every day. But they do. "Climate change is happening," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at a recent briefing. "I don't think that's anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore."
No. What's maddening is that a well-funded industry of fear-mongers is trying to fundamentally alter the economy and undermine liberty in ways we already recognize and ways we haven't even imagined, while not giving the issue a full debate. The proponents of (alleged) AGW continue to act in ways that make the skeptics more skeptical; the aformetioned trips on private jets, the name calling and the unwillingness to allow data to see the light of day are just a few.
What are the (alleged) AGW alarmists afraid of?