Offering "Common" Sense

Signing Off...

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:43:20 PDT

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I'm signing off Offering Common Sense v. 1.0, and we're now exclusively writing at our new site ... www.offeringcommonsense.com.

The Conservative cause continues! See you there!

Offering Common Sense

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:04:02 PDT

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Offering Common Sense announced some time ago that there would be changes to improve content for the greatest, most informed readers in the blogosphere! Those changes are now imminent. The new domain name has been purchased, and we are now working on our web design to bring you even more hard-hitting conservative commentary. You can check out our progress at www.offeringcommonsense.com, and once the site is complete, you'll get the best of this blogspot site, and our wordpress mirror site!

More to come!

Pres. Obama Gets It Right

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:45:58 PDT

President Obama gave the order to use force to rescue the American hostage, and the US Navy successfully carried out the operation. They both deserve credit for a job well done in this case. It is important now that the United States declares war on Somali piracy, and end this threat to American interests. Write your Representatives and Senators and demand a War Declaration!

Capt. Phillips FREED!

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:55:19 PDT

Happy Easter everyone. It looks like first reports are now coming in that the American hostage to the pirates was freed today by a Navy operation. Three Somali pirates were killed, and the 4th was injured and is in custody! Capt. Phillips is unharmed according to Foxnews. This is the best possible outcome, and it's good to see that the military was able to take swift action. They missed the first chance to get Phillips, but it sounds like the heroic Captain made a second attempt.

Navy Turned Back by Pirates?!

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:24:48 PDT

Read this.

Is the Navy under orders not to shoot, or are they just making sure they don't hit the hostage? Inquiring minds want to know.

Either way, this is an even bigger act of war, and we have NO WAR DECLARATION FROM CONGRESS and a President who is eerily SILENT on the issue.

Things that make you go...What the HELL?!

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:47:09 PDT

Where's all of that good will that Pres. Obama was supposed to get together from the world community? I seem to recall that North Korea tested a long-range missile, despite our warnings and everyone's objections, but I see no threatening UN Security Council resolutions coming into play?

Where are the two American journalists who were captured on the North Korean border, supposedly as an insurance policy against our intervention? Shouldn't we be hearing something about that, about now? Should we not threaten military action against Pyongyang, if we don't see our citizens returned, unharmed?

What is it about liberals (and not-far-right-enough Conservatives) who try to reason with tyrants? Remember the Cold War? Reagan had it right when he called a spade a spade, and said he would defend our nation, and build the military to levels that the Soviets just couldn't match. In retrospect, short of a nuclear war, we could have put tanks in Moscow in the 1970's and toppled the communist regime if we'd had the gumption. North Korea is no Soviet Union, neither is China. Perhaps we should call their bluff, and have a little less talk, and a lot more action.

So the pirates are sending reinforcements? Are you kidding me? Is it just me, or are the Somali terrorists of the seas keenly aware that we now have a liberal head of government, in the spirit of Jimmy Carter, who will try to acquiesce and wait for UN response? This is an act of war, and I'm surprised to see that not even our Republican leaders have even started a war resolution.

Congressman Doug Lamborn (R, CO - 5), as my representative, I urge you to begin drafting a war resolution against Somalia for their implicit support of the lawless regimes that wreak havoc on the seas, and free trade. Do we need another Lucitania, a Pearl Harbor, or even worse, a 9/11 to go to war?

Remember when President Bush said that Iran was a threat, and that he expected them to accept their wrongdoing before coming to the international table? Well, since Pres. Obama has come on the scene, they've made a mockery of him, and made him look foolish and naieve. They now have 7,000 centrifuges humming away to produce material for nuclear bombs, and if the U.S. (and even Israel) won't do anything now, what do you think they will do if Iran can nuke Europe?

The world is always spinning out of control, and "the war" is every single day. There are always groups out to kill us, and there are always forces out there seeking to create chaos and fear. The United States stands alone as the watchman and protector of civility and freedom. While we are not everywhere, and we have not freed everyone, we have done more good than harm (far more), and I believe firmly that this trend (in the long run) will continue. Unfortunately, we now have a government that seeks to build consensus, where none can exist. Sometimes people are just wrong, and the tyrants of North Korea and Iran are just plain wrong here. The Somali pirates (pirates are terrorist with boats, just so you put this into proper perspective) are wrong, too.

President Clinton's inaction during the 1990's to numerous terrorist attacks on US soil and interests, helped to embolden the terrorists which culminated in the 9/11 attack. Will President Obama repeat these mistakes?

You want free speech or press? Sign this form first!

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:18:49 PDT

From time to time I like to point out to you that seeminginly innocuous stories actually pose more of a threat than is reported by the mainstream press. Here's a prime example.

A journalist was stopped by Department of Veterans Affairs security guards when their public affairs person complained that he was trying to interview a patient. He was strong-armed and had his memory stick (with the recording of the interview) 'detained' by the officials because the VA wanted to "protect" the patient. The patient was not a minor child, and was willingly giving the interview. So just what was the VA's problem? A form wasn't signed.

Taken at face value this seems like a non-issue. Well why didn't he just sign the form, then, you might ask. What's the harm in that? I'll tell you. By even daring to have the form in the first place, the VA is presuming to have some say in the Constitutional matters of free speech and the free press. It's as if they're saying, "Well, we agree in your freedoms, but before we grant them, you must sign here." That completely defeats the purpose of the Constitution, just in case you weren't aware. Our founders granted us no rights. They never gave us free speech, the right to bear arms, or anything of the sort. What the founders did was put their necks out, take a stand against an empire, and say that we have inherent rights from God b/c we exist. Those rights apply whether or not the VA chooses to accept it.

This is the kind of thing you need to watch, ladies and gentlemen. Don't let any government agency presume to tell you that your rights only apply if they say so.

Happy Birthday Belle-Belle

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:30:24 PDT

My youngest of 5 just turned one today. She is the spitting image of her older sister (who is 5), but she has her own funny personality, too. We just call her Belle Belle, but she is definitely a happy baby!

President Declines to Comment on Pirates

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:22:03 PDT

Apparently the President of the United States doesn't feel that the first pirate hijacking of an American vessel in 205 years doesn't warrant his time or efforts...I mean after all, they are "monitoring" the situation, isn't that good enough for you people?!

For those of you who don't think this is a serious issue, you'd better look again. Consider that for your entire lifetime, and the lifetimes of your parents and grandparents (and even further back depending on your age) pirates dared not mess with the United States. Our clout and military might meant that if you were a citizen of this nation, that pays taxes in this country, elects your own representation, and flies the stars and stripes on your vessel, you were probably safe from this type of terrorism.

We know what is says about the Somali terrorists that they are stupid enough to attack an American ship, but what does it say about our President that he has "no comment" to an act of war?! Are we going to tolerate another Bill Clinton-style policy of waiting, reacting with useless words, and appealing to the United Nations for our own national security? Do any of you remember the night after the first WTC bombings when Pres. Clinton, rather than declare war on those who would kill Americans and commit terrorist acts on our own soil, called the matter a law enforcement issue...as if you could arrest and prosecute bits and pieces of what remains of a suicide bomber.

Pres. Jefferson had it right, and he sent the military to take care of pirates. Pres. Obama has no comment.

WAR!

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:21:00 PDT

News reports this morning spoke of an apparent hijacking of an American vessel by Somali pirates. A few hours ago the only thing we heard from the White House was that they were "monitoring the situation." That's the best our own President can do? Monitoring is what you do when you're a government bureaucrat concerned with seeing the hit you might take in the polls, rather than someone who has any real responsibility to ACT. We heard that the nearest U.S. Navy vessel was en route...one has to wonder whether this was something the commander of the ship took upon him/herself, or if this was an order from the SECDEF or POTUS. One can only hope.

In all of the recent reports of various vessels being hijacked by Somalis, none had actually targeted an American-flagged ship with an American crew. World Wars have started for less offensive acts, and all our government can do is "monitor." Our government is shifting to a groveling, useless entity that seeks only to ridicule private citizens like the Harvard Law student that dared to question Rep. Frank's sense of responsibility (or lack thereof) for our current situation, and tax productivity, thereby driving out business to actual business-friendly nations (no, the United States is not on that list any longer).

Still, while the American government has shifted to the ostrich approach of seeing threats, while sounding alarms all over the place about free enterprise, the American spirit is not dead. Reports are now trickling in (here) that the American crew has RETAKEN THE SHIP! First reports are often sketchy, but hopefully we can be soon assured of the safety of the American crew, and I sincerely hope that the pirates that got away did so swimming for their lives under a barrage of bullets!

While we may wake up tomorrow to find the accounts to be inaccurate, if the pirates did attack an American vessel, it is clearly an act o war. I fully expect my Representative and others in the Congress to investigate the reports we've seen today. If they find the reports are true, a declaration of war should be imminent.

We've come through a lot in this nation. We've fought against the greatest empire on the planet to earn our independence, we've nearly torn each other apart (and I must say the biggest black eyes we ever got as a nation at war was when we fought ourselves...no one matches our military might), and we've come through 2 World Wars, a Great Depression, multiple recessions, a Cold War, and so much more.

We are still Americans. We hunt, fish, farm, fight, fly to the moon, create great technology, and kick anyone's ass who wants to threaten our freedoms. The rest of the world would do well to remember that. To those who would do us harm, don't take much comfort in our new liberal government...liberal governments are fleeting, but the American spirit is eternal.

Cybersecurity and You!

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:44:05 PDT

As I seek a balance between productively working on my thesis (M.S. in Information Assurance) and writing about the ineptitude of our elected leaders, I find myself with a story that fits nicely between the two worlds. The CyberSecurity Act of 2009, introduced by Sen. Rockefeller, a few other Democrats, and, of course, Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine (RINO*), is just another example of our elected leaders looking for excuses to encroach upon private enterprise. While I acknowledge the need for a greater need for a focus on cybersecurity for not only critical assets (power grids, nuclear reactors, military forces, etc), asking the government to do so is about like asking your dog to perform brain surgery...in either case it probably won't end well.

More important than this single bill, is the trend that our elected leaders have shown over the past few months of the Obama Administration. We see bailout after bailout, a government that refuses to accept their money back (I mean come on, if the banks pay that money back how will the government control them without declaring all-out communism?), and czar after czar for almost every aspect of our lives! Seriously, did Russia have that many czars?!

At issue here is the difference between a reason and an excuse. If you have a reason to act, you're acting to solve a problem. If the North Koreans bomb Hawaii, we'd have a reason to declare war. If the North Koreans bomb Hawaii, and hit a telephone poll, we would not have a reason to suddenly take over all of the telecommunications industry and make them a public government agency...I suspect the Democrats and Sen. Snowe would be on board with that.

You need to seriously ask yourself what the true intent of each new piece of legislation is that comes out of Washington, D.C. Ignore their words, and read the legislation! They'll always call it the "save the babies from corporate fatcats act" or "fluffy bunnies and kitties act" in hopes that you won't get past the title page...get past the title page, people. Do you really think the government is trying to save industry or jobs? Do you think they want to protect your tax dollars as if it were their own money? If that were the case, why is the President refusing to accept repayment of TARP funds? That's a huge question that I haven't heard a good answer to just yet. Why on earth would you not accept repayment? There's only one logical conclusion...

Happy Birthday Garrett!

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:26:46 PDT

My little man is 3 years old today (well Saturday that is)! Garrett is 100% boy, as you can tell from the brief slideshow, and he's always been our little athlete. I usually tell my wife that 2 is my favorite age, but I think all of the kids are great at various ages. Garrett is inquisitive, tough, and a ton of fun, and he's a good big brother to his baby sister, as well as a good little brother to his other two sisters and his big brother! He gives tons of hugs and kisses, but he's also nearly broken my nose (accidentally of course).

Happy Birthday buddy!

Unemployment, inflation, trillions of dollars in debt and going deeper, N.Korea Launcing a Missile, China balking at the Dollar, and the BCS

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:13:21 PDT

Based on the items in the title, what would you focus on if you were a member of Congress or the President? We have a group of 'leaders' that don't even bother to read the legislation that they cram down the nation's throat, but they sure as heck can debate the validity of the Bowl Championship Series! Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the type of thing you look at when you have settled the debt, are in the green, and have achieved military victory everywhere in peacetime. We're not there yet, so why is Congress wasting everyone's time with this? I agree that the BCS is a farce, and that we could stand for a national playoff system in College Football...I'd love to see that. However, I'm not sure what the federal government has to do with it. The simple fact is, and you should REALLY pay attention here, is that the federal government has to do with whatever it feels like. That should concern you just a bit.

Read the story here.

Republicans Who Vote Like Liberals

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:44:42 PDT

In Political Science we often hear about the disparity between the philosophies of elected leaders. They are known as the trustees and the delegates, and such categorizing has nothing to do with party affiliation. The trustee will come to office and vote according to his or her convictions. The delegate, however, will only vote for what is popular, and try to do nothing to lose votes for the next election cycle.

While it's difficult to blame one party's ideology for being full of delegates v. trustees, I've found that the "big tent" of the Democratic party, coupled with their love of government interventionism and lack of logic, contributes to a philosophy and a platform that is nothing more than a house of cards, big on style, little on substance. Pres. Clinton was notorious for juxtaposing his ideology based on the latest public opinion polls, and we saw an extremely different Bill Clinton in 1995 than we saw in 1993, based on the citizen's revolt against government oppression into every caveat of our lives.

Today citizens are outraged, and not the phony outrage of hypocritical Congressmen who vote for a bill that they don't even read and then don't like the bad press they get as a result, but true blood-boiling outrage. Bags of tea are pouring into our harbors, rivers, and oceans, and the handles are being mailed to Washington as a symbol of our defiance. This is a Conservative movement, but it is only part 1 of the peaceful revolution that is taking place.

Part 2 begins now.

We need to purge the party of the followers, and the ones who vote based on opinion polls, rather than their convictions, and a respect for our Constitution. The following Republicans voted to tax a handful of private individuals in H.R. 1586 (Is your Representative Here?):

Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5]
Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6]
Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13]
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50]
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
Rep. Roy Blunt [R, MO-7]
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45]
Rep. John Boozman [R, AR-3]
Rep. Henry Brown [R, SC-1]
Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R, FL-5]
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13]
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44]
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4]
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7]
Rep. Anh Cao [R, LA-2]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2]
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6]
Rep. Michael Castle [R, DE-0]
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4]
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4]
Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15]
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21]
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-25]
Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2]
Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R, MI-3]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8]
Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4]
Rep. James Forbes [R, VA-4]
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1]
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24]
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6]
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6]
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2]
Rep. Dean Heller [R, NV-2]
Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2]
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R, MI-2]
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15]
Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3]
Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL-10]
Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7]
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4]
Rep. Christopher Lee [R, NY-26]
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2]
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10]
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4]
Rep. John McHugh [R, NY-23]
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5]
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Jerry Moran [R, KS-1]
Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6]
Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19]
Rep. Adam Putnam [R, FL-12]
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8]
Rep. David Roe [R, TN-1]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3]
Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5]
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46]
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16]
Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6]
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18]
Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40]
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1]
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2]
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18]
Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19]
Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6]
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12]
Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3]
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6]
Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R, TN-3]
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1]
Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10]
Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0]
Rep. C. W. Young [R, FL-10]

Congress should have allowed AIG to enter into bankruptcy...that's what would happen to those of us private citizens who earn a living if we were to fail to live up to our financial obligations! H.R. 1586 demonstrates the ignorance of our elected leaders, and I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court would fail to take a case like this and uphold such an asinine law. While the Supreme Court does not generally infringe upon Congress's legislative prerogative to set tax policy (specifically the House of Representatives), this is nothing more than a Legislative hit job, set up to deflect attention from their own mistake of passing these types of bailout bills in the first place.

2010 Approaches...and an elephant never forgets...at least this Conservative blog never will.

Here's a quote from the great Thomas Paine, a revolutionary American (perhaps that a term we should open up for contemporary dissenters, as well), in his work Common Sense.

"When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir."

Foxnews and Legal Scholars Just Now Catching Up to Offering Common Sense

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:23:23 PDT

Congress is looking to pass a tax bill on the AIG bonuses that were paid out, due to it's own ignorance in passing legislation that gave the failing company billions of taxpayer dollars:

"Two of those difficulties, lawyers say, lie in Article I of the U.S. Constitution -- a section stating Congress cannot pass any "Bill of Attainder" or "ex post facto" law."

Does that sound familiar? Again, we have a Congress that puts public opinion polls over the Constitution, and they think the rest of us are too stupid to know better.

Bigger than Bailouts: A Nation at Risk

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:51:13 PDT

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today you will see a farcical mockery in the US Congress when the pot calls the kettle black in front of a national audience. Our liberal elitist government has taken it upon itself to interfere and intervene on behalf of bureaucracy (not on behalf of the American taxpayers), and it has bitten them in the rear. AIG should have gone bankrupt, and the organization still may with a few hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money going down with the ship. Today we have a weak Congress, that lacks any clear leadership or principles. They rule by public opinions polls, and now they have the audacity to come before the American people and ridicule the AIG CEO for wasting millions on bonuses with money that THEY VOTED TO GIVE AIG!

If AIG had gone bankrupt, then those bonuses would not be paid. The government has effectively purchased a lemon, and there's nothing they can do about it at this point. Contracts are legally binding, but some Congressmen are proposing some pretty asinine legislation. One proposal calls for taxing bonuses to AIG executives at 100%. Unfortunately for the morons in Congress who propose such legislation there's a little document called the Constitution (I wonder how many of them really even know anything about the Constitution other than to say that things they agree with are 'Contitutional' and things they disagree with aren't?). Article 1 Section 9 -- No ex post facto laws. Simply put, you can't make a new law and hold past actions accountable to the new standard. Article 1 Section 10, no laws against contracts (among other things). Congress does not have the authority to alter the AIG contracts with legislation, nor can it simply decide to tax 100% of any private compensation, whether or not it was earned. Congress and the President got itself into this mess, and they are now willing to further tear the Constitution to save face.

If you don't like AIG, then don't do business with the coporation or any of its partners. That's a simple solution, and a free-market one at that. Bankruptcy is a legal procedure, and it's one that happens all the times for individuals and corporations. "I told you so" is a weak response to any situation, because it requires looking back rather than forward. Still, we have to have a good short-term and long-term memory as Americans when looking at this situation. Reagan had it right; FDR had it wrong. The current administration has chosen to take the path that demonstrated no ability to actually solve an economic crisis, preferring to get a bureaucratic chokehold on our personal and economic freedoms through government programs, incessant omnibus bills, and bailouts.

After careful consideration, I can come to no other logical conclusion: Congress thinks you're stupid. If you are more concerned about the next American Idol than upholding our Constitution, they can sneak things in, little by little, until you are dependent...co-dependent might be a little more accurate.

Pay attention, and remember the arrogant way in which Congressmen like Barney Frank snub their noses at free markets, and then deny any responsibility for the failings of government interventionism. Their tune will change next year, as the mid-terms approach, so just remember this false indignity we see from Congress next November.

Happy Birthday Juli!

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:41:31 PDT

Happy 29th Birthday Juli!

This is probably the last year I can announce her age. For those of you who do not know, Juli is a homeschooling mother of 5, a USAF veteran, a college graduate with a B.S. in Psychology, and most important, my wife. I've compiled a short slideshow to celebrate her birthday which happens to be March 17!

Obama Administration to Vets: "Pay your own healthcare."

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:53:15 PDT

I honestly thought this story was another one of those publicity seeking tactics from some Conservative alarmists (we have them in our party just as the Liberals have them, although not to the same extent), but it seems that the VA Secretary Eric Shinseki has admitted that the Obama Administration was looking to charge military servicemembers for their own healthcare. While such a proposal would never pass even a Democratically-controlled Congress, the hypocrisy is so astounding that I think we have to create a new hypocrisy-meter.

We can start with a simple definition of the term:

hypocrisy - saying one thing and doing another, claiming you are against earmarks and signing a bill with thousands of earmarks totalling billions of dollars, calling for an era of responsibility while bailing out failing corporations, criticizing the previous administration for secret closed door meetings with energy companies while having secret closed door meetings with union leaders, saying that you will reduce taxes for American families while increasing taxes for those who dare to attempt to stimulate the economy and actually create jobs....

Republicans Voting for Cloture in the Senate

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:44:26 PDT

These are our Republican Senators who voted for cloture, in an effort to pass the $410 Omnibus government spending bill 2k9.

Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN]
Sen. Christopher Bond [R, MO]
Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS]
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK]
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA]
Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS]

Thanks a million guys...or 410-thousand million.

Rush Exposes Liberal Media Cover-up

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:41:17 PDT

It seems the liberal media's hypocrisy knows no bounds (yes, that did come from the movie Tombstone). Foxnews is reporting that none other than James Carville, the Clinton front man for the decade of the 90's, stated explicitly that he wanted President Bush to fail. Unfortunately for Mr. Carville, his words were uttered on the morning of September 11, 2001 just before reports of terrorist attacks on our nation began trickling out of New York.

Read it for yourself.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks, we had bigger fish to fry. News stories about Gary Condit's affair, and the murder of the Washington intern, or the series of shark attacks on the east coast fizzled. Carville's political statements seemingly disappeared, until now. Get over yourself, liberals. You've proven to be preppy elitists at every step of the way, so far, and hypocritical doesn't even begin to describe the liberal ideology.

Liberty, Security, and the Wildcard

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:20:36 PDT

Oftentimes people like to reduce complex issues to the most overly simplistic, simple representations of their own biased beliefs. I pretend to do no different most times, while I still strive for an objective approach to most things. It's easy enough to offer up an example of pork-laden legislation on this site, but having anyone truly care about it enough to act is a little more complicated. I've found that people often establish some sort of pendulum with two diametrically opposed sides with almost everything in their lives. Individuals do this. Groups of people do this. Entire nations live and die by the swinging the pendulums that affect us.

We hear about "balance" and the need to play both sides of every issue to be truly objective. Reagan, like no other, spoke about the idiocy and weakness inherent in those (namely European nations) that removed themselves from the arguments between the free United States and the enslaved Soviet Union. Those equivocators among us do nothing to help the argument for goodness, justice, and our cause. Evil plus inaction equals more evil, and the sooner that everyone realizes this applies to the political arena, the better off our children will be, if not us. The spending, the over-reaching by our federal government into every aspect of our lives, the calls for purely socialist ideas (even if they don't have the courage to call them by the name) are all more than warning shots across the bow of freedom. They've landed direct hits, and the country (and the DOW) is reeling from the blows.

The armchair warriors, pretenders, and fake leaders need to now step aside, as you have been nothing but ineffective. We, the freedom loving Americans, have grown weary of your ineptitude, and you're beginning to see a true change. Tea parties across the country are happening, and we're really, for the first time in a while, seeing the citizens demand the freedoms mentioned in the Constitution be protected.

You can't solve the problems of over-regulation in a free-market with more regulation. You can't solve the problems of violent gun crimes by limiting gun ownership for citizens. You can't preach about accountability and responsibility while doing everything in your power to ensure that those who don't want to be accountable are able to murder babies in the womb, or shirk their responsibilities to pay their debts, or run a sound business.

We have some things in this country that are uniquely American. Our strong belief in the rights to free speech, and in the fact that government works for us, rather than the other way around, usually bring us together. Yet, we've seen a shift in the debate, the general discourse of politics, that suggests otherwise. This nation has allowed the pendulum of liberty to shift to "security," while proclaiming that this is for our own good. The absence of opposition to evil, breeds evil. Without a dissenting voice, the "social norm" becomes tainted, biased, and overpowering.

Maybe it's time to acknowledge that the time for civility is over. It's time to speak up for the values that we hold dear: self-reliance, freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I fear that we may now be embarking into a dark new territory in this country, as my generation is among the first in our young nation's history to inherit less opportunity than the ones before us. To buy our loyalty, the ones in power (who are older than I am by decades) have asked us to simply pass the costs on to our children and grandchildren. "No" is my simple answer to their complicated reasoning for such preposterous ideas. Our answer is the wildcard...the thing they weren't considering in Congress.

What say you?

270 Decide for 300,000,000

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:11:46 PST

Have you ever really pondered how much power so few people have over so many? It's by design, and our Constitution was set up by the founding fathers to give us a Republic, rather than a mob-ruled Democracy, for good reason. The objective was to make sure that intelligent, reasonable people would make laws in the legislative branch because our nation gives great deference to the lawmakers. As such, we settled upon a compromise of a House of Representatives to be elected by the people, and a Senate to be elected by the state legislatures. That, of course, changed with the 17th Amendment, but there are still 2 Senators per state. Therefore, we have a nation of over 300,000,000 people where a whopping 270 can basically control every aspect of your life.

218 Representatives are all that's needed for a majority out of the 435 elected.

51 Senators can pass a bill (1 VP if there is a 50/50 tie, but it's still 51 people).

1 President signs the bill into law.

I suppose if there is some Constitutional debate over the law, you could add 5 Supreme Court Justices to the mix, but that brings the total to 275, and only as a caveat.

Just think about that for a minute! You KNOW more than 270 people, more than likely. You pass 270 people in a matter of seconds on your way to work if you drive along the highway. That isn't a whole lot of people, but still it is more than enough to dictate almost everything that happens to us! Those 270 (275 with a challenge) can say that the tax rate is 100%. They can outlaw guns (although I disagree with their authority to do so, it wouldn't change the fact that they could do it). They can implement a policy that requires all children attend public schools and that the curriculum be favorable to abortion policies, communism, socialism, or whatever they dream up.

I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily a bad system, but we've morphed this into something else. The learned people that Franklin, Adams, and Washington may have envisioned running things are the exception, not the rule in Washington today. Today we have morons calling for public witchhunts of political rivals, and votes for pork projects that have the Treasury's printing presses humming! We have elected leaders who don't even read the bills that they vote on, and a President who play the media's adoration of him to his full advantage in the name of political expediency.

We are a Republic, and we are a great one. Yet we need to seriously consider the fact that we allow 270 people to run it all. Those 270 had better be good, and they better have some the conviction, courage, and intelligence to make this nation a better place for generations to come.

My father once caught me daydreaming out in right field, when I was a 5-year-old T-ball player down in a suburban Georgia town (Riverdale). After our long talk about paying attention on the ballfield, he wrote in permanent marker five letters: T-H-I-N-K. Everytime I would daydream and undoubtedly put my glove over my face, those words would remind me of my father's words.

Perhaps America could learn from that lesson, as well. As we put the metaphorical glove over our face, as we always do in a mid-term election (just look at voter turnouts when a President isn't on the ballot) perhaps we need a reminder that says to T-H-I-N-K. Maybe we could write under that five more letters: F-O-C-U-S. This is important, people. The mid-term may make or break us for the remainder of many of our lives. We can turn this thing around, eliminate tax burdens, speak out for values, and bring business back to what was once a business friendly nation.

270...that's all it takes. Vote and make it count!

What's it going to be?

Constitutional Amendment Proposed! H.J.Res.21

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:26:52 PST

Rep. Dreier (R-CA) has proposed House Joint Resolution 21 calling for a Constitutional Amendment on how Senators are elected. This short resolution only addresses the Sen. Burris situation where a Governor can appoint a Senator, despite obvious objections in the mainstream. This amendment would simply say that a special election would need to be held if a seat becomes vacant. See the full text of the bill here (and my added section 3 below it):

111th CONGRESS
1st SessionH. J. RES. 21
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the election of Senators.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 11, 2009Mr. DREIER (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, and Mr. PIERLUISI) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryJOINT RESOLUTIONProposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the election of Senators.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘Article--
‘Section 1. No person shall be a Senator from a State unless such person has been elected by the people thereof. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.
‘Section 2. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as a part of the Constitution.’

--------------

Proposed Section 3. No person shall be a Senator for more than one term of six years.

Are you freakin' kidding me?

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:04:44 PST

As you are aware, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill (H.R. 1105) cleared the House with a partisan vote (except for a few of those who are mentioned in a previous post), and it rests with the Senate. We do have a Democrat (Sen. Feingold) calling for a veto of the current version of the bill, but you'd think the legislative action would mirror the words and rhetoric...they don't.

Senate Amendments proposed yesterday:

596 (Tom Coburn - OK) -- requiring competitive contract procedures
599 (Lisa Murkowski - AK) -- modification of rule promulgation
607 (Roger Wicker - MS) -- preventing use of funds for "coercive abortions"
608 (Tom Coburn - OK) -- providings funds for "Emmett Till Civil Rights Crime Act"
610 (Tom Coburn - OK) -- preventing "earmarks"
623 (Tom Coburn - OK) -- no earmarks for 14 lobbying firms under investigation
635 (John Thune - SD) -- funding for Emergency Fund for Indian Safety and Health

Nothing in these amendments actually reduces the pork or the spending. Coburn's 610 amendment seemingly addresses this, but the only way to do anything is to squash this bill where it stands...in the Senate. This is absolutely ridiculous, people. What is surprising is that we have Republican Senators, supposedly Conservatives, looking for their piece of the Appropriations pie.

Russian "Scholar" Needs to Shut the Hell Up

noreply@blogger.com (JD) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:06:02 PST

Professor Panarin is being reported in the news as saying he feels that the United States will soon break up. You may recall my earlier post, Dream on Professor Panarin, where I criticized the Russian's obvious misunderstanding of our national fabric. Apparently my reasonable argument didn't work, so here's my next response (below):

*I changed the title from "heck" to "hell." Heck was just too hokey.