Monday, January 31, 2011

The judge threw out the whole damn thing! (UPDATE)

This is the judgment we’ve been waiting for! Siding with 26 States, this Reagan-appointed federal judge has ruled today that the ENTIRETY of the Obamacare bill is unconstitutional! This is not only an additional win, but a significant one!
“Federal Judge: Obamacare is Void” posted at The Foundry
There’s no doubt that this fight is heading to the Supreme Court; but even before that, today’s ruling is a take-it-back-to-the-drawing-table ruling, a ‘cease and desist’ order if you will.

Professor William Jacobson takes us through the details of Judge Vinson’s ruling:
"Federal Judge Rules Against Obamacare, Injunction Denied As Unnecessary Since Entire Law Is Unconstitutional" by William A. Jacobson

So now the question is will this administration comply or defy? From this account, they sound pretty defiant.
“White House Fires Back at Ruling Declaring Obama's Health Care Law Unconstitutional, Calls Decision "Judicial Activism"” by Brian Montopoli

Levin suggests seeking contempt if they defy this court order. I say, “Right on, Mark!”

UPDATE:  Rush explains that the illusion of revenue for the CBO to score the bill required the individual mandate in the legislation (the illusion of 'savings'), which disallowed the use of severability.  Because such a provision was removed before Obamacare was made law, thus making the entirety of the bill's purpose (including the individual mandate) bound together, Judge Vinson declared the entire law VOID!
"Severability Clause Removed From Obamacare before it became law" posted at Godlike Productions via IBD
Now we know the administration will seek an appeal...but at this moment, per this federal judges ruling (which liberals readily hold in the highest regards), Obamacare has been struck down, unconstitutional, VOID.

The real players

On Friday, I read that Daily Beast article by Riedel on how we shouldn’t fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and thought, “My God, how gullible are these people?!” Well, it’s nice to have someone of such merit and clout on the subject as Andy McCarthy to back up your suspicions!
“Fear the Muslim Brotherhood” by Andrew C. McCarthy

‘The Mustache’ gives Greta his take on the Egyptian crisis, his skepticism of the reporting, his concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood, and his thoughts on Mubarak and the military’s move, as well as what this means for America…
“What the Crisis in Egypt Means to the United States” posted On the Record

Morris is not alone in questioning whether Obama’s reaction will lead to similar results as Carter’s failure with Iran…
“WHO LOST EGYPT?” by Dick Morris
It’s Morris’s thought that “We need to debunk the starry eyed idealistic yearning for reform and the fantasy that a liberal democracy will come from these demonstrations. It won’t. Iranian domination will.” And “We must not let the two most populous and powerful nations in the region fall under the sway of Muslim extremism, the one through the weakness of Jimmy Carter and the other through the weakness of Barack Obama.”

But perhaps more damaging for America on the world stage, thus presenting an opportunity for future blame, is how market manipulation here has factored into their dire equation…” like pouring inflationary lighter fluid on the world and then lighting a match.”
“Fed Policy Burns Down the Middle East, Who’s Next?” posted by Editor
Many share in Daringminds’ accessment of these recent events: “The riots and revolutionary activity burning down Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt are about gut-level economics.” This sadly may be the case more than the actual plight of ‘democracy’.

Friday, January 28, 2011

A brewing storm…

Looking more closely at the situation in Egypt and factoring all the elements, I think this blogger is getting it SO RIGHT where the media is so wrong!
“Riot Like It’s 1979! There will NOT be democracy in Egypt” by Northern Thoughts and Reflections
Earlier this week, we saw the takeover of Lebanon by Hezbollah:
“Hezbollah Taking over Lebanon” by Emily
Hamas rules the Palestinians, now Hezbollah is taking over Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood is making a move towards Egyptian rule...
Radical Islam is on the march, folks!

A legitimate democratic uprising is a good thing, and 'should' be for any oppressed people (Tunisia is viewed as starting this ‘pro-democracy’ chain-reaction, but even it has the Islamists to deal with who want to take the country backwards)...unfortunately, when you're in a part of the world that has radical militant groups lurching around every corner, waiting at a whim to seize power, those seeking genuine democracy are victims of tyrannical handoffs.

Lay of the Land towards 2012 (part 2)

Since the beginning of the month, the landscape has started to shift a bit for our ‘presidential hopefuls’. Whispers and rumors abound! First up, is she or isn’t she?! If so, one more phenomenal addition to the roster!
“Bachmann's Iowa trip could preview White House bid” by Catalina Camia
VERY GOOD if it's a YES; however, it is possible she might be going for the Senate instead...time will tell! But as Greta would say, “You Decide.”
Bachmann: Planting the Seeds of 2012 in Iowa?

Next up, we’ve got a confirmed PASS on a presidential bid…bummer!
“Mike Pence passes on 2012 presidential bid” by Chris Cillizza
That knocks out one principled conservative…but wait!

Try to hold in the excitement, this is still very much a rumor, but might I suggest Prayers All Around, for this is the reluctant leader who SHOULD be our next president, IMHO!
“Aides Say Jim DeMint Would Consider 2012 Presidential Run…” by ZIP
If these ‘aides’ are messing with us, so help me!

Well, that’s all for now, but with this ever-shifting search, I’m sure we’ll hear more news in the weeks to come…

ADDENDUM: Hillyer is absolutely correct on this one…presidential contenders should have their staff “analyzing all of his/her weaknesses and drawing up a brutal list of things opponents will attack him/her on.” And he helps them get the ‘list’ started…they’ll need to have clear, concise answers for all!
“The Presidential Naysayers Guide” by Quin Hillyer

Grab a shovel!

Like clockwork, the morning after the SOTU speech, the CBO came out with figures that show the deficit growing to $1.5T this year!
“CBO: Deficit widened to $1.5 trillion this year” by Erik Wasson

With such unsustainability comes precise decision-making. Now, constitutional amendments are not something mentioned lightly. They are not called upon for self-aggrandizing purposes or growing government, but for serious matters that call for great responsibility in serving the body politic. It is with great care that these Senators take on the task, advised by Goldwater and Reagan, to introduce a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in order to save this nation from insurmountable debt and utter plunder!
“The proposed amendment would bring down the nation’s skyrocketing national debt by requiring balanced budgets and prohibiting deficit spending or tax increases unless approved by two-thirds of the House and Senate.” Amen! This is the most sensible suggestion I’ve heard come from Congress in years.

Supplement that bold proposal with these suggested cuts and eliminations from the Heritage Foundation to begin shrinking the behemoth of Big Government.
“How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget” by Brian Riedl

The time cannot be more ripe, and arguably past due, for a balanced budget amendment. God Help Us…give our leaders the Strength, Endurance and Intelligence to turn this ship around!

Thursday, January 27, 2011

The Gipper warned us

“You can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.” ~ Ronaldus Magnus

He knew them better than they know themselves...they're not 'progressives', they are REGRESSIVES!

Obamacare? Are you kidding me...NEVER would have been supported, pushed or signed by Reagan! You're not fooling anyone, Barry.

The American People recognize statism when they see it (Reagan's one of the men who taught us to recognize it)! They understood that this so-called Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) was repackaged socialized medicine and that this had more to do with gov’t control than individual health choice. They rejected it then, but the political elite said, “settle down, you’ll learn to like it.” Well, guess again!
“Obamacare Less Popular than Any Time Since it Became Law” by Jeffrey H. Anderson

And, why all the waivers? I thought Obamacare was going to cover everyone? Oh right, you won’t loose your insurance…right. Its failing popularity is a reaction to businesses inability to afford and work within the constraints of this so-called ‘reform’!
“HHS grants 500 new healthcare waivers” by Jason Millman

Reagan warned against all of this! Unfortunately, no matter how right he was then and now, our generation shrugged and allowed leaders to rise, who in turn chose poorly. Now we must claw our way out of the hole Reagan called socialized medicine.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Congresswoman Giffords' soul survival is a testament to the BEST and most advanced healthcare system in the world...and her president, as well as her party, are making a fervent attempt to dismantle it in the pursuit of power!

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Moving forward with repeal

So moving on from the SOTU speech, the good Senator Jim DeMint says let's get back to work and finish what the House started with the repeal of Obamacare!
“Healthcare repeal bill makes Senate debut” by Michael O'Brien
A very encouraging thing to hear is that McConnell and DeMint appear to be in sync with the repeal effort. "Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he'll "assure" a Senate vote on repeal, and on Tuesday night made a procedural move to add the House-passed repeal bill to the Senate calendar." Right on! And this article names names, so hopefully the holdouts will feel the pressure – the ‘usual suspects’: Alexander, Brown, Lugar, Murkowski. Sessions name is also listed among those who haven’t signed on...hopefully that one will change soon.

Meanwhile, the damnable indictments against Obamacare keep stacking up: "The government’s chief actuary for Medicare spending on Wednesday said he had more confidence that Republican Paul Ryan’s plan to reform entitlements would drive down health-care costs than President Obama’s recently passed overhaul."
“Medicare actuary more confident in Paul Ryans’s ‘Road Map’ cost controls than Obama’s health law” by Jon Ward‘road-map’-cost-controls-than-obamas-health-law/

I could've had a Sputnik! (UPDATE)

Seems we've heard it all before...
“What Crisis?” by Yuval Levin

"Instead, at the same time that he speaks of fiscal restraint, Obama proposes more spending....Obama understands so little of capitalism that he actually thinks that businesses need more government oversight and "investment." He simply can't get beyond the idea of statism: the belief that every aspect of life, from what sort of car the public drives to how much profit a business is allowed to retain, must be decided by government planners in Washington."
“Excuses, Excuses” by Jeffrey Folks
“In reality, the State of the Union had nothing to do with creating jobs or competitiveness....To win reelection, the president must reignite his political base -- and raise a great deal of cash. Shamefully, and unabashedly, Obama devoted his second State of the Union address to these two goals. Winning reelection seems to be the only competition he is interested in.”

...and there you go. Campaign mode 2.0:
“Obama 2.0 - the SOTU” by Ed Lasky

Ben Stein gave a colorful take on the SOTU speech over at the American Spectator:
“Obama and the Bodysnatchers” by Ben Stein
"Obama does not seem like a leader anymore....One final note: in its lack of eloquence, its complete absence of high points, its elementary school pedagogy, its complete absence of any interesting or memorable phrases, it was possibly the lamest SOTU speech I have ever heard."

‎ ‎...and then there was...
Frank Luntz focus group responds to Obama SOTU-BS

UPDATE: Oh, and getting back to the feeling that we’ve ‘heard it all before’…quite literally!
“Obama's State of the Union Was Tantamount to Plagiarism” by Alvin Felzenberg

"Words, just words."

Obama was hoping to come out of this appearing fiscally JFK-like, with a little Reagan inspiration and Clinton moderation thrown in…but what he showed us is that he closer resembles a repackaging of LBJ Big Government and Carter no-nothing…and even that appears to be plagiarized!

ADDENDUM: DeMint has even made Rush rethink his criticism this morning: "It's hard to take the president seriously." BINGO!
Sen. Jim DeMint Reacts To State Of The Union

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

You're making us look like Charlie Brown!

…is our message to Establishment Republicans…

Levin: Obama recreating image, not agenda

"How much time did the Founding Fathers spend discussing civility? Probably none. In fact, they called each other all kinds of names. They did it directly; they did it through their favorite pamphleteers and newspapers. They even paid some “reporters” to dig up dirt about their family lines, of whether their opponents had illegitimate children or bizarre diseases, all these things went on. Did you know this? I wonder how much they discussed publicly and at length where they were going to sit at the Continental Congress, and later, the United States Congress? Whether they’d sit together, sit by Party? Now traditionally, they sat by Party. But how much time did they spend going over this? Probably almost none. I wonder how much time our Founding Fathers spent trying to dupe their fellow citizens with intentionally misleading words? Like talking about ‘investments’ rather than ‘spending’; ‘investments’ rather than ‘tax increases’. My guess is little or none.

Dishonesty, dissembling and diverting are not virtues, and they’re not civil, and we’re getting a lot of this from those who demand civility. Nor are they the elements of leadership or statesmanship. One of the biggest problems we have today is the manner in which our elected representatives treat us, how they look at us, especially Obama.

In one or two speeches, at a memorial and a coming State of the Union Address, he expects you to believe he has miraculously changed from decades of political radicalism and two years of governing incompetently to a centrist administrator. Now, the fact is, this is incredibly self-serving of him. The American People have rejected Obama and his agenda; so Obama is recreating his image, not his radical agenda, his image. The fact is he’s recreating his image so he can protect his radical policies that have already been instituted and advance new ones. He hasn’t moved substantively anywhere. The radicals on the Left, they have to lie, they have to deceive, they have to recreate. This is how they survive. Their ideology is an impossibility. It’s disastrous. And yet, this is how they win elections. Obama’s cause remains the same. He didn’t suddenly decide to reverse course. If so, where? This is all about manipulating you, creating impressions and so forth. There’s nothing real about any of this. There’s nothing real about what he will say tomorrow. It’s a show.

Tell me, how can the man who signed the most radical law in modern times, Obamacare, knowing full well that at least one of its provisions was unconstitutional, and that the entire undertaking would further bankrupt the nation and destroy our healthcare system, how would he suddenly decide that he needs to work with Republicans or that he needs to moderate his politics? This is preposterous. Has Obama called off his lawyers in the Obamacare litigation? No. Has he called off his lawyers against Arizona on the immigration law? No. Has he called off his lawyers going after Texas over the environment? No. Has he called off anything or anyone? No! Has he called off the rabid dogs on MSNBC? No! He hasn’t lifted a finger.

Here’s a man who sets up a deficit commission and rejects virtually every proposal it develops. What’s that? He issued an executive order last week to review wasteful regulations; at the exact time, he directed his EPA to continue to pursue a far-reaching and economically radical agenda through destructive regulations, including shutting down coal mines. He’s directed his Interior Department to effectively shut down offshore drilling; the price of gasoline is going up. He signed regulations choking our financial industries, while exempting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because he needs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He’s nationalized the student loan program and two auto industries. And these two auto companies: he nationalized them, he rewarded the UAW, punished the investors. He took care of his cronies, and he took care of his opponents, with different outcomes. This is a man who’s suddenly moderating?

Obama is pushing as I speak to prevent secret ballots for employees who may not want to join a union. Moderating. He intentionally nominates the most radical lawyers and law professors he can find to positions on the federal court and the Justice Department. Moderating. His FCC is the most reckless, leftist, radical FCC in my memory; it’s attempting to regulate the internet in defiance of a federal court ruling. Oh yes, he’s seen the light, he’s ‘pivoting’ as they say. And his Agriculture Department is regulating school bake sales and pizza parties. In other words, nothing escapes the attention of the Obama administration. Nothing is left to the decisions of individuals, or as little as possible. And I can go on and on. Moderating he is, huh? Civil he is, huh?

And I suppose to believe what comes out of Obama’s mouth, that I’m supposed to ignore everything around me? So Obama agrees to a tax deal that leaves current tax rates in place for two years only, while vowing to make it a campaign issue when he runs for president again. And we’re told that shows he can govern? And that deal also increased the death tax and further increased federal spending when there’s no money left to spend. This is evidence that Obama is moving to the center? That he can be worked with? That was the great deal? The idea that we’re going to allow the temporary politicians in Washington and their media cheerleaders, who’ve turned this society on its head, tell us what to think, how to think, and why to think what we think and how we think, is not going to happen. Not after a State of the Union address, not after any address, not after anything. They’re the people who we seek to replace, to stop, to defeat. They don’t get to lecture us and tell us who we are and how we are or anything else.

Let me be as clear as I can: Obama says he wants to transform our nation (we have the audio). He sets out to do it. That’s his intention. He’s wasted no time. Yet we’re to believe that what he’s done is not ‘transformative’ (even though he told us it was), that he loves this society? Well, who’d transform a society that you love? And besides, he's pivoting to become more moderate. Why? Because he says he is? Or his supporters do, or the media do? That’s insane.
Why shouldn’t we acknowledge what he has done? Why shouldn’t we label what he has done? ‘Transformative’, that’s his word. Why doesn’t he deserve the credit, or I would say discredit, for everything he’s done? Why shouldn’t we acknowledge it?

The ideological fanatics who helped elect Obama supported him because they saw him and see him as one of them. The difference is they support his agenda, and we don’t. The issue for me is not where Obama was born, but where his ideology was born. His ideology is alien; it’s alien to this nation’s traditions, institutions and yes, values. I don’t know why saying the obvious is so controversial? I’ve listened to the man; he characterizes what he’s doing as ‘transformative’, thinking outside the box, making us do things that we wouldn’t otherwise think we should do, and so forth. This isn’t a man who seeks to govern strictly under the limited role a president has under the Constitution. He’s demonstrated it. It’s not an academic debate; it’s a fact! He’s acknowledged who he is, so we acknowledge that he’s right. The fact that he attempts to genuflect for political purposes to remake his image, not his ideology, is something we’re not prepared to [accept]. He has no intention of reversing course. What he does intend to do is institutionalize his agenda in this vast bureaucracy through executive power. His friends at the Center for American Progress have said so. We see that’s exactly what he’s doing. And he wants those decisions to be upheld against challenges in the federal courts by packing those courts with like-minded radicals. That’s exactly what he’s doing. Moderation and practicality are not in this man’s DNA.

The fact that he’s going to huddle with his advisors, ’the Svengali’, and come up with clever phrases and words to make you think (they think) that he embraces this society when he seeks to transform it, is not going to be persuasive to you or me in the least. I don’t care if it comes from FOX, MSNBC, CNN or any other networks. If Obama gave no State of the Union Address, that wouldn’t change my view of what he’s done and where he wants to take us. Why is the mere fact of the State of the Union Address supposed to convince me otherwise?

Now when the Republicans two years ago were whipped in the election, its leaders urged a course different than what the tea party activists and other conservatives insisted on. They were prepared to sell out to make deals to pander. They were panicked. They settled into the mindset of a permanent minority, or at least decades to come. The last thing they wanted to do was move back into the conservative camp. Conservatism (they told us) was not appealing. It was too regional. Well, they were dead wrong. You, WE, changed that, not THEM! I want you to remember that. They would have been perfectly happy to go along with Colin Powell and so forth. You and we changed that. You delivered them the House of Representatives in November. You’ll deliver them the Senate, and God Willing, the Presidency in the next election. You will give them the power they need to begin to turn the ship of State back on course. But that is what they must do and we expect no less. And in order to advance the cause of Liberty and Constitutionalism and the Civil Society that Big Government smothers, they must not become so easily befuddled or awestruck by carefully crafted propaganda and those who promote it.”

~ Mark Levin 01/24/11

Source: The Mark Levin Show


“If you ask yourself, "What would our voters do?" and if you know your voters don't want you getting involved in these PR shows for "civility," then don't do it.” ~ Rush Limbaugh

“If there is a common enemy in Washington, among those who will sit together tonight, it is the Tea Party. The Democrats don't like the Tea Party because the Tea Party engineered their defeat. The Republicans, some members, don't like the Tea Party because the Tea Party illustrates what they have to do to win and they're not really comfortable with that.” ~ Rush Limbaugh

Source: The Rush Limbaugh Show

Monday, January 24, 2011

‘Kumbaya’ camp fire turns to freakin’ Prom Night!

Date Night? Courting? Going Stag? &%#$! What a bunch of freakin'…I can’t say it! One ‘civil’ description that comes to mind is ‘juvenile dopes’, especially members of the GOP that go along with this. Add Obama's platitudes upon droning platitude, and I seriously don’t think I can watch this CRAP!
“State of the Union 'Date Night': Lawmakers Court Seating Partners, Some to Go Stag” by Devin Dwyer

I pray that we don't see members of the CALVARY paired up! I know Mark Kirk has paired up, although while he's a newbie, he's hardly a conservative. I seriously don't think I can watch this blather...besides the 'couples', I just can't take being willingly lied to!

Cut, Cut, Cut!

So, what else was on the House GOP's 'to do' list? Oh yeah!
“House GOP Lists $2.5 Trillion in Spending Cuts” by Paul Bedard

We always here the questions, “Where are the specifics?” or “What are you gonna cut?” These questions are immediately followed by scare tactics (e.g., cutting Medicare, Social Security, etc.). Well, within this proposal, we absolutely see the SPECIFICS. Now we’re sure to hear from each of these affected entities, and the wagon circling will begin, but one thing is for certain: the tireless rhetoric (“no ideas” and “Party of No”) weights no merit, as if it ever did. Now Democrats are left holding the question, “What domestic cuts would you make?! Time and time again, they make the effort, but the results produce none SPECIFIC.
Spending Reduction Act of 2011

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Make Mine Freedom

“When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other through class warfare, race hatred or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives, and we know what to do about it!”

Sound like anybody or entity you know?!

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Reflecting on JFK

"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?" ~ Milton Friedman
“Milton Friedman on JFK's Inaugural Speech” by Philip Klein

"Today marks the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's presidency, beginning with his historic inaugural address...Much less remarked upon was Kennedy's defense of individual rights, freedom, a hawkish foreign policy, and resistance of atheistic communism."
“When Democrats Were Cold Warriors” by Paul Kengor

Mark Levin on "a serious legislative effort"

“You see, only expanding government, creating massive unfunded entitlements, sinking the nation further into debt and eventually bankruptcy is a ‘serious legislative effort’. An attempt to contain the damage that’s been done by this administration, and eventually reverse course, and eventually reinstitute Constitutional provisions – like the commerce clause, so that individuals are not compelled to do something against their will with their own money – that’s not ‘serious’. See, we’re not serious, we promote violence through our rhetoric, we’re right-wingers. Meanwhile, the 20% of the leftists who cling to power, who secrete themselves in positions of influence, whether it’s the media or Hollywood or high levels of government, they’re serious, they’re good people, they’re civil, and all the rest of it. We’re not buying this crap anymore. No way…this is a serious effort. And it needs to be done over and over again, and we need to have this debate over and over again about what kind of society we want to live in: a transformidable one, as Obama would call it, or a constitutional one. Let me help the liberals out with that point too.

The Constitution is not about transforming society. The Constitution is about protecting the individual in an ordered society where there’s a stable law, where most of the authority is at a local level, not at a centralized federal level with bureaucrats and federal politicians. So, if you want to transform the society, how do you transform it when the Constitution stands in your way? How do you transform the society when the Constitution places specific limits on the federal government as opposed to the individual? You can’t transform society and uphold the Constitution at the same time. You just can’t. And the liberals used to agree with us.

Two-and-a-half, three weeks ago, when the majority in the House started to read the Constitution on the floor, we had one of them after another telling us there’s something wrong with us [and] our sick love affair with the Constitution. I mean, it’s over a hundred years old, they said. And it’s very confusing; it’s incoherent, it can’t really be understood. Even though all these members of Congress take an oath to uphold it, they’re upholding something they don’t understand.

Meanwhile, they tell us that attacks on Obama’s policies, well there’s something wrong with us, we’re anti-government. Their pro-government, but against the Constitution, and we’re anti-government, but for the Constitution? Does that make sense? What else do they tell us?

They tell us that we must adhere to court rulings and precedent. But why must we adhere to court rulings and precedent, if we don’t have to adhere to the Constitution? It is they who promote anarchy, and anarchy gets what? Tyranny. Yes it does.”

~ Mark Levin 01/18/11

Source: The Mark Levin Show

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Oh, how quickly they grow…uncivil

How's everybody like this 'new tone of civility'? LOL!!
“Democratic lawmaker compares GOP health law claims to Nazi 'lies'” by Jordan Fabian

...and ol' Deb exploits the Tucson massacre:
“Democrat Exploits Tucson Massacre to Defend Obamacare”
...not the first, won't be the last...civility? My @$$.

Here's some of the other loud-mouths...err, I mean...’civil’ congressmembers:

Jackass Lee:
“Jackson-Lee: Repealing Obamacare ‘Unconstitutional,’ Means ‘Killing Americans’” by Daniel Foster

The Weiner (knew he'd get his empty jabs in):
“Anthony Weiner’s Healthcare Half-Time [Video]” by Reid Pillifant

Someone should really pump in some circus music into the chamber when these speeches go south! Better yet, just start playing the academy music over them and lower their mics whenever they stray off course!

…the day we fight back! (UPDATE)

As the House debates the repeal of Obamacare today, we'll hear repetitive mention of 'pre-existing conditions' among the Left (and probably a few on the Right)...however, the following information is unfortunately sure to be left out!
“HHS Wildly Overstates the Problem of Pre-Existing Conditions — and Ignores Its Cause” by Michael F. Cannon

As well as who's the largest denier of health care claims...uh oh:
“AMA Endorses Largest Denier of Health Care Claims” by Patrick Tuohey

"As the House prepares debate on the future of the $1 trillion health care overhaul enacted last year, 200 economists have asked members of Congress to repeal the act." ...better late than never!
“200 Economists Ask Lawmakers to Repeal Obamacare” by Fred Lucas

And here's more details similar to what Paul Ryan has been telling us about the trumped up numbers given to the CBO, but focused more on the 'assumptions':
“CBO Wrong: ObamaCare Repeal Would Not Increase Deficits” by Kathryn Nix

So when repeal passes the House today, Heritage gives us some insight into the procedural movement of the bill to (and through) the Senate...but also warns us, "If the supporters of a full repeal of Obamacare don’t use the Senate’s rules to force a vote on full repeal, don’t take them seriously when they say they really want to repeal President Obama’s de facto government takeover of health care."
Can Obamacare be repealed in the Senate?

UPDATE: At approximately 5pm, every Republican in the House and 3 Democrats voted to REPEAL Obamacare!

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Can you smell the campaign season?

Abraham Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Well, that’s certainly what Obama is banking on. And he’s 'so busy' that he had time to write an op ed in the WSJ exuding his rhetorical turn-around. After his Wellstone II speech, Step 2 of the campaign: return to the appearance of a 'centrist' (afterall, it helped win the election the first time around!). Who believes Obama is capable of 'moderating'? Please...
“Toward a 21st-Century Regulatory System” by Barack Obama

Here's more elaborations on "Step 2":
“In Another Proverbial Move to Center, President Obama to Sign Executive Order Against Cumbersome and "Dumb" Government Regulations” by Jake Tapper

ADDENDUM: Obama’s caught in a blatant BS moment in his 'move to the center'. Just another part of his 2012 campaign, folks...
“Obama now praises Reagan as inspiration; in '95, denounced his 'dirty deeds'” by Byron York

Repeal it!

So back on track with the 112th...
“House kicks off debate over health-care repeal” by Felicia Sonmez

Of course, we've got the media trying to spin the polls. However, I'd hope our congressmen would take this advise:
"GOP Should Repeal Healthcare Law Regardless of Polls" by Scott Galupo
...that title should read "...Regardless of TRUMPED UP Polls!"

I think I'll stick with Rasmussen (and other legitimate sources):
“Most Still Favor Repeal of Health Care Law, Say It Will Increase Deficit”

Here's another one. After you get past the spin, it says it right there: "Eighty percent say the president should work to pass legislation Democrats and Republicans can agree on, even if it's not what most Democrats want."
“Poll: Most want Obama, GOP to work together” by Susan Page
Hello, REPEAL! Now realistically, we know he'll never sign it, but they should keep pressuring him to do so...until he's out and the next guy will.

Back to ‘civility’…or the lack thereof

From the get-go, the debate over the Tucson massacre quickly snowballed into every liberal media entity pointing the finger at Palin, Rush, the tea party, you name it. The MSM told us this discourse was the Right’s fault. So now we start yet another week with Sunday’s pathetic Meet the Press Schumer/Coburn interview from David Gregory that I'm sure everyone's seen by now (Rush, Hannity, Levin and others have covered it throughout the day), in which Gregory attempts to blame ALL discourse on the Right...umm, did he forget about the Bush/Republican-hating deranged Left over the past decade?!
Schumer, Coburn on post Tucson political discourse
Of course not...but that's to be swept under the rug; afterall, we are talking about the MSM mouthpieces of the Dem administration. Now that Republicans have begun to take back power, NOW we've got to maintain the Left's notion of 'civility' (remember, that means "Shut Up!"). And for the wishy-washy Coburn to be the ‘Republican’ on the show…Heaven forbid they invite anyone from the senior class with a backbone (DeMint) or any of the freshmen (Rubio)!

But if there’s one glimmer of light in the ‘civility’ debate, it’s that Americans aren’t buying the liberal media blitz anymore.
Most Americans View Arizona Shootings As Random Act of Violence, Not Politics

Perhaps we should all take Levin's suggestion and just email Gregory (and other mouth-pieces for the Left) a sample of REAL investigative journalism, like what Michelle Malkin has been doing in the short span of a mere week, starting with this one from last Monday...
“The progressive “climate of hate:” An illustrated primer, 2000-2010” by Michelle Malkin
‎...and continuing the discussion of blaming the Right with regards to the "amnesia-wracked blamestream media"...
“Blame Righty: A condensed history” by Michelle Malkin
...and finally culminating into an MLK Day observation/proposal...
“MLK Day proposal: Give the race card a rest” by Michelle Malkin
These pieces are crammed full of investigative reporting that I’d encourage everyone to look at from time to time as a memory refresher. THIS is research authenticated by real facts, David Gregory! How's your brand of 'civility' looking now?!

‎"A lie cannot live." ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Holding hands and singing ‘Kumbaya’

And now for some 'civil' ignorance! Any GOP members that fall for this political stunt on the precept that the Dems desire 'civility' (no less using the recent disaster once again for their own purposes) deserve ridicule for it. Call your Sens. and Reps. and tell them DO NOT DO THIS! America needs to SEE the rewards of November.
“Why Dems Want Everyone to Sit Together at the State of the Union” transcript from The Rush Limbaugh Show
And to cut to the chase of this discussion, here's the REAL reason for Udall's proposal: "For the first time in years Republicans have a noticeable majority in the House chamber during a State of the Union, and what the Democrats want to do here is dilute it so that during obvious Republican stand up lines it's not apparent how many Republicans there are, if they're all sprinkled out among the Democrats."

Friday, January 14, 2011

Alexis de Tocqueville on “What Kind of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear”

Here’s an excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy In America from the chapter entitled “What Kind of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear” (Levin read this excerpt yesterday on his radio program shortly after giving the previous notation)

I’ve BOLDED several words, phrases and paragraphs throughout this excerpt that I find so profoundly poignant when reflecting on our current national state and the comparative situation that we as Americans find ourselves facing. However, it’s not so surprising that such a powerful message continues to resonate, as this is the man who spawned the original phrase that Levin has now resurrected, the ‘soft tyranny’.

“I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.”

Source: Democracy in America

Mark Levin on 'Civility'

In asking “What does ‘civility’ mean in the context of our society? That is, what is a civil society?” Mark turns to the familiar words that he wrote in Liberty and Tyranny:

     “In the civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group; rather, he is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life in all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment. As such, the individual in the civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous – that is, restrained, ethical, and honest. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, and means and ends.”


     "In the civil society, the individual has a duty to respect the unalienable rights of others and the values, customs, and traditions tried and tested over time and passed from one generation to the next, that establish society’s cultural identity. He is responsible for attending to his own well-being and that of his family. And he has a duty as a citizen to contribute voluntarily to the welfare of his community through good works.
     In the civil society, private property and liberty are inseparable. The individual’s right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to acquire and possess property, which represents the fruits of his own intellectual and/or physical labor. As the individual’s time on earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his private property enslaves him to another and denies him his liberty.”


     “In the civil society, a rule of law, which is just, known, and predictable and applied equally albeit imperfectly, provides the governing framework for and restraints on the polity; thereby nurturing the civil society and serving as a check against the arbitrary use and, hence, abuse of power.
     For the Conservative, the civil society has as its highest purpose its preservation and improvement.
     The Modern Liberal believes in the supremacy of the state, thereby rejecting the principles of the Declaration and the order of the civil society…”

…and you can see this on display the other week with the attacks on the Constitution.

“For the Modern Liberal, the individual’s imperfection and personal pursuits impede the objective of a utopian state. In this, Modern Liberalism promotes what French historian Alexis de Tocqueville describes as a soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, potentially leading to a hard tyranny… As the word “liberal” is, in its classical meaning, the opposite of authoritarian, it’s more accurate, therefore, to characterize the Modern Liberal as a Statist.”

~ Mark Levin 01/13/11

Source: The Mark Levin Show, Liberty and Tyranny

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Civility = “Shut Up!” (UPDATE)

One could consider current events, but also reflect on what Andrew Klavan reveals to be the strategy used to silence criticism and ideas of conservative thinkers (note that this was nearly 2 years ago, fittingly just a few short months following Obama’s election):

A pretty eye-opening piece! Can’t you feel the civility? Well, this masquerade has been going on for quite sometime. So now the new way to encourage conservatives to ‘Shut Up’ is wrapped in the context of ‘civility’. Now of course, this isn’t ‘real’ civility, but rather an illusory meaning that should only apply to us. Actually, neither is the this strategy a new one that exempts liberals.

Let’s take for instance a few choice moments in the context of our current tragedy, like Clinton’s fake crying at Ron Brown’s funeral:

Or the distasteful action of transforming Paul Wellstone’s memorial service into a Democrat political rally:

Mirroring that (actually with more prep, you know, t-shirts and all), Chariot One arrived in Tucson, miracles occurred, eyes were opened, and Wellstone II commenced…yes, the 2012 Democrat presidential campaign began at the AZ memorial in all its disrespectful glory, and the media has proclaimed that Republicans should go ahead and throw in the towel! Actually, I really couldn’t say it any better than this guy:

Despite the never-ending hypocrisy, I feel like I should leave you with something to compare these displays of so-called ‘civility’ to. Here’s a perfect example of an actual solemn and civil address (in the most honest meaning of ‘civility’)…no auditorium, no t-shirts, no politics:

UPDATE: Oops! There’s more to those t-shirts…oh no.
“Theme of “Together We Thrive” T-shirt came from Obama’s Organizing for America” by Judi McLeod

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Frédéric Bastiat on an Enduring Government and its Complete Perversion

After taking into account that Bastiat's book "The Law" was written some 160+ years ago in response to events surrounding the French Revolution, not only does one reflect on how 'history repeats itself', but how it sometimes has an uncanny accuracy towards replication! For example, this critique reads like it was written yesterday...

A Just and Enduring Government

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.

The Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense. ...

I reflect on Bastiat's words for this reason: Mere days after the reading of the Constitution in the House chamber, an unrelated tragedy occurs in AZ and the opportunistic disregard the text they've just read (Brady's graphics/language ban; Clyburn's fairness doctrine; McCarthy's gun ban), along with their Media cheering. The Left will use any 'crisis' they need to abandon gov't's proper role and pervert the law. And you can be sure that there are more than a few willingly duped RINOs ready to join in!

My hope is that more Americans can move past the non-stop media spin, and pay more attention to addressing the Left's opportunistic moves to inact restrictive new laws. This should absolutely be a focal point of contention towards the real problems that face our Nation, not straw man arguments and other distractive fallacies.

Source: The Law (Loi)