krashpad

What Obama Has Done....

2009-11-05T18:00:00.002-06:00

The Lefties are so up-in-arms over the (by-now) comments about Obama's lack of actions, that it's almost funny. Of course, Obama has done some things, it would be nearly impossible to be in the Presidency for 9 months and win a Nobel Peace Prize otherwise. Oh wait....

Anyways, what brings this about is an Esquire article which, in a fit of writer pique went about detailing all the wonderful things that the Chosen One has done to us. Well, such an article makes me want to respond, and point out the problems in Obama's "successes." That said, I'm not even going to address the obvious Liberal tilt in said article, but rather just look at the said list.

So, without further ado...

Bank Bailout -- A $350 BILLION dollar drain on our economy, when the system is designed to punish failing institutions with bankruptcies.
Closing of Guantanamo -- which still has not happened...
Reversing overseas funding to family planning organizations -- Obama is giving away money to other countries when our budget is already out of control with his $350,000,000,000 handout to banks
Green Light to California car-emissions standards -- which are insanely prohibitive, and have not been proven effective about the "green house" gases. And why exactly does a state need federal approval to set emissions standards? They can pass it and kill their economy if they wish, and the Feds have no say in the matter.
The Stimulus Bill -- In which another nearly $800,000,000,000 dollars was taken out of productive use and handed out via fiat/whims
America's Withdrawal from Iraq -- in which we've replaced our armed forces with scores of private contractors (and our Armed Forces are actually still there). That's not a withdrawal, plus we're still in Afghanistan and maintain a military presence in scores of other countries.
Allow federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research -- again, handing out money for something that has no proven use or need. There has never been a successful embryonic stem cell research--now adult stem cell has proven useful, but they'd rather kill human fetuses to harvest stem cells
Forced GM & Chrysler into bankruptcy -- and then forced their stakeholders to accept marginal returns on their investments, while giving the union (which is part and parcel of the reason the companies in question went under in the first place) a commanding interest far above and beyond its claimed stake. What that means is that people who invested in GM & Chrysler were told to bend over and take it, while the Union which gave money to Obama's campaign was given a pretty big carrot
Reset the "tone" of our relations with the entire Arab world -- and of course, this "reset" of the tone has stopped Arabs from tossing suicide bombers at people...oh, wait, no it hasn't. But hey, we did promise to curtail free speech in our country to appease their insane rantings
Cash for Clunkers leading to Ford's announced $1,000,000,000 profit -- and as soon as the socialist buyout of cars ended, the "gains" in car sales dried up, and we're back where we started. Except now a lot of folks have huge car loans which they probably won't be able to afford.
Sonia Sotomayor -- the Justice who is on the record as being biased against white males.
The "Obama" tax cut -- is not really a tax cut. Most of the folks getting the "tax credit" are those individuals who currently do not pay taxes already. In actuality, it is a wealth redistribution scheme as money is taken from tax payers and given (yet again) to those who do not pay. The list of reasons against this success actually existing continue here.

And that was the "Liberal" successes... the article also goes on and brings up what they call "Conservative" successes...

Appointments to Sec. of Defense and the CIA and others -- well whoop-de-doo! He has knowledgeable people from outside his "party" running aspects of his administration.
Drone attacks against Al Qaeda -- the same attacks that are randomly killing or maiming innocent Afghans?
"Tweaking" Military tribunals for Guantanamo prisoners -- and? They are still prisoners, they're still there. They still aren't U.S. citizens, and as such still aren't subject to the rights of United States citizens...
"Warrantless-Wiretaping" -- Big surprise that a Big-Government/Chicago-style-politics President would want the ability to secretly, and without Judicial oversight, listen in on people's conversations.
Sending 17,000 soldiers to Afghanistan in February, 2009 -- but sitting on the request for additional troops in August for over a month, despite the person he placed in charge stating that the troops are needed for continued support of ongoing operations. And what happened to getting out of unilateral wars?

Of course this leads me to ask the question: THESE are "Conservative" successes?

Where's the fiscal responsibility?

Where's the lessening of government strictures and structures?

Where's the return of Constitutional rule?

Where's the concept of Rule by States?

Where's the concept of a personal freedom and responsibility?

All I see are big-government/big-brother expanses of government (the "Liberal" successes) and the continuance of a "war" which was not declared according to Constitutional guidelines.

Sure, Obama has done some things. Unfortunately, none of them are good for us as a people or a country. Worse, he plans to further drag our country into debt with another unnecessary and un-Constitutional program.

There has been no successes here, and there has especially not been what I would call a Conservative success.

A Clinton That Is Right?

2009-10-29T18:00:00.003-05:00

Who knew that this day would come? Who could imagine that such a piece of Constitutionally CORRECT information would ever emerge from a politician's mouth, much less a Democrat.

What am I talking about you ask?

Well according to a News.Com.Au article, Hilary Clinton has gone on the record telling us all how bad anti-defamation legislation in regards to religion is. In fact, her exact quote said that freedom of speech and religion should be equally upheld.

Like I said, color me amazed.

Buy that digression aside, here's the quote from the news.com.au site:

"I strongly disagree. The United States will always ... stand against discrimination and persecution ... But an individual's ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others' freedom of speech," Clinton said.

"The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faith will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse," she added.

Imagine it, a politician actually interested in upholding Constitutional precepts.

Of course, I am left wondering if she got permission from the Exalted One before she spoke such specific terminology?

After all, it was only last month, that the UN Human Rights Council adopted a draft resolution submitted by Egypt and the United States which brought attention to "negative racial and religious stereotyping of religions and racial groups."

Basically, it was the United States endorsing anti-speech measures in order to stop criticism of religions based upon verifiable trends of that religion's population.

What that long sentence of dollar words means is thus: Egypt doesn't like people pointing out that Islam can't be a "religion of peace" if they refuse to condemn and try to stop suicide bombers, and the U.S. supported the concept.

Unfortunately, this is but a small step towards a more Constitutionally-correct government (opposing International "law" which erodes or outright attacks the fundamental concepts upon which our society is based), and I have no doubt that the thought of less legislation on the books attacking our freedoms left a bad taste in a host of Liberal's mouths.

In truth I'm not holding my breath hoping that Mrs. Clinton starts espousing such concepts as gun rights, small government and personal responsibility. After all, she has spent too many years as a big-government, Big-Brother advocate to see the proverbial light.

But any step is a good one...

Can Twitter Lead to Jail Time?

2009-10-22T18:00:00.000-05:00

Imagine it, the date, September 24, 2009. The place, Philadelphia during the G20 Summit. You're sitting in a hotel room, with a off-the-shelf, police-band radio scanner, and a computer. What you're doing is as police actions come over the radio, you're transcribing them to Twitter.

The before you know it, you're under arrest, and the F.B.I. is at your house, taking your books, computers, and rifling through your dirty underwear. After all, larceny in the name of protecting the government is the primary job of the F.B.I.

This is exactly what happened to Elliot Madison (aged 41). He was sitting in a hotel room, transcribing police messages to Twitter when the self-same police arrived and took him to jail. While there they charged him with the following crimes:

Let's consider these things, and remember I'm not a lawyer. What I am is an intelligent, logical human, who expects things--especially laws--to be human readable without having a lawyer immediately on hand to explain every detail.

The Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution law is fairly straightforward. It details the fact that anyone actively helping people escape prosecution (hiding criminals, etc) is guilty of it. Specifically, this clause:

warns the other of impending discovery or apprehension, except that this paragraph does not apply to a warning given in connection with an effort to bring another into compliance with law; or

What's interesting in regards to this case, is that the Prosecution would have a hard time proving a) the intent of Mr. Madison in this regard and b) the people he was actively providing this information to was actively engaging in a crime. He was sending Twitter messages to people protesting the government--I find it highly odd that the Pennsylvania State Police automatically assume that people protesting governments are engaging in criminal behavior. After all, that has to be the assumption if Mr. Madison is providing t his information to warn them of impending discovery or apprehension in regards to criminal behavior.

The second law there, only comes into bearing if the first one is relevant--or again, if the Pennsylvania State Police believe that dissent with governing bodies is the same as criminal behavior. This law only has bearing if someone commits, causes or facilitates other criminal activity with the use of the "Communication Facility," which is defined by law as:

As used in this section, the term "communication facility" means a public or private instrumentality used or useful in the transmission of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part, including, but not limited to, telephone, wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems or the mail. (Dec. 21, 1998, P.L.1240, No.157, eff. 60 days)

Now, what interests me is the fact that by this definition--and the Pennsylvania State Police's assumptions of inherent criminal activity on the part of protesters--the dispatch officers and officers at the scene are facilitating the same "criminal" behavior as Mr. Madison by sending the same information he did over the radio (after all, he was just transcribing radio communications onto Twitter).

And that last law is probably the most inherently unstable of the charges brought against Mr. Madison. The "authoritahs" are using the following clause to bring the charge (as the rest of the clauses refer to weapons and/or body armor):

Anything used for criminal purposes and possessed by the actor under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses it may have.

The problem with that is that Mr. Madison was using the tools he had at his disposal in inherently legal--and (what seems to this non-lawyer as) an appropriately lawful--manners. He was listening to a police-band radio scanner, and transmitting the information he heard on it over Twitter.

Let us not forget that the Police, as "public servants," their communication is part of the Public Domain. That chatter can legally be listened to by anyone (though transmitting on the relevant bands is legally a no-no and morally really murky).

No, the way this reads is the following concepts are in play:

(Yet another) Government Agency does not want people actively paying attention to what they are doing and/or saying about the people that they are supposedly serving
The (Pennsylvania State) police inherently feel that protesting the government and/or any form of governing body is an inherently criminal act

Both concepts scare the tar outta me.

It saddens me that the government is scared of the populace. Actually, that tells me that the government is not effectively doing its job of serving the true needs of the constituency which they are there to serve.

Worse, is the thought that this police force (and the FBI for searching Mr. Madison home for "criminal materials") believe that dissent to the government is bad.

Of course, it's not that unexpected. Time and again, the government--and by that I mean everything from the smallest of podunk towns sheriff's all the way to the Supreme Court--are less interested in serving the true nature of our country as defined by the Constitution as they are by gathering more and more power unto themselves.

No, I firmly believe that what Mr. Madison was doing was morally and legally right. He--as a taxpayer and citizen of this country--is morally obligated to keep tabs upon the ~~criminal~~ governmental agencies out to ~~fleece~~ serve him. Additionally, he is within his right to post that information he has gathered onto any bulletin board service he so desires.

In the end, it is as too often the case these days: the Police attempting to force their will upon the populace via duress.

Can I Have The Health Care Bill Please?

2009-10-15T18:00:00.003-05:00

I work a lot with documents. It's a really big part of that whole software engineering process. Things like specifications, data dictionaries, white papers, requirements, process improvement plans and the random other plan.

Some of these documents can be huge. I've seen a Systems Engineering Management Plan which took nearly 1,500 pages in MS Word before.

The thing is, that these documents, they're the key to what I'm building at any given moment. They describe functionality, interfaces, and other requirements for the software system. Without those documents....well I'm just floundering in the wind, building my "best guess" as to what the customer/client/boss wants.

In the past, I've discovered that my best guess in such situations are not always ideal. Actually, in such situations I've often built the wrong software; sure it does a task, but it's not the task that the customer wanted taken care of.

I could not imagine even attempting to do my job if the only thing I was given was the table of contents (ToC) and the Executive Summary.

No let me correct that and say that my job would be easier--and the client would get a better, more accurate for their needs, piece of software--without me getting any of these needed and necessary documents, as opposed to me getting just the ToC and the Executive Summary of these documents.

Why then... or maybe that should be HOW CAN... does our Congress think it can pass a bill when the only thing they are debating is effectively the ToC and the Executive Summary?

But that is effectively what is currently happening. The Chairman's Mark of the "America's Healthy Futures Act of 2009," henceforth called ObamaCare, is currently all that exists of the ObamaCare bill.

Basically, it's around 250 pages of descriptions on what our esteemed ~~felons~~ Congressmen believe should go in this law. Additionally, a Chairman's Mark, even if voted upon as good and valid, is not binding during the actual construction of the legislative language.

Think about that... Health Care is currently about 1/6^th of our GDP, and Congress wants us to think that they're looking out for us, when they're arguing about the content of a bill that has not been written, and is currently not scheduled to be written until the arguments are over.

This promises to be a massive disaster on the scale of (if not larger than) the TARP and any other big-government/nanny state legislation that's passed in the past 100 years.

What's worse is that they're playing dating games in order for the GAO to give it a better rating fiscally. The primary aspects of the bill won't start until JULY, 2013 (despite the fact that they're planning on raising taxes/funds beginning April, 2011) and the GAO ranks things based on a ten year plan. This evil thing doesn't even begin (except for stealing money from the citizenry) until a third of the way through the GAO's current reporting period.

No, this Chairman's Mark needs to go away, and if our esteemed leaders want to create a massive new socialist program, then they need to do so in the sunlight, and allow the populace to read the bill so we can tell them exactly where they can shove it.

And I'd like that chance before they pass a bill which would damage my ability to care for the health and welfare of my family.

I Want A Peace Prize!

2009-10-09T06:35:00.000-05:00

After all, apparently, all you must do to win one these days is tell a bunch of feel-good lies to as many gullible people as possible, and then try your best to destroy the nation that you're supposed there to protect.

Don't believe me?

Then why on earth has Obama won the stupid thing?

What exactly has he done to warrant such an honor?

Let's see....

He was elected PotUS on a platform of half-truths and outright lies
He has driven our government into billions upon billions of dollars of debt, and wants to create more debt
He has actively worked against the concept of free speech
He has actively worked to create new socialist programs which the U.S. Constitution does not authorize the Federal Government to have/run/do
Create a massive new tax infrastructure in order to possibly lower the temperature by an unmeasurable amount over the next fifty years

Of course none of that matters. You see, the deadline for this year's nominations was February first.

Think about that; 2/1/2009 was the absolute LATEST date that he could have been nominated.

And he was put into place on Jan. 20, 2009? We're talking 10 days here. Obama had not even had the time to rush that pork-laden (and still unread by our Senators and Representatives) TARP Act through Congress.

So, The Chosen One was nominated based entirely upon his Campaign Lies--much the same way he was Elected PotUS. But let's look at the exclamations, exhortations and general... fellatio of Obama from the Nobel Boobies:

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Uhm... and he did all of this in 10 days? I call BS!

The truth is, is that he has done NONE of the stuff described even now. In fact, we're actually having more nations in the process of creating nuclear arms (go Iran :/), we're still working alone in Afghanistan and Iraq and as stated above Obama has actively worked against one of the fundamental human rights that we as a nation believe in (Free Speech).

But you know what, I can get that Peace Prize in the same way. Here's what I'm going to do:

Give away large portions of other people's money
Grovel to anyone who threatens me, constantly backing away from having to protect my country
Apologize for things that are clearly the fault of some other country
Tell countries that they shouldn't have Nuclear Weapons--at least until they threaten me
Tell people that they can't dissent, or speak freely about things; all while claiming to be pro-Free Speech

There! I've done just as much as Obama. So, when should I get my Nobel ~~Boob~~ Peace Prize? Tell you what, I'll keep an eye on the mail over the next couple weeks.

Or maybe I'll just look in my next box of Cracker Jacks...

I Got Your Back.... We Clear?

2009-10-08T18:00:00.003-05:00

"That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back... We clear?"

Those were the words recorded by 911 operators as Anthony Arambula lay bloodied on the floor of his home, having been shot six times in the back.

"That's all right."

Such a simple phrase, one that I've repeated to my children many, many times over the past few years--whenever they've done something wrong. Whenever they've accidentally hit me. I've used it at work. I used it when I was at school. I've even used it at the restaurant a few days ago, after the waitresses ignored us for twenty minutes.

It's a shorthand for the person you're talking to, telling them that what they have done is not that bad of a thing.

And it was being used by the folks who shot Anthony Arambula in his own home.

Now, you may ask, what was Mr. Arambula doing? Who shot him in the back? What about the police?

The answer there is simple: Mr. Arambula had cornered someone breaking into his home, and had his gun trained on the burglar, as said burglar was in Mr. Arambula's son's room.

Apparently, the police heard the burglar breaking Mr. Arambula's window, and after having been told by Mr. Arambula's wife of his presence, and the burglar's presence, the police in question rushed into the house, and more or less shot the first person they came across.

And after this brilliant display of bravery and intelligence by the "Boys in Blue" they proceeded to a) describe how they were going to cover up the shooting, and blame it on Mr. Arambula, and then b) drag Mr. Arambula around by his leg and finally c) treated Mrs. Aramabula and the rest of the family as if they were the criminals here.

Were it not for the existence of those 911 tapes, the Police's description of events would remain uncontested and incontestable.

Mr. Arambula would have been blamed for the police randomly shooting him in the back.

And these are the so-called guardians of law and order in our society?

It makes me wonder--as it should you--how many times this has happened in the past, and the poor victim just unable to prove that the police willfully and maliciously shot him.

I'm disturbed by the sense of conceit which permeates the police forces in our society today. We're expected to kowtow to their every whim and demand, and they are more than willing to enforce those demands with force.

They have forgotten that they are neither above the law, nor are they the law. Rather they are just a group of people whose job it is to investigate purported breaks within said law.

Our police forces have become caught up in their own mystique--helped in this by the inane portrayals of the heroic cops on shows such as Law and Order. When in reality, most cops are closer to the ones depicted on The Shield: corrupt and/or power hunger.

After all, it takes a special type of person to be a cop.

The proverbial guard dog, to the wolf in sheep's clothing.

Of course, most of us forget, that the guard dog has much more in common with the wolf than with the sheep; and given half the chance will be just as quick to take advantage of an unwary sheep as the wolf is.

Government Mandates & You

2009-10-01T14:35:00.005-05:00

I was perusing through THOMAS earlier and discovered an interesting proposed bill. Apparently, Congress, in its infinite wisdom has decided that not nearly enough people own cars. In fact, there are some thousands upon thousands of able-bodied adults who do not own a car. So, of course, they have decided that it was time to legislate such a situation.

It's an interesting bill, and has these as the primary focuses:

The creation of a regulatory marketplace. All new cars sold will be required by law to be sold through this marketplace. Inclusion in the market place means a bunch of hefty fees are added to the car manufacturers, as well as price caps and bottoms, and an array of "standard" features which are less the what is currently standard on most new cars
Any additional features--regardless of their pre-"marketplace" standardization--can only be added as an additional cost to the car
Cars that do not meet the price caps/bottoms or feature standards will not be allowed to be sold in the United States or its territories
Every able-bodied/able-minded adult must own a car
Depending on income, the government may buy the car for you
If the adult is an illegal alien, they will not be able to get the free car
People are not allowed to check to see if an adult is an illegal alien
The population can keep their current car, only if they
1. Do not change the color of the car
2. Do not change the car's battery
3. Do not change the car's tires
4. Do not perform any exterior or interior body work
Performing any of these tasks requires you to purchase a new car
Each new car has a tax associated with it
There is a yearly fee, based on income and cost of the car, to own the car
Adults who do not own a car, must pay an annual fine
Failure to pay the fees/taxes/fines will lead to jail time

So, what do you think?

Does this sound like a fair law? Is it reasonable?

After all, those poor folks who don't have a car right this moment, why the government will buy them one! Imagine all the helpfulness that that could provide. Solid, reliable transportation for the masses.

Of course, all those folks who live in places like NYC--where it's unreasonable for them to own a vehicle--why they have to pay extra to offset the cost, or they could go to jail for failure to pay their taxes.

Can you imagine this? Can you imagine what this would do to our nation and economy?

If you've read this, and thought it perfectly reasonable. Replace the car with a bike. Or a house. Or a candy bar. If it still sounds reasonable, well, you're a hopeless socialist. Go on home.

For the rest of us, why does this sound unreasonable while doing the exact thing with Health Care sound reasonable?

Frankly, it doesn't. The description of the law, is more or less how that last Health Care bill was written. There were hefty fines and/or jail time if you did not buy the government health insurance. There was a single line detailing that no illegal aliens would receive benefits, while at the same time the law stated that no one would be able to check on the legal residence state of the individual in question. And of course, there was the fact that people would be able to keep their insurance--provided that they never needed it to change.

This is the change that Obama is trying to bring us. Pretty bitter medicine, eh?

Wonder If Other Amendments Will Be Read...

2009-09-24T18:00:00.001-05:00

I'm amazed. Flabbergasted. Utterly boondoggled. Insert other words/terms of amazed disbelief here.

Why you ask?

It's simple, a U.S. Senator has remembered that the Constitution and its associated Bill of Rights exist.

Apparently, David Kris, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s National Security Division was in the the Senate's Judiciary Committee on 9/23 testifying on why the expiring portions of the Patriot Act need to be extended.

At which point Al Franken read Mr. Kris the Fourth Amendment, and asking specifically how the "roving wiretap" portion of the Patriot Act can be fulfilled while still providing American's the protection from said searches guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Color me amazed that Mr. Franken knows the Constitution.

Oh, wait, the Constitution was just a part of his incoming paperwork as a junior Senator; but at least he read it.

Now, of course, my question becomes, will Mr. Franken read the Constitution at other times that a law that is being brought before the Senate appears to be working against the text (or the intent of the Framers) of the Constitution?

Say, will he read the First Amendment when Congress talks about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine?"

Will he read the Second Amendment when Congress talks about yet another gun law?

Will he read Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 as well as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments when Congress tries to pass something utterly outside the bounds of what they are allowed to do according to the Constitution (you know, little things like welfare programs, the national Department of Education and potential government-run health care)?

Or, as is so often the case in such things, is the Constitution only important when it discusses and approves those issues with which Liberals are concerned?

I have no doubt that Mr. Franken will never again open his copy of the Constitution (unless he needs it to attack something with which he does not agree), but I can dream can't I?

And while I'm waiting and dreaming of a Constitutional government, I have an Amendment or 10 which I can read to my kids.

Demeaning Institutions

2009-09-11T20:42:00.000-05:00

You may or may not have heard about Representative Joe Wilson's little outburst during the recent Obama speech where he was hustling for ~~yet more socialist attacks against our way of life~~ Nationalized Health Care.

Basically, when Obama got to the part of his speech where he promised (and we all know what Obama's promises are worth) that Illegal Aliens (i.e. those who should not be on our soil anyways) would not receive any of his socialist kool-aid.

Wilson shouted out "You Lie" because the bill that Obama was hawking, while it did have a clause stating that those who were not supposed to be in the Nation were not to receive benefits (which is a first for the Democrats) there is nothing in the bill which enforces that clause.

And an unenforced clause is just pretty words to appease people.

But what gets me is that now those same Liberals who are up there, demanding that we expand government, balloon our debt (which is forced inflation or more simply, inflating the money supply to rob you of more wealth), and create yet another government program which the government does not Constitutionally have the right to create, are talking about how Wilson has "demeaned" the Congress and the institution of the President.

Funny how easily people forget that both Presidents Clinton and Bush (the Second) were routinely booed during their speeches, even the Constitutionally-required State of the Union.

But, that's not my point. My point is that we have this Congressional idiots up there, all up-in-arms over someone explicitly using his First Amendment rights to inform the President what he thinks, but so few of them seem to be up-in-arms on the attacks against our (the People's) rights.

Remember, the Constitution explicitly states that any right not expressly given the Government within the Constitution belongs to the People or the States.

By allowing Congress to create these socialist Big-Government programs, we're allowing Congress to over-step it's authorized, Constitutionally-defined bounds and we're throwing away our rights.

Sure, what Representative Wilson did probably wasn't the brightest, or most respectful, move to make. That said, we should be less worried over Mr. Wilson's outburst than we our at Pelosi's and companies attacks on our rights.

And for the record, notice that while I am against States creating these state-run health insurance programs, I do not decry them as un-Constitutional, as it would be within a State's rights to create such a program. Also note that I don't live in a state with one of these programs (those states with them, are already facing record deficits, rationed health care, and other abuses of their government run health care system), and I wouldn't want to live in one.

Why I Disagree With Today's Speech

2009-09-08T06:06:00.001-05:00

I'm highly Conservative. Anyone that takes two seconds to peruse this site will quickly come to realize that. I wear my political affiliation on my sleeve for the world to see, and happily defend my positions against anyone who wishes to discuss things logically.

I of course, reserve the right to mock anyone who devolves into "It Feels Good, So That's Why" emotionalism.

So of course, when I read about the Department of Education's letter to every school in the nation, and how they provided curriculum materials to work in conjunction with Obama's speech today, I was concerned.

And then I actually read the contents of the letter and that concern quickly became anger and disgust.

Now, the Lefties would happily want everyone out there to believe that anyone who opposes Obama's speech today is a redneck, racist hick without a lick of common sense or brains. Just take a look at the political cartoons related to it.

The thing is, that it's not the speech that I have an issue with.

Frankly, that's a good object lesson in learning out to critically parse out BS from a politicians mouth. As an aside, what I usually hear when listening to a politician's (especially those with a centrist or leftist tilt) speech is thus:

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I'm Awesome. BLAH, BLAH. Vote for me, I'll give you stuff!

No. What disturbs me was the curriculum that went alongside of it. The curriculum that was sent to every principal in the country from the Department of Education (remember this fact, it will become more important in a moment).

For the K-6 students (this is elementary kids folks) the concepts were things like writing down how they could help the president. Or answering questions on why the president is good, or why what he's saying is right, or why we should listen to him (and other elected officials).

Now, I firmly believe we should listen to elected officials, after all, that's how we know they're lying to us, but I'm less interested in listening to elected officials in the unquestioning obedience point of view.

But not only is the concepts espoused in their rather insane letter annoying, but if you want to get technical it's kind of against the law (not that that has any bearing on what the Obama Administration does, as one can read about here).

Specifically, it's 20 U.S.C. § 3403, and the important aspect of that statute involved comes into play with these sections:

(3) parents have the primary responsibility for the education
of their children, and States, localities, and private
institutions have the primary responsibility for supporting that
parental role;

(4) in our Federal system, the primary public responsibility
for education is reserved respectively to the States and the
local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States;

The thing is that that FEDERAL statute (the one which created the department in question) denies the Department of Education (which Constitutionally shouldn't exist, as it's not specifically enumerated in the Constitution that Congress can create a Department of Education) any authority, right or responsibility to provide any curriculum or anything that can be "passed down" to the state.

Think about this. These are the folks who we've elected to be our leaders, and all we've gotten is broken lies, insane socialist theories and broken laws.

Of course, it is a Leftist in office so one should not be THAT surprised.

Oh wait, I can't say that can I, after all, any criticism or implications that the Chosen One isn't doing his job of protecting the Constitution might be considered racism...

Take Down The Bird Feeder

2009-08-21T08:13:00.003-05:00

This came to me via an email. Not sure who originally wrote it, but there ya go:

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table,
and next to the barbecue.

Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table... everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be... quiet... serene... and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now let's see.

Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free
education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly, our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one ' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder. If you agree, pass it on; if not, continue cleaning up the poop.

Betraying Liberals

2009-08-19T06:57:00.000-05:00

I just read an article on MSNBC which made me laugh and shake my head in alternating forms. Apparently, the Liberal customer base of Whole Foods is in an uproar over an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that the CEO (one John Mackey) of said company wrote concerning Health Care Reform.

In it he described his company's stance on Health Care. Basically, his company provides the following:

A "High-Deductible" Health Insurance Plan (a $2,500 deductible)
Company paid premiums
$1,800 into a Health Savings Account (HSA) they call "Personal Wellness Accounts."

Frankly, I think that's an awesome set of health care benefits.

But, anyways, in Mr. Mackey's op-ed he wrote how he thinks that the government has no place in offering "public-option" health care plans, and that it would be better off, if Health Care reform involved:

Lower legal issues for creation/adoption of High-Deductible/HSA combinations
Equalize tax issues between Employer Provided and Individually Purchased Health Insurance (employer provide is 100% tax-deductible, individually purchased is not)
Repel state laws preventing across-state-lines insurance competition
Repel government mandates on required coverage options
Tort reform
Make Health-Care costs more transparent, so that a consumer can purchase health care based on valid decision making processes
Enact Medicare reform
Make tax-deductible donations to (non-government run) funds who assist those unable to afford health insurance & are not covered by current "government options."

Frankly, I found the piece well-thought out, well-considered, logical and in general something that I would support if it was what was considered "Health-Care reform." It provides avenues for lowered health care costs, while at the same time keeping the power of our health care decisions out of the government's hands. Additionally, it allows the MARKET to work the way that it is supposed to.

But, of course that means that the Liberals are utterly, and hopelessly against it.

They hate the fact that it's not a government-run plan.

They can't stand the thought of personal responsibility in any facet of the people's lives, so of course they're against it.

What these liberals don't seem to understand is that the federal government does not have the Constitutional power to create health care.

It is so far outside of the limits on power which the framers of our government placed on the federal government that it is almost laughable.

But horrifyingly scary that so many are so accepting of this intrusive power-grab.

In my opinion, the Liberals have not been betrayed. If anything, they should be wondering why Walmart is so accepting of a government-run health care plan, while their food provider of choice is against it.

Here's a reason: it's economics. The labor unions have spent years and millions in advertising in getting Walmart to lower its insurance premiums and expand coverage. These are costs that Walmart either has to absorb in its profit margin or raise prices to cover. And as the one of the largest employers in the world--that's a lot of money going out. So, from their POV, a government plan would be great. I have no doubt that their private insurance would disappear the day after a government plan was introduced.

For some reason, I don't see Whole Foods being quite so quick to trade away the rights of its employee base in order to raise its profit margin a half-point.

Of course these are LOGICAL arguments, and falter in the face of the overwhelming "proof" which is the emotionalism by which most Liberals make their political decisions.

After all, who needs logic, when a feel-good that someone else has to pay for works just as well.?

Obama Wants You To Report On Your Neighbors!

2009-08-06T06:08:00.000-05:00

I've just read a disturbing blog entry on the White House's blog. It's an article on their proposed government take-over of the Health Care Industry, and anyone who has read any of my previous articles here, knows my take on government programs.

I think it's evil, and a massive waste of taxpayer money, and 100% un-Constitutional.

But, that's not at issue here. What's at issue here, is this content:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Yes, that is our government, asking you to turn in those people who dissent with their socialist programs.

Yes, that is our government--telling you that it's okay to believe in Big Government, despite the fact that time and again, it has been shown that Big Government is hopelessly against the individual.

This terrifies me.

After all, it's a VERY short trip from a request for individuals to snitch on dissent to requiring people to report dissent, to it being blatantly illegal.

Isn't this the type of stuff that those liberal Hypocrites just spent the past 8 years decrying about the Bush Administration? And now they want a free pass on performing the same actions?

It's like that--quite funny--image of Obama as the Joker. When the Liberal press drew Bush as the Joker, it was high political satire. But now that it's the Chosen One's image, it's racist and evviiillll.

I'm sorry you silly Liberals, but you can't have it both ways.

What do you mean "Read The Bill?"

2009-07-09T13:02:00.001-05:00

I'm utterly, and truly amazed.

Flabbergasted.

Astounded even.

I'm utterly and hopeless amused and ashamed by something I just read. What you may ask? Why the simple fact that the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer (D-MD) recently told a reporter:

If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes

Worse, he viewed the entire concept as one big joke.

While LAUGHING about the whole thing, this was his response:

I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill

He's up there, the MAJORITY LEADER for the House of Representatives, and basically telling the nation, "well, hell, I don't read the bill, just that brief overview from when they started the legislative process. I don't really care about what's in it, so long as the right keywords are in the summary."

And this is one of the guys who's a supposed leader of the House.

I can see me, telling my boss, "well, you know, I didn't bother reading the actual requirements, or what the user wanted when I was building that software. I just kind of went with what I thought the document should say."

That'd be a quick trip to the unemployment line for yours truly.

Why on earth wouldn't a Representative or Senator WANT to read the Bill? Isn't it supposed to be their entire purpose in Washington in order to represent the PEOPLE in our Federal Government.

Our government is out of control. Our Representatives and Senators are passing who knows what (not even they know all of the laws which they pass) and We The People are suffering for it.

There's no one alive who knew the what the entirety of the over 1,500 page bill behind the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 was. It had not been released in its final form to the populace via THOMAS before it was voted on and passed through the House. What we did know was that it equaled to trillions in new taxes within the next 5 years all to supposedly make a less than .02 percent decrease in ambient temperatures possible over the next 50 years.

Think on that, trillions in new taxes that everyone gets to pay, all over some junk science that may or may not have an effectively undetectable difference on the global temperature. Yeah, that's good government there....

The same applies to the over 1,000 page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--worse, because of the stupidity found within that law, additional laws had to be created to make changes to it. Which wouldn't have been needed if they had provided the populace time to review the document, and if they, our elected representatives, had taken the time to review the document.

But of course that's working under the impression that our Representatives and Senators actually care about our nation.

Because frankly, from where I'm sitting, all they are concerned about is keeping their power in Washington.

The Read The Bill pledge is a good START for our nation to get itself back on track. But we need more changes.

I believe that we need the following changes to how Congress/our Federal Government operates:

Make Senators appointed from State Legislatures again. The entire Constitutional purpose of the Senate was to give the STATES a voice in the Federal government; it was not supposed to be another representative branch of the populace.
Make each bill be required to show which portion of the Constitution allows Congress to enact it
Have each law read into the public record prior to a vote, with the following conditions:

Each Representative/Senator must be there for the entire reading
The entire reading must be performed at one time
Any Representative/Senator who leaves during the reading is not allowed to vote on the law

All laws twilight based upon the majority that voted for said law

With a simple majority (50%+1 vote or greater) the law would twilight in 2 years
With a moderate majority (65% or greater) the law would twilight in 3 years
With a super majority(75% or greater) the law would twilight in 5 years
Laws could be written to twilight earlier, but not later

Bumper Stickers

2009-07-07T07:53:00.001-05:00

Well, as I was driving to work, I found myself reading those silly bumper stickers folks have on their cars.

And then mocking them. So, I thought I would share my amusement with the world.

What this is saying is that "I stop whatever it is that I'm doing whenever PEACE breaks out." Therefore, it's only logical that to make this person a productive member of society, then he, or she, expects constant warfare throughout the land.

This one has always amused me. Yes, it was $1.46 when Bush took office, but hey, that war was all about the getting the gas for America!

The difference is one is a language, and the other is skin color. You'd think even a liberal driver would realize such a simple thing.

Ah... simplistic, vague, and utterly meaningless! Much like everything that comes out of a Liberal's mouth
But His kingdom is Heaven, here on earth--He expects us to work for a living.

Obama wants to strip my Health Care Benefits

2009-06-28T16:54:00.001-05:00

MSNBC is reporting that Obama (who has thoroughly and without any hope of ever retrieving them lost the use of honorifics from yours truly) has:

left open he possibility Sunday that President Barrack Obama might pay for his health care overhaul by taxing employer-provided health insurance.

Which fundamentally means that he is actively trying to strip my health care benefits.

I work for a small technology consulting firm, we have less than 10 folks in total. I do not see any possible way that my company could continue to provide cost-effective health care for me and my family if Obama and the brilliant brain-deads which we currently are calling Congressmen.

I call them all brain-deads because even Jon McCain, the so-called “Republican” Senator of Arizona is proposing a new tax on health benefits much like the one which Obama wants to use to strip me of my health insurance.

But I digress, the point is that my company would inevitably have to drop my health insurance (and/or fire a person or two) rather than actually pay this tax.

I’m sure that my boss will try to come up with a solution. After all, solutions are what we’re paid to devise, but it’s kind of insane to think that we’ll continue the level of benefits that we have if he’s having to pay an excessive amount of taxes on it.

But of course, the Liberals WANT that. If they can force more and more small businesses to stop being able to offer affordable health-care to their employees, then that’s just more schmucks that have to feed at the public trough.

Not I though.

My wife would not like it, but if my boss was forced to drop our insurance, I would start paying into my HSA again, and pay cash for any medical needs before I suffer at the hands of a Federal Health Care system.

I Lied Last Night

2009-06-28T10:38:00.001-05:00

In the post yesterday evening I told something of a fib. Mainly that I didn’t know what the Liberals were thinking when they claimed that the Cap-And-Trade bill was a good idea.

The sad thing is that I know exactly what they’re thinking, and exactly how they’re duping large numbers of people into believing in it, and more or less all of their messages and programs and attacks against the economy.

They’re trying to make things “easy” for everybody. They’re trying to make the government into this massive big-brother which watches all, knows all, and decides what is best for all.

Freedom be damned, because it’s not about freedom. Sure, on things they like, they’re willing to turn a blind eye. They’ll find all sorts of new “rights” in the Constitution, and in the process will “get out government out of the bedroom.”

But the important things? Our livelihoods. Our ability to keep the money which we work hard to earn? No, they want control of that.

They want you to look at all these good ideas they have. All these plans and programs which look great on paper, but have faltered and screwed up, and turned out like the old Soviet Union time and again.

How long will it be before we have our own Tiananmen Square massacre because some college students got uppity enough to demand freedom?

The Liberal/Progressive out there wants you to judge him or her based upon the goodness of their idea. Not the potential end result, or the end result of other programs like it in the world.

They offer free health care, and don’t mention that it will end up just like Medicare.

They wave this magical wand to lower the world’s temperature by less than a tenth of a degree over the next fifty years, but tell you to not pay attention to the massive costs in raised energy prices and loss of jobs.

They talk about wealth redistribution, and evening the playing field, forgetting the fact that most Congressmen make more money than most of their constituents.

They talk about the horrors of the common citizen owning guns, but fail to report that time and again it has been proven that the more access the general populace has to weapons, the less violent a city is (compare crime statistics of Chicago with its draconian gun control laws and basically all of Florida with its rather open definition of the Castle Doctrine).

Conservatives/Libertarians/Constitutionalists just cannot go up against that. Are offer of smaller government, less intrusive government falters when we don’t offer the pretty shiny penny to go along with it.

Forget that our concept means that you get to keep dollars that you earn.

You see, the Progressives have realized a simple truth. They can keep power by offering people money. What do they care where that money comes from, from their point of view, it’s the governments.

Whereas a Conservative sees it as the populace’s money which the government has sucked from the economy and those able to build true wealth.

There’s a fundamental disconnect with a Conservative’s message in this day and age. Conservatives believe that a person must make it on their own. They have to stand up and try and succeed. They have to have the knowledge to make informed and good decisions, and that they have the right and responsibility to do so.

And that’s not easy to take.

Especially if you’ve lived off the government for years upon years of your life.

But there it is, and fundamentally that’s the choice the between progressives and conservatives. Do you want government controlled (tyranny) and easy, or freedom and hard.

For me, that choice will always be an easy one; for no matter the hardships, I choose my freedom.

A Sad, Sad Day

2009-06-27T22:14:00.001-05:00

Well, Thursday evening was, at the “Cap-And-Trade” bill was passed in the House. What is saddest is that there were 8 so-called Conservatives (at least they get a little “R” next to their name) who voted FOR this bill.

Those Republican Representatives are:

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

Now, one may wonder why it is that I despise this particularly bill. After all, the Democrats promise us that it’s ever-so-important in regards to the environment.

What the Dims don’t want you to know, is that this bill will be responsible for raising that cost of energy by thousands of dollars. And that price tag is even before you factor in the jobs that will be lost, and the 1.6 Trillion dollar price tag attached.

In effect this is a massive tax on every person in this country.

But of course the Liberals don’t want THAT to be the sound bite. They tell everyone that the Businesses pick up the bill. That the “Cap and Trade” in question here are just fines and fees levied against businesses.

But that belays the most obvious thing that any business owner will tell you:

Businesses do not pay taxes.

It’s simple. They don’t. They never have, and they never will. Anything that comes their way that is labeled as a tax or a fee or a fine, is merely passed onto the consumer. It’s part of the price that you pay for any good or service.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant. Or both.

But it gets better, those folks who know these things—and I’m including the greenies here –state that this bill will influence the environment by less than 1/10th of a degree in 50 years.

Yes, our “fair” leaders have seen fit to saddle us with massive debt, a program which encourages the wasteful spending of states such as California, and passes that burden onto more fiscally conservative states (such as Indiana) and one which seems to be designed to drive businesses overseas.

They will be driven to counties which produce more “greenhouse” gases than we do, and by driving our businesses to them, they will see no real reason to stop producing the gasses which get an environmentalist’s panties into such a bunch.

In fact, this is what the Heritage Foundation has defined as the end result of this bill if it manages to pass the Senate:

Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;

Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and

Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.

By 2035 the bill will:

Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; and
Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation

Why anyone thought this was a good idea is beyond me, but I guess that’s why I’m a Conservative.

"We the people are coming."

2009-06-18T18:38:00.000-05:00

Republishing this letter from The Smallest Minority, just because it rocks.

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Respect Mah Authoritah!

2009-06-10T18:10:00.001-05:00

There's been a lot of recent media attention revolving around the 72-year-old Grandmother in Texas who was tasered by a cop who pulled her over for a routine speeding ticket.

Early on, she got on the media and claimed that the cop lied about her being verbally abusive. Frankly, I believed her--this due to the fact that it seemed more reasonable to me that a cop tasered this woman for jollies than she was verbally abusive.

Well, the police released the video, showing exactly what happened in all it's glory.

And yes, the woman was a bit verbally abusive towards the officer.

But does that give him the right to taser her? Would your opinion be different if he had hit her with his fists or his nightstick? What if he had shot her with his gun?

Frankly, I see no difference between a taser, a gun or a nightstick. All are weapons, and all can, and do, kill.

Now, yes, this woman was speeding, and Texas law does require you to sign a reckless driving summons. So, yes, this woman was in violation of the law by refusing the ticket.

At which point, the officer should have taken her and placed her in the back of the squad car as he was doing.

Which if you've watched the video, it is on this being escorted to the squad car that the woman said she would go ahead and sign the ticket. It is this point, at which this government-mandated goon should have allowed the woman to sign the ticket and go about her merry way.

Instead, he proceeds to push her against the back of her truck, and when she attempts to return to her vehicle, he blocks her, pushes her again, tosses down his ticket book, and then tasers her as she turns away from him.

Yes, this big man, tasered a grandmother who had her back turned to him. ~~Big man there.~~ Oh wait, I'd better not say that, don't want him to come taser me.

But you know what, none of that matters. Sure, the woman was being argumentative, and wasn't the most responsive to the officer's demands. But so what? That's not a reason to taser her.

And as is usually the case, it gets better! The officer in question has been praised by his direct superior, because the officer in question did everything by the book. He treated this woman just the way that the Officers of the Law are expected to treat any one who dares to not immediately bow down in obeisance to said Officers of the Law.

As if wearing a state-approved costume automatically grants you the wisdom and right to be above the citizens who pay your salary.

Most of the people who are approving of this cop's actions are doing so because the lady didn't listen to what the cop said, and worse, because she had the audacity to argue with him.

Maybe if more folks argued with the Powers That Be, we would have less Powers That Be.

No, I cannot think of any legitimate reason that this woman should have been tasered. She had no weapons, and was not physically violent. She was merely argumentative, and unwilling to a) sign a summons and b) place herself into the back of a car driven by a man that she did not know, and was attempting to physically restrain her.

God forbid that there's someone who's not instantly deferential to the "Boys in blue."

Why so hard to contact a Representative?

2009-06-09T18:58:00.000-05:00

You know, in this day and age of instant communication, I find it odd that our elected Representatives in Washington still see the need to enforce filters on their email between us and them.

Oh sure, you can go to the House website, and enter in all sorts of information and then click the SEND button. But that's just a hassle.

What's worse, is that when you do do so, and you finally get a response (weeks later mind you) then you're are out of luck if you try to RESPOND.

Your representative begins an email dialogue with you, but as in most things where Washington is concerned, it's all one way. You try to respond to the email you just got, and you get the following error message:

550 550 5.7.1 Unable to deliver to (state 14)

I find it odd. Now, what brought this on you might ask? Well, I recently contacted my Representative (Gregg Harper) through that hard-to-use form on the House website, and provided him my view on H.R. 1256--which I see as a fairly straightforward power grab by our Congress.

He responded, told me that he voted in the AFFIRMATIVE for a list of "feel-good" reasons, mostly involving minors and "research."

Then he ended his email with this line:

Again, I appreciate you sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

So you can see why I'd be annoyed that I could NOT immediately contact him with my response and thoughts. It's annoying. It actually makes me think that they make that form hard to use just so that they will be bothered as little as possible by their constituents. They certainly don't want a dialog on their decisions.

But, since I'm fed up with the online form at House.Gov, I've decided to place my response here on my website. This is the email that I attempted to send by way of further dialog on Mr. Harper's decision to support H.R. 1256:

Mr. Harper,

Sadly, I don't remember (nor can I find) the part of the Constitution which grants the government--or Congress specifically--the powers as outlined by this bill. Could you please provide me an annotated copy of the proposed legislation detailing the relevant articles (or amendments) of the Constitution which allows Congress to infringe upon these rights of the states and citizenry?

Another concern is the fact that this is nothing but a sin tax to be levied against those individuals who chose to partake of cigarette. After all, any fee which is imposed upon a business (and this bill imposes a fee upon businesses) are inherently passed onto consumers in the way of higher prices.

Then I have to wonder on the wisdom of raising the minimum legal age at which an individual can purchase tobacco products (which routine--and expensive--studies to determine the feasibility of such are a part of this bill). It is currently 18 in most states, the age at which an individual reaches their majority--and can thus enter into contracts, join the military and vote. Why then is this not also an appropriate age at which they can make the decision to smoke or not?

Additionally, State Laws already prohibit the sale and marketing of tobacco product to minors. Why exactly do we need another level of bureaucracy and legislation--at a Federal Level-- to reiterate this point? If the minors in question decide to break the state laws in regards to the purchase of tobacco products, how is having another way to fine the business people who are duped by these teens to purchase tobacco products a good and relevant thing? How is the cost of enforcement of this law going to help anything, especially in the current climate of financial insecurity in which we find ourselves.

Maybe later I'll find the time and energy to actually wade through the House website and send this through their arcane "Contact Us" form.

And maybe one day, they'll actually be concerned enough about what their constituents think that our elected Representatives would welcome a dialog from their constituents.

But I'm not holding my breath for that....

Another Government Land Grab

2009-06-07T16:03:00.001-05:00

Over the past few years, the government has broadly reinterpreted it’s abilities of Eminent Domain. While traditionally, Eminent Domain was used to gather land for roads, schools, and other uses for public use, the government has extended that to mean that if a local government wants your land to give to someone else on the off chance that a different owner would provide more tax revenue, then it is legally able to do so.

It’s a horrid, and despicable action on the government’s part, and there have been too many instances of this collusion between government and private enterprises to steal land already.

Which makes me even more annoyed at the latest thing.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that our government is telling landowners that they have 1 week in which to sell the land to the U.S. Department of the Interior, or else they would take it via Eminent Domain.

The reason for this particular land-grab is that the government wants to take a bit over 2,200 acres of land up there in Pennsylvania and turn it into a memorial for Flight 93.

To put this into perspective, let’s consider some other numbers:

Disney Land sits on less than 300 acres
The 4 theme parks of Walt Disney World takes up less than 1,100 acres (Disney owns nearly 30,000 acres in Florida, of which 7,100 acres are truly developed)
Six Flags over Georgia takes up 230 acres
Busch Gardens Tampa Bay sits on 334 acres
The National Mall takes up 310 acres
Arlington National Cemetery is a bit over 600 acres

Now all of these theme parks and national icons have hundreds of thousands of visitors annually, and they don’t need 2,200 acres.

Heck, even Walt Disney purchased the 30,000 acres of swamp land and citrus groves where Disney World sits—despite the fact that the government knew about it coming to town. Back then federal, state and local governments did not conspire with private firms to force other private firms/individuals to sell their land.

The thing is that the park/memorial itself I have no qualms over. It doesn’t bother me that they’re making it per se (though I do have questions on whether or not a new park is a good use of resources while we’re in the midst of a recession, and the government is borrowing nearly half of every dollar it spends).

What bothers me is the simple fact that they are forcing people to sell land that they own under threat of having it taken from them by force. Maybe these people don’t want to sell this land for sentimental or familial reasons. Maybe they don’t want to sell this land because they really like it, or want to hunt it. Maybe they don’t want to sell their land because they want to develop its natural resources for profit (all this land holds decent amounts of lumber, natural gas and coal).

But the government doesn’t care. All it is concerned about is taking enough land from private citizens that it can build this memorial to this flight, and do so for the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

What a way to honor those willing to die for their fellow citizens. What a way to honor the death of the only one of the 4 hijacked planes who had the gumption to fight back against hijackers armed only with box cutters.

I know that I’d hate to think that I was to be “honored” for the things that I’ve done in my life by having the government steal from others, or to force people to sell their property under duress of having it taken by Eminent Domain.

The RNC Wants You!

2009-06-04T21:44:00.001-05:00

In the past few weeks, I’ve received two surveys from the Republican National Convention—an odd state of affairs as I’m a rather vocal Constitutionalist these days.

It’s the usual stuff, with the Republicans struggling to realize what they need to do, and fundamentally they just have a bunch of recent bullet points that Obama and company have been working on, and give everyone the option to cast a yea/nay on their “survey.” Ultimately, what the survey is saying is “if you elect us again, we’ll not be big-government liberals this time, we promise.”

Yeah, I’m holding my breath for that.

But what amuses me the most about these ballots is that the last question is asking for money. The first one, was fairly standard and only gave two options (yes, I’ll contribute, here’s X or XX amount, or yes I support you, but I don’t have money right now, here’s $11).

I can understand, gaining and keeping power is expensive these days apparently.

But, as I said, I’ve gotten two recently, the latest of which came in today. While the previous one was labeled a “2010 Congressional District Survey” the new one has a title of “2009 Republican Party Census Document.”

Just the titles of these things are amusing, but what really got me, was the last question of the “Census Document.” It read the exact same way as the first one (well the “I don’t have money right now” option went from $11 to $12) but with the addition of a 3rd option. Now, they had a no option, and it read “No, I favor electing liberal Democrats over the next ten years.”

I laughed. Heartily, and loudly.

Then I got up, went into the other room to show it to my wife, who in turn laughed.

I’m amused, and disgusted, because the RNC just doesn’t get it. They still don’t understand, and they assume that I’m stupid enough to just forget the past 8 years of big government policies which they’ve endorsed and pushed through.

Their survey yaps about not supporting Obama’s bailouts, but happily overlook the fact that the Republicans started it.

Public Law 110-33 (H.R. 1424) was passed with the following votes:

House: 263 Yea; 171 Nay

Democratic: 172 Yea; 63 Nay
Republican: 91 Yea; 108 Nay

Senate: 74 Yea; 25 Nay; 1 Absent

Democratic: 41 Yea; 10 Nay
Republican: 33 Yea; 15 Nay

And then signed by a Republican President.

Of course, the Republicans suddenly remembered their “fiscal conservative” roots once Obama took office, and no House Republicans voted for Obama’s “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” (Public Law 111-5) which is some 1,000 pages that absolutely no one in either the House or the Senate actually read in its entirety.

Which is why I do support a “Read The Bill” Amendment to the Constitution, something which forces both houses of Congress to have every piece of legislation read aloud prior to a vote.

But I digress.

The simple fact is that the Republicans have lost touch. They did nothing to stop the growth of government during the Bush years (on the contrary, they happily helped it along). They did nothing to shrink the government during all those years when they had power.

They gained power during the mid-nineties on a small government platform, yet that never came into being. Instead they hemmed and hawed and passed pork-laden bill after government growth bill.

There is no way that I’m voting along party lines for this group. I’ll find the person who votes (or promises to vote) for smaller government, for less taxes, and to do away with any and every government program out there.

In the end, I’m not sending the RNC there suggested donations. I’m not sending the RNC the “$12 to tally the survey.”

No. I’d rather have a Liberal Democrat in office---after all, they’re honest in their liberalness as wrong as I view it-- than a Republican who claims to be a Conservative all the while voting for big government, insane spending bills and/or higher taxes.

Anyways, my $12 would be better spent buying myself a book, a meal, or even just shoving it under my bed.

Barbour: It's Tax & Spend Time

2009-06-02T22:19:00.000-05:00

Ah, the idiocy of politicians. A few months ago, I was proud of Governor Barbour for standing up against the idiocy of the "Bailout" where the Federal Government sends itself further into debt with nations that are actively hostile to our way of life.

Yet, here he is, just a few scant months later pushing to ensure that I think he's fairly worthless as a politician.

Mississippi, like most states, is facing a shortfall in its general fund. People are spending less which means all those taxes on sales, and Corporate fees, and the various other things where the government takes money away from those who actually produce wealth, are down. It's estimated that the state is ~$300 million down from expectations, and there's only a month left in the fiscal year.

That's a lot of money to have not been collected. So of course, the politicians are in something of a frenzy. After all, they need that money to further their own little power schemes, and to hand out money to their constituents. Oh, excuse, we're supposed to call them, "the worthy poor" or some tripe like that.

So, after taking in 300 million dollars less than expected, you'd think that someone in Jackson would realize that now would be a good time to cut spending. After all, if I bring home $300 less than I expected I would certainly do so. After all, contrary to the Government's belief, one really can't continuously spend money which one does not have.

But alas, that's where one gets into the issue of politicians and their idiocy.

My guess is that they don't really understand where that money comes from. They don't understand that for every penny they bring in, that's taking a penny away from one of their constituents. Those thousands of dollars that I spend on sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, and my share of fees levied against the companies I frequent could have been spent on my family.

That's money that they're taking from me under duress, all because they feel the need to push their social agenda and hand out money. In 2008, this is how the state split up the money they took in from its people (the General Fund):

Social Welfare - 2%
Agriculture & Economic Development - 2%
Corrections - 5%
Debt Service - 6%
Hospitals & Hospital Schools - 5%
Medicaid - 8%
Other - 9%
Colleges & University - 17%
K-12 Education - 45%

It's easy. Take a category, and cut. Look at K-12 Education, nearly half of the funds taken in go towards that. On average, 20% of their budget goes to indirect costs--which are those things not directly related to teaching our kids. How much of that is needed? Would it not be better to do things like cut back on the cleaning staff, and instead make the kids clean up the school? Would it not be better to strip away the administrative overhead, and give more power directly to the school's principles? I think so.

It's easy to find things to cut--it's just sad that so many people come to expect the government to hand things to them, or to take care of things that a generation ago, our parents/grandparents would have done.

It's even sadder that the politicians are so determined to keep their jobs and their power, that they'd willing drive us all further into debt, rather than do the right thing and work towards shrinking our government.

Obama: Ignore The Man Behind The Curtain....

2009-06-02T06:54:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, I really do have to wonder what the Democrats/Lefties are smoking up there in their little world-outside of Reality.

The White House has published a new report that claims that to "fix" the economy requires a revamping of our health care system. Their justification? The fact that Health Care, which currently accounts for ~18% of our GDP is estimated to grow to be around 30-34% of our GDP in THIRTY years. Yes, thirty, 3-0.

What, the report is not telling you is that the taxes to pay for the another expansion of Government abilities and capabilities, would crush our economy with 5.

Let's look at the two biggest tax items which are in the works to "pay" for health care by Government Mandate. The first is the "beverage" tax. What this is, is a tax on any drink you drink. Everything from sweet tea, to coke to beer to wine falls under the purview of this tax, dedicated to drive a majority of the food/dining industry out of business.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

The next tax is the VAT, or the Value Added Tax. This works similar to a National Sales Tax, except it is on EVERY transaction (while sales taxes are typically applied only to transactions where no resale is involved). And while this does have potential, they're talking about adding it to the top of our already complex Income Tax system. This will ensure that our already weakened retail industry falters further.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

And that's just the issues involved on the TAX side of things that health care reform will cause. Then there's also the simple fact that health care as we know it will cease to exist. After all, once Bureaucrats get in charge of making health decisions for you what you want, or think you need, will be irrelevant.

We'll see more cases, like the recent one where someone is being forced to undergo chemotherapy at a Judge's orders, despite the fact that he does not want to.

In every area of our lives that bureaucrats exist, we see petty tyrants doing things to harm the very people who they are supposed to be helping.

In California, the "Land Use" bureaucrats tried to force a couple who were holding a Bible study with a few friends (~15) in their home to get an major use permit
Some Veterans are turned away from VA hospitals because clerks are unable to fill out the DD214 forms correctly
The Dutch have a plan to force "Unfit Mothers" to take contraception, and if you get pregnant while on the contraceptives, they will take your child\

Here in the U.S., Liberals love looking at our neighbors to the East and seeing all these grand, and wonderful plans they have in action. They see the social systems in place in France, Britain, Germany and Sweden, and they salivate and say "This is good."

But they never stop and actually LOOK at these things. They don't pay attention to the fact that Britain, France and Germany are all limiting access to health care. They're rationing doctors and medicines and diagnostic treatments.

In 1996, Michael D. Tanner wrote an article entitled "A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine" for the CATO Institute. In it he explains how Medicare fails. How the properties of a very elementary rule forces programs like this to fail.

That rule: If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it.

This is a simple truism. I have free cell phone minutes to my wife, therefore I call her routinely just to chat and hear her voice. Before "family plans" and free mobile-to-mobile minutes, I would only call to provide relevant information--things I needed for her to know.

These problems, the access issues, the poor service, the general... crappiness of medicare, are proof that the government should not be involved in health care for the people. The fact that they can't even get Veteran health care right--and there's a lot less of them, than on either Medicare or private insurance--is proof that they should not be doing this.

But above and beyond that, this is something outside of the bounds of what our Founding Fathers expected us to do with this country. They would be appalled at the thought that we have invested so much power into the hands of so few.

Need proof, then we but have to look to the words of one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, who in the Federalist No. 45 wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

and during a speech at the Virginia constitutional convention in December of 1829 said:

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.

Our Government was not designed to hold this power, and it should not, for it puts too much power over ourselves, our bodies and our health, into the hands of just a few bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats whose sole purpose will be the gaining of more power and prestige for themselves.

A scary thought, where the health of my family is concerned.