THE RECLAMATION OF INDEPENDENCE

I’m not generally a “shot across the bows” kinda guy, but I felt that this message was important enough to be given in the form of a ‘fair warning’.  If you agree, please attach your name or alias, post it, and pass it on.

FAILURE TO TAKE HEED AND ACT ACCORDINGLY FROM THIS POINT FORWARD IS UNDERTAKEN AT YOUR PERIL.

 

 

WHEN IN THE GENERATIONS  SUCCEEDING the one that pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to usher in the birth of the world’s only truly free nation, Liberty’s Progeny incrementally ceded their birthright to the government conceived and designed to serve a free people, and not be its servant, this generation is awakening to the terrible mistake that we, and our ancestors allowed to happen.  Charged with the terrible knowledge that comes with opened eyes, we now take up the long abdicated duty to rouse our fellow citizens and actively wrest the power and the liberties that have been progressively talked, cajoled, threatened, wheedled, and extorted from us, not only by those who ostensibly served us, but by their supporters and enablers who, by accident or design, saw fit to usurp and disdain such freedoms, that they might be withheld, and where impossible to withhold, might be condemned, until a corrosive contempt for these liberties, wrapped in velvet gloves, might so suffocate the circulation of them that this nation, conceived in liberty and the providence of a wise and benevolent creator, might indeed perish from the earth, plunging the rightful heirs of a proud and noble heritage in the the darkened waters of chaos, despair, and evil that surround them, a dank deluge that even today, other human beings actively seek to escape from in the inspiring embrace of this blessed and free country.

We, the awakened and aware, freely accept the charge that the architects of this republic passed on to us over two centuries before, in the hope that all who partook in the blessings made possible by nation they created would somberly undertake the duties of citizens, and so appropriately train themselves in virtue, and educate themselves in the workings of the precepts and ideals set forth in their foundational documents that they would possess enough wisdom to recognize that not all threats to our freedom would come from without our ranks, the knowledge to recognize that not every chain and shackle menacing us will immediately appear to be what it actually is, and the humilitynot to assume that the ingenuity and innovation that has been the hallmark of American success has been the product of man alone.

To this end, we hereby identify and reclaim our independence from the tools used to slowly enslave a free people and usurp the freedoms that we could not be persuaded to freely give up, or voluntarily suppress the free exercise of on our own:

1.  We reclaim our independence from the tyranny of ‘Political Correctness’.

The Constitution does not now, nor has it ever guaranteed a right to be free from being offended.  Early successes in causing the disruption of free speech by insisting on the use of words or terms stripped of their meaning or altered by redefinition and deliberate use of ephemism, in order to avoid offending more delicate sensibilities lead to its use to deliberately avoid, delay, or prevent the free exchange and communication of ideas because we allowed ourselves to be more afraid of offending someone or being branded with a label chosen to imply that there was a problem with the offending speaker, rather than the intended recipient. 

No more.

Words have meaning and names have power.  But truth overcomes, when it is given the opportunity to exist unfettered by the artificial restraints that those who fear it would place upon it.  The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why they favored the “marketplace of ideas” approach.  And we now ratify and affirm this concept, having borne witness to the damage and impaired decision making that results when we remain silent and let others avoid any real discussion of topics, events, and ideas out of the fear that we might offend someone.

2.  We reclaim our independence from your victimhood.

For too long, we have stood by silently, and allowed some to increasingly balkanize this country with sob stories of how one thing or another makes them a victim, and therefore they deserve some special deference, special preference, and recognition that they are special.   We watched for too long, with growing alarm, as the hyphenated-Americans increasingly failed to take it upon themselves to overcome their victim status, yet continually expect to be rewarded for it as they brandished their victimhood like a cudgel, ready to bludgeon any who dared to question their entitlements and almost rapacious appetites to expand them.

No more.

One of the many unique blessings that this country has to offer is the presence of second and third and fourth chances.  Others know this, and rather than think that the good things available to those who work for them were something that they were simply entitled to by virtue of their sob story, real or imagined, they decided to man up, and overcome.  That doesn’t happen through accepting help and deciding to continually demand more. We are a generous people, but there are limits.  Decide of your own accord to know the satisfaction of making your own destiny, rather than subsistence on the labor of others.  You might be surprised at what you accomplish, or how that might come to benefit your fellow citizen in ways that you cannot even imagine.

3.  We reclaim our independence from the myth of a compelling interest in diversity at the cost of excellence.

The latest affront to the ‘American Exceptionalism’ that our current President feels the need to apologize for in foreign capitols is the recent notion of a “compelling interest in diversity in our government, our institutions, and our culture”.   This is the bastard child of Political Correctness and victimhood, which would not have been possible without the misapprehension of the concept of equality as enshrined in our law, the correct interpretation being that citizens of this country have equality of opportunity and equality in stature in the eyes of the laws that govern us.  Once the “right” of offense took hold and started keeping company with victimhood, those benefiting from the employment of both decided that equality really meant that everyone had a right to be to be surrounded in all walks of life by people who looked just like them, whether those people were qualified to fulfill those roles or not.

No more.

Americans rose to prominence in the world in no small part due to the idea of merit and the pursuit of excellence.  This was embodied in our government and institutions as much as in the private sector.  Civil Service exams for public sector jobs ensured not only that people could do the work required of them, but that the best qualified were hired to do the job.   Now, the standard in many fire departments, police departments, government agencies, and university staffs is not excellence, but the color of skin, gender, or sexual preference.  The identity has eclipsed ability and we are all the poorer for it.  Prepare for a change.

4.  We reclaim our independence from the contempt of our citizenship.

For too long, we have silently permitted others to use the appeal of emotion to exact our acquiescence in their actively allowing people who have violated our laws to come here to live and work among us without asking permission to do so, or obeying our laws in doing so.   We have allowed others to cajole us into allowing these persons to use our resources, and take benefits intended for citizens, without them being required to become citizens or apply for residence.  We have been too long silent as others continually advocate for the application of the protections that are conferred upon us as our birthright to those who are not citizens and have tried to kill citizens, or have expressed a deep-seated desire to do so.

No more.

No sane person so despises something of value that is theirs by virtue of “the accident of birth” that they simply would give it away to others who want it and yet show contempt for those who have it by stealing it from them.  Likewise, no sane person so dishonors a gift purchased with the blood of others that they will give it to those who only desire to kill or enslave them.  No longer will we be silent as others confer all the benefits and protections of citizenship upon those who disrespect it, or would steal such benefits and protections without assuming the responsibility to pay for them, or worse yet, murder us because we have them.

5.  We reclaim our independence from the “Freedom from religion” that has erroneously been read into the Constitution.

From the institution of Thanksgiving, to the architecture of our public buildings and monuments, the opening of government proceedings, down to the acknowledgement on our currency, this country has very deep and undeniable judeo-christian roots, and has been governed by leaders who unashamedly proclaimed their according personal beliefs while in office.   It has influenced our laws and been the bedrock of every ideal that has allowed this nation to grow and prosper.  This heritage has been the target of a decades long campaign to shove God out of the public square and exile him from congress with our elected officials by people who have refused the notion of a higher authority, because their own beliefs and desires are in contravention to those expressed by that higher authority. 

No more.

Assaulting our national heritage with such dubious legal notions such as a separation of church and state that forbids any mention of God or expression of religion on or in state-owned property, and dismantling existing law with the fallacious statement “You can’t legislate morality” does violence to our history and demonstrates weak logic and understanding of what law is.  The Founding Fathers’ intent with the Establishment Clause was the prevention of any one church gaining the favor and sanction of the Federal Government.  A ban on ANY expression of religion or belief in God was never their intention, and the evidence of that is still surrounding us to this day.  The current state of the law is based on a false premise that can be easily dismissed by a simple walk around the monuments and buildings in the District of Columbia, and taking out you wallet to pay for an ice cream cone.   As for the “You can’t legislate morality” canard, this is also false.   The law is, in its most simple essence, an expression of morality, codified.  The question that then arises is whose morality should be expressed in the law?   Those of people who can point to no particular belief system that has certain valuable virtues at its core, or those that can?

6.  We reclaim independence from the cynical attempts to use shame to stop us from speaking out.

We have all felt this.  The accusations that we are poor Christians because we refuse to give the government power not granted to it in the Constitution and go along with the currently contemplated healthcare reform bill.  The charges that we hate the Earth and our children, because we oppose the highest single tax increase ever, combined with the deleterious effect on American jobs that would result in the passage of the Cap and Tax bill, which owes its existence to the myth of man-made global warming and the fact that it feeds the Federal Government its two favorite entrees:  money and power.  The charges that we are bad, greedy, selfish people for not supporting the idea that government and welfare entitlements are the way to improve the lives of Americans who are struggling, whatever the reason.   The charges of “Racism” whenever we raise a provocative question or level a criticism at a person, policy, or idea that might happen to involve a person or persons who are not Caucasian.

No more.

Charges like “racist” and “racism” made without objective, quantitative support, and only the subjective justification of emotion will be ignored.  The race card is maxed out, and the bank is no longer willing to extend the credit line.  As for attacking our faith, or our practice thereof, we will no longer be held to account by people who do not understand the faith they would use as a weapon against believers, when the wielder subscribes to no belief system at all.   Those who rely only on themselves for the regulation of their conduct and ethics no longer get to condemn those who answer to a higher authority.  Not any more.  We reclaim control of the shame that you have opted out of, and we will no longer allow you to use it to make us answer to you.

7.  We reclaim independence from the notion that the Federal Government is the solution to every problem and the answer to every question.

For too long, we stood by and allowed debate and action on all matters, predicated upon on a destructive and dangerous idea:  That the Federal Government is the only way to meet a need, fix a problem, or prevent a problem.   In time it became a security blanket, and we became a nation of thumbsuckers, eager to give the federal Government more power and more money, if only it would keep us safe from life and the living of it as free people, until we no longer looked to it for protection from others who would have our liberties or destroy them; we looked to it for protection from the consequences of our own actions.

No more.

We were so fixated in seeking the federal government’s assistance with every aspect of our daily lives, no one within or without the Federal Government ever exercised restraint and said “No.  The Consitution does not give the Federal Government the authority to do that.”   And now that people are alert to the fact that the Federal Government is poised on the cusp of the largest power grab it has ever made with the healh care bill, some of us are finally saying  “No.  You do not have the authority.”    The stakes have never been more obvious.  Met with the anger of constituents who are actually paying attention, elected officials are employing various means to intimidate these citizens who are expressing their disgust and anger that a government that serves them would ever feel so entitled to our money and our data in the passage of something so clearly opposed by those who wold have to live under it, these servants have resorted to insulting their constituents, calling them shills in the pay of their political opponents, calling them stupid and saying that they simply did not understand the printed words on the pages of the bill, brazenly lying to them outright about what they have proposed and are considering, and filling audiences at public meetings with rent-a-mobs from the SEIU, ACORN, and others,  so that they will face a friendly audience that is also hostile to the voters opposed to this latest demonstration of government off its leash.   The days of promising good governance but delivering graft, corruption, and self serving sinecures are over.   We do not care about your party; both have proven themselves reckless and dishonest.   We demand that you act responsibly, that you do the people’s business, not your own, and we demand that you act within the confines of the Constitution.  No more will we simply accept legislation that exceeds the authority strictly enumerated in the Constitution.   No more will we accept interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause that are so tortured and stretched beyond reason or recognition as to be unrecognizable to anyone who has read the Constitution.   No longer will we accept legislation from the bench that relies not on interpretation of the Constitution, but mystical divination of mysterious penumbras that only a few ‘right-minded’  jurists can see.  Those days are over, and you can return usurped powers to the states and the individual citizens in whom the Constitution rightfully places them, or you can have them stripped from you.  

We, those who have come together in virtual congress to reclaim our independence from those who have by various means obtained it from us, realize that this probably wasn’t the HOPE! and CHANGE! that those persons had in mind, but nevertheless, the time has come.

 

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere

Free Citizen of the United States of America,

August 29, 2009

Read Full Post »

What The Hell Is In The Water In Virginia?

I really think its time for remedial instruction for Jim Moran and at least one of the members of law enforcement working outside of his town hall events in Virginia.   They obviously have had some trouble with certain key concepts vital to good governance here in this country.

First, Representative Moran accuses a Constituent of being an impostor, and demands to see his I.D. before he will deign to speak to the impertinent peasant.

Now I’m just a country lawyer, but when I see a member of the U.S. House of Representatives refuse to engage a constituent and answer a question at an event set up for precisely that purpose with out seeing his I.D. first, when we are not allowed to demand that voters show I.D. to vote, I think that something is very, very wrong with the elected officials in this country.  I also think that I would have liked to see the camera pan a little more so I could see the person with the wheelbarrow following behind Moran, carrying his testicles, because unless you’re insane, I think it takes an extraordinarily large pair to demand that a constituent show you I.D. before you speak to him at what had already proven to be a very contentious meeting.

But that wasn’t the full story.  Outside, we had Officer Cheeks (and jowls) deciding that it he was the arbiter of what political speech would be permitted, and what political speech would not be permitted.  He was assisted by someone who I can only assume, from the attitude and information shared, must be a teacher there at the school where the meeting was held.

Now in reference to the “helpful bystander’s” remarks first:  Yes, there are limitations on the freedom of speech imposed legally on school grounds.  However, they are imposed on students, during school hours and at school functions.  These same restrictions never have been enforced against adults present for non-school functions, and even a leftist judge would have a difficult time trying to impose such restrictions on adults visiting the campus for the purpose of listening and speaking to their duly elected representative.  Political Speech is the gold standard of speech when it comes to legal restrictions.  The signs would qualify. 

As to Officer Cheeks:  If you’re going to allow political signs that are just writing, and not ones with pictues and text, prepare to get sued.  The only possible reason to single this sign out for disparate treatment would be if it was obscene or pornographic, and even then, if you were dealing with someone who knows more about the law then you obviously do, Officer You-Can’t-Bring-That-Sign-Or-I’ll-Arrest-You-For-Trespassing, they might just let you arrest them and then sue you for violating their civil liberties.  Federal section 1983 lawsuits for civil rights violations can be a bitch, and when the other associated charges for false imprisonment, and violations of state law get added, they’ll really cut in to the doughnut budget there, hoss.   If you’re any example, this compelling government interest in diversity that we keep hearing about is yet another example of the new face of racism eliminating excellence as goal in our public institutions, and replacing it with yet another entitlement that gets it wrong.

Read Full Post »

A Swing and A Miss…

After I finished my lunch today, I still felt a little hungry, so I decided to suppress my remaining appetite and wander over to the Huffington Post to see how the secular canonization of Ted Kennedy was progressing.  I did not have to let my eyes travel far to find a good example of how the left confuses a the latter part of a lifetime of good intentions unchecked by prudence, reflection, or restraint with a love of country worthy of honored memory. Ms. Huffington, in true liberal fashion, shows why their perspective is so poorly suited to the exercise of good governance which they all too often claim. 

“Something died in America,” said civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis of Robert F. Kennedy’s untimely death. “Something died within all of us.”

Watching the snippets of Ted Kennedy’s speeches playing again and again on cable and online reminds us of something else that has died in America: the national conversation about what the Bible calls “the least among us.”

It’s been missing for a while. Kennedy’s passing reminds us how much we need to revive it — and make it central to the political debate.

The body has only been at room temperature for a day, and Senate so lacks a self-appointed voice to speak for the poor and forge new chains for them disguised as “benefits”.  How ever will we survive?

For over four decades, Kennedy, in his words and his actions, forced us to question how we, as a nation, were treating the poor, the forgotten, the working families struggling to make ends meet. He gave voice to the voiceless, refusing to let us forget about their plight.

For over four decades, Kennedy, a man born with a silver spoon and diapers of fine linen thought so much of the poor that instead of using his own money, and the donations of wealthy friends and colleagues, to help the poor make real lasting changes that would help the poor who were interested in improving their lot in life, determined that doing it with taxpayer money, and all the incidental shipping and handling removed by sticky government fingers along the way would be a much better solution.  The funny thing is, after 40 years of the Great [Welfare] Society, there doesn’t seem to be any marked and lasting reduction in the poor among us, which would seem to indicate that failure could be added to the tragedy and the treason that is this Kennedy’s legacy.  Unless of course the intent was never to reduce the numbers of the poor in this country, but instead to create a subclass that could be kept enslaved and dependent on government.  It might surprise you to know that as of this moment, even I don’t want to be quite that cynical with regard to the man’s ultimate intentions, although I do believe he, and his party, benefited from that very effect.

“Programs may sometimes become obsolete,” he said during his stirring speech at the 1980 Democratic convention, “but the ideal of fairness always endures. Circumstances may change, but the work of compassion must continue… The poor may be out of political fashion, but they are not without human needs.”

Of course, it never hurt at election time that his idea of ‘fairness’, like so many other liberals, encompassed the practice of generosity with other people’s money, and always just enough to make the recipients recpetive to the idea that their predicament had everything to do with the greed of others who were earning their way in the world, and never enough to bring any lasting change.  It simply wouldn’t do to honor the Americans who were paying the tab, because their labors would always ensure a degree of autonomy that the perpetually dependent would never have the luxury to entertain.

As our economic crisis — yes, the one that has come to an end for Wall Street but not the rest of America— threatens to turn the American Dream into a living nightmare for millions of our citizens, those human needs are more pressing than ever. And the work of compassion more necessary than ever. There is a newfound urgency to Ted Kennedy’s message.

An economy crisis precipitated by many of the same liberals fanatically in favor of this healthcare bill, many of whom were too busy feeding like pigs at the trough when there was money to be made by the failure to heed the warning signs the indicated big problems at Fannie and Freddie, and that could have been mitigated if their friends at Countrywide and other lenders didn’t stand to provide them with such wonderful favors for aiding and abetting in the biggest financial shame involving members of the government since ABSCAM.   These were the same people who then dig deep in our and our childrens’ pockets to bailout Wall Street and the banks, ensuring that the other guilty parties also got taken care of while we got the bill.  This compassion that others always seem to be in need of is really costly, and the ones deciding that we have to pay also seem to be insulated from the consequences of this determination.

His best speeches always spoke to our idealism, calling us to tap into the better angels of our nature. The passion that Kennedy brought to the fight for America’s underprivileged reminds me of the story of abolitionist Wendell Phillips, who, after making an impassioned speech condemning slavery, was asked, “Wendell, why are you so on fire?” Phillips looked at his friend and said: “Brother, I’m on fire because I have mountains of ice before me to melt.”

And the gratuitous comparison with someone seeking to make good on the promise of liberty for all Americans, as opposed to someone who deliberately decided to take from some Americans and give to others is actually very offensive, even for a liberal waxing poetic about a fallen hero.

Kennedy was all about melting the icy mountains of indifference. And he set about doing it both with fiery rhetoric and hard-fought legislation.

Well, if the goal was to end indifference, he accomplished it, but fiery rhetoric is actually a tame characterization.   This is the man who reacted thusly to the nomination of Robert Bork to the United States Supreme Court and made the man’s last name a verb:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution.”

A slander which succeeded in its intent, and another crime that the good senator was never made to answer for.

Ted Kennedy has been a force behind many of the legislative milestones of the last half century, from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (introduced by his brother, JFK, before he was killed) to the Serve America Act of 2009 that bears his name, and which increases the number of people able to take part in national service programs.

And the national service programs, like the national welfare programs, are predicated on the unspoken assumption that government is the answer to every need and every problem.

And, of course, he has been at the forefront of health care legislation, including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which covers more than seven million children from low-income families.

And, like any career politician, he couldn’t rest until government’s tentacles touched every aspect of the lives of Americans, bringing with them the joys of yet more taxes, bureaucracies to feed on them, and unfunded mandates, which were useful to make states willing partners in this gross intrusion in our lives, as they could be bribed with funds from other programs to make up for the shortfalls created by such mandates.

Kennedy has been fighting to guarantee every American access to affordable, quality health care for forty years. Writing about that battle this summer, he called it the “cause of my life.” “It has never been merely a question of policy,” he said, “it goes to the heart of my belief in a just society.”

What is the justification in declaring “just” the decades-long practice of creating entitlement programs that will only grow over time, exhibiting a voracious appetite and slowly killing the American character as their rolls swell? 

It remains to be seen whether the praise being lavished on Kennedy from both sides of the aisle will, as some hope, make the passage of real health care reform more likely or if it will merely lead to bestowing on him the dubious honor of having a gutted-in-the-name-of-bipartisanship bill named after him.

Demonstrating that there is no emotional ploy to cynical for Democrats to employ when there is an obscene expansion of federal power and tax revenues at stake.  Constitution Be Damned!  Do It For Teddy!!!

“The dream shall never die,” Kennedy famously said in 1980. But the ranks of the poor have grown to over 38 million. And downward mobility — the antithesis of the American Dream — has become reality for hundreds of thousands of middle class families. We need to make sure that the focus on them, revived via the retrospectives on Ted Kennedy’s work and words, doesn’t fade away as soon as the tributes are over.

Unfortunately, the policy of taking from the rich to give to the “poor” never quite works out right.  You see, there never are enough of the rich to begin with, so the middle class ends up getting the reach-around to make up for the short fall, and then when the rich get tired of being compelled to “give generously” by the government, then they leave, causing even more of the burden to fall to…you guessed it.  The middle class.   I didn’t really want to take a leak on the guy’s grave.  He had baggage in life that his behavior indicated he never got rid of, which might imply that his death didn’t end such troubles.  But if the liberals are going to enshrine him as a secular saint, and use the memory they want to keep of him in order to usurp yet more authority that they are not entitled to, then they should be prepared to go toe-to-toe with those of us who see no reason to “let government help us even MORE” when their help has accomplished so little already with the power and money they were given to do it.   For them, MORE is never enough; for us, it is well past time to say NO.

RIP, Teddy.  You really were a poor factual choice for this generation’s bloody shirt.

Read Full Post »

Projection, Condescension, and Arrogance. Another Day In Liberaland.

[Cross-posted at The Hostages.]

I don’t often wander in to the fever swamps of the Huffington Poo.  Prolonged exposure to forceful ignorance coupled with a nearly incurable resistance to logic tends to drive my blood pressure to levels that are unsafe.  However, today I was spoiling for a fight, and as billed, the Poo did not disappoint. 

This loverly post from a blogger at ‘The Campaign for America’s Future’ tries to make the case that Americans who are not on board with the health care reform plan before Congress are like children trapped in the throes of “the Terrible Twos”, and in emulation of the Dear Leader’s “We won and we’re bringing CHANGE! with us!” style, it has never even occurred to him that “Because Dear Leader Wants It” is not a good reason to pass an unconstitutional bill that will forever destroy the notion of privacy and freedom from an intrusive and overbearing government as the hallmark of life in the United States of America.  And because ignorant condescension and a predilection towards making others responsible for the cost of his health care just wasn’t enough, he had to toss in some racism too, in true liberal fashion.

Because the simplistic analysis is just too damn good to give away wholesale here, I’ll just hit you with some highlights of this careful consideration piece:

What we’re seeing from the health care town halls, what we’ve seen from the “birthers” and what we saw during the campaign is essentially what I call “Tyranny of the Tantrum,” which many parents encounter at the onset of the “terrible twos.”

“Tyranny of the Tantrum”?  How silly is this?  The angry constituents aren’t the ones intimidating and suppressing the opinions of others.  That’s left for the rent-a-mob union members being bussed in and given preferential entry to these meetings, to the exclusion of constituents.  The tyranny is taking it upon yourself, with the enthusiastic support of the gimme-gimme class, to continue to root around in our pockets to pay for programs by which you give of the fruits of our labor to others without our consent, and without even showing the courage to face our wrath when you undertake a program to fundamentally change and expand the role of government in our lives.  Tyranny is having the temerity to characterize such an invasive intrusion as something that is “good for us.”

Put another way, they don’t like transitions — that uncertain period between the end of one thing and the beginning of another, when they’re not quite sure what’s happening, where they’re going or what’s next. They just want to either keep doing what they were doing or go back to where they were, because it’s what they’ve gotten accustomed to.

Thank you for demonstrating one of the major failings of the public indoctrination system that masquerades as “education”.  It has left you completely unable to apply critical thinking to a situation like this.  People aren’t mad because they are unsure of where this is going.  They are angry because they see exactly where this is going and they can see their elected officials, including the President, brazenly lying to them about it.  And once these public servants decided to slander and and belittle them, rather than be mindful of their roles, the righteous anger gathered steam.

Being the adult, the grow-up, the parent, etc., I know we can’t stay in the same place indefinitely. I know sooner or later, we have to put the groceries in the car and go home, or stop playing long enough to have dinner. I know that the transition — whether from the grocery cart to the car, or from the bathtub to the towel — is a necessary part of moving on to what’s next, even if my two-year-old doesn’t.

Supporting the idea that government has to provide an entitlement is the least ‘adult’ behavior that you can muster.  And while its slightly amusing that you think that bringing this monumental abdication of personal responsibility to pass is “necessary” and part of this nation “moving on”, your unquestioning and slavish dedication to this idea marks an underlying lack of courage to command your own destiny and live like a free man, or unforgivable laziness and a willingness to sponge of the labor of others who have that courage and have not yet grown sufficiently annoyed with the endemic corruption of a government that believes that charity is foolish but welfare is noble.

That’s what the town halls have devolved into — the tyranny of the tantrum. The behavior we’re seeing is basically the extreme of the Republican base kicking and screaming because they believe that if they throw a big enough tantrum, they can hold off change, turn back the transition period already begun, and keep things the way they are — or go back to the way they were.

No.  what they have devolved into is the re-focusing of attention of a free people who have too long been distracted from being more mindful of what our elected officials have been up to, because our two income lives necessitated by the modern welfare state has had us spending too long picking up the tab for others while we still try to enjoy our own lives with what the government has not yet taken from us.   We bought into the notion that government should be generous for us because it was “the right thing to do”, and despite having all the evidence in the world of the theft you were committing against us right before our eyes, we still allowed ourselves to be distracted.  As a result we elected the same grifters who took pleasure in using our money to buy votes in the first place.  Billions in fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid?  We’ll have to send Joe Smith back to Congress to deal with that.  Thousands of dollars for midnight basketball?  Preposterous!  Jane Doe can fix that if we re-elect her! 

No more.  The spectre of a tax regime that borders on confiscatory coupled with nothing less than the eventual take over of the best health care system in the world, and with it, more power than any dime-store tyrant could ever want have brought these activities into clear, sharp focus.  We are paying attention now, and although some of these elected officals would like to believe that the complacency that has made their systematic betrayal of the American people and the American ideal possible will once again be draped across the slumbering eyes of their constituents, the fact is that some of them are coming to terms with the uncomfortable reality that they will soon need to looking for honest work if they have not been able to curry enough favor with leftist causes who can serve as their Sugar Daddies in their twilight years.

Neither can we turn back the clock (nor should we) to a time when the president and most of the Supreme Court (to name two seats of power), were guaranteed to be white— something many townhall screamers, birthers, and McCain/Palin rally attendees would like to return to, whether they say as much or not.

Your unfortunate and intellectually bankrupt claim of racism is not supported by fact.  Unlike liberals, who will claim racism, sexism, and any other form of victimhood when it allows them an advantage, or an opportunity to have a discussion about the real issues the claim was made to avoid, conservatives, the real ones, not the ones you attempt to appoint for us, do not care about a person’s race when it comes to them serving in public office.  Our litmus test is much less subjective then how well a candidate or nominee establishes their victim identity or street cred.  We simply want to know:

1)  Has the candidate read and understood the Consitution?; and

2) Are they willing to do their jobs in accordance with it, rather than engaging in tortured interpretations of it that bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate the document beyond any understandable reading of it in order to justify laws and policies that do violence to it, or make rulings on such justifications that amount to usurpation of powers never assigned to them by it.  These are usually marked by stretched-to-the-breaking-point applications of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper clause, and magic penumbras that only certain ‘sympathetic’ Justices can ascertain and describe.  That’s it.  

Oh, and when we talk about racism, it is because there are objective manifestations that we can point to.  We can give examples, and do so, unlike liberals who make general and unsubstantiated statements like the one above.  When we point it out, it is because we want to discuss it, not because we want to supress discussion.   When we point it out, it is because we want to improve the quality of political dialogue, not because we want to perpetuate a victim status as a means to avoid owning our lives and the choices that we have made in making them what they are today.  When we talk about it, it is to help people to overcome, rather than wallow in an excuse.   For an ‘adult’, you seem firmly rooted in an extremely childish worldview, Mr. Heath.  The biggest piece of the analysis that you fail to make is that no matter how much you may want others to do for you, it is selfish and woefully misinformed to think that it is desirable or wise for you to insist upon that for the rest of us.  The good news is that you still live in a free country, and you have the opportunity to grow up.

 

Read Full Post »

Uh oh! It Looks Like One Politician’s ‘Race Card’ Is Maxxed Out!

Little Davy Patterson has apparently learned that political success in a time of “crisis” actually demands more than being indolent and relying on the color of your skin to carry you through.  Unlike Obama, he doesn’t have a cult of personality to assure him that the Press will work diligently to marginalize adversaries and that union rent-a-mobs and thuggish czars will intimidate and extort corporate support that would not otherwise be freely given.  Nope, Davy thought that he had reached the political promised land where one’s disabilities and melanin content could trump skill and diligence. 

In some cases, the great political savior might have allowed him to run up the charge on his Race Card, but Little Davy forgot one important thing:  he doesn’t bring anything to the table for Obama.  Maybe if he wasn’t blind, Lil’ Davy might have taken note of the bodies that Dear Leader keeps chucking under the bus.  One would think that the constant “THUMP-THUMP” of it rolling under the bodies would have been too loud to ignore, but maybe Davy was distracted by the taxing duties he was full filling as Governor? One thing’s for certain:  the predictable play of a politician of color in political trouble.  (From the NYT)

Gov. David A. Paterson said on Friday that the chorus of people who believe he should not run for election next year want to keep him out of the race because he is black.

Yeah, I’m sure the character flaws and deep economic trouble your state is in have absolutely nothing to do with it at all, Davy.

“We’re not in the post-racial period,” said Mr. Paterson, according to an article posted on The Daily News Web site, which cited an interview the governor provided to a radio program hosted by Errol Louis, a Daily News columnist.

No No No No!  You’re doing it wrong, Davy. Have you learned nothing from Dear Leader?  You say wonderful things about a post-racial world while playing the Race Card.  No matter how cynical you might be on the subject, you never let the voting rubes hear you say anything negative yourself.  Its always your opponents who are afraid of a post-racial world who are to blame for your failure, not the lack of a postracial world.  If you let the voters know that there is no such thing because it isn’t to your advantage, then you will never be successful in using the Race Card.  Read the owners manual again.  The Wrong Reverends Jackson and Sharptongue did not go to the trouble of preparing a copy in braille for you to make such a hash of such a useful tool.

“My feeling is it’s being orchestrated, it’s a game, and people who pay attention know that,” he said.

Don’t prevaricate now, sparky.  You’re a professional politician.  You knowthat its orchestrated.  That’s how you rose to prominance in the first place.

“We have a media that doesn’t report the news. We have a media that wants to make the news.”

Conservatives have known this for years.  That’s why we’re ostracized as “wingnuts”.  Welcome to the wilderness, Davy.  Welcome to the wilderness.

Mr. Paterson — whose approval ratings and support even among fellow Democrats have dipped this year — also mentioned Deval L. Patrick, the Massachusetts governor and the country’s only other current black governor, and suggested that criticisms leveled against him are based on race.

Now that you have descended into the real world, where an honest analysis is possible, you might start to realize that faced with such monumental incompetence and arrogance in equal measure, with every charge of “Racism!”, another conservative simply laughs and says “Is that all you got?  Go ahead.  Say it again.  I can take it.  And you’re still unfit for office”.  And then another voice joins the chorus.  It isn’t enough for you politicians to put your fingers in your ears and say “Lalalalalalalala I can’t hear you!” anymore.  Each day brings new voices to our side, and soon the din will shake the ivory towers from which you deign to “rule”.

“The reality is the next victim on the list, and you can see it coming, is President Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system,” Mr. Paterson said.

The reality is that with the audacious arrogance, and thinly-veiled contempt for the American people and America’s Heritage and birthright which he barely keeps in check, there is plenty enough for Obama to be victimized by.   The man is working up to a damn near cosmic karmic event, the kind that leaves nothing but a smoking crater.  Race doesn’t have to enter into it at all.  Sadly, since he did so much trading on it, if there is racial collateral damage, it will be his own doing, no one elses.

Read Full Post »

The Lord Detests The Proud Of Heart. Be Sure Of This: They Will Not Go Unpunished.

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on, I can’t believe you.”- Freidrich Nietsche

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” – Adolph Hitler

The political news of late has been very interesting.  Because fifty-two percent of voters chose to allow themselves to be beguiled by the smooth delivery of empty rhetoric, the nation is now afflicted with the governance of an inexperienced ideologue whose audacious arrogance blinds him to the possibility that the people he wishes to lead might reject, of their own accord, the path that he has chosen to lead them down.  And his reaction has been telling.  The age of youtube has provided a wonderful counterpoint to the information vacuum left by the Fourth Estate’s blatant abdication of its duties in the last election cycle.  I’m sure the President had every reason in the world to believe that the press would not call him out on such blatant lies as “If you like your current plan, you’ll be able to keep it.”  or “I have never said I was for a single payer plan.”  And true to form, this has largely been the case.  They have been far to busy filling the airwaves and print columns with their “expressions of concern” about the people who were showing up at town hall meetings with their elected officials and expressing their outrage that they would even consider foisting this crap sandwich down our throats.  It was was too easy to take administration officials and some members of Congress at their word that these righteously pissed citizens were actually shills for big drug companies and insurance companies, rather than people who actually took time to read the bill and and realize that it was not what was being promised.  And a strange thing happened.  The people being targeted were not deterred.  They have seen the video clips with the President saying, before he was the President, that he was in favor of a single payer system, and expressing the opinion that it would take time to get there. They read the bill, and could see that as soon as they lost coverage or their plan changed, then they would have to move to a government approved plan, that such change might take time, and still they were the ones being called liars by their elected officials.  Opposition started to grow.  Representatives and Senators, showing their typical contempt for their constituents that has made Congress’ approval rating so abysmal, largely choose either to forgo meeting with their constituents or attempt to restrict the forums to be entirely under their own control, or limit admittance so that they would have a much easier time because the audience would be made up of more of the “rent-a-mob” crowd bussed in by SEIU and ACORN, all why the President and the Congress continued to call the American people stupid. 

 And it didn’t work.

Things got so desperate for the Neophyte In Chief that he did something that Democrats and liberals have not been known to do in decades.  He dragged God into the debate.  Faith being populated by people, it is as subject to human error as any other endeavor undertaken by people, so it would be inaccurate to say that this completely failed, but to most people of faith I have discussed this with, the President seems to have revealed himself as even more base and calculating than he had already appeared to most of us.

From the Politico:

 President Barack Obama needs some outside help pushing health care reform, and he’s turning to rabbis to get it.

In a morning conference call with about 1000 rabbis from across the nation, Obama asked for aid: “I am going to need your help in accomplishing necessary reform,” the President told the group, according to Rabbi Jack Moline, who tweeted his way through the phoner.

“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death,” Obama went on to say, according to Moline’s real-time stream.

The last is especially shocking.  After years of God being pushed out of the public square and the public debate by Democrats and their allies, a President who is in over his head and pushing an agenda that the majority of Americans do not approve of and know in their hearts as well as their heads that the government cannot and should not manage clumsily claims to have enlisted a deity and and given him partner status as well in the dubious endeavor.  I wonder if they have made an agreement to not discuss the President’s unwavering commitment to allowing mothers to kill their innocent unborn children.  Maybe this is just a “joint venture”…a “partnership” for a very limited purpose.  I guess God just hasn’t had the time to read the bill, otherwise, I suspect the partnership would come to an abrupt end.   This was not the end of the President’s eager recruitment of God’s servants, however, as his cup of hubris runneth over:

Obama went down his by-now familiar list of needed changes in health care to Faith in Public Life, a group of 30 religious organizations, on a live webcall.

He made the good point that religious leaders have helped the federal government pass needed changes in Congress for important programs such as civil rights.

“The one thing you all share is a moral conviction,” he told the audience, saying Americans deserved good health care.

He said a lot of people “are bearing false witness” by spreading misinformation about health care reform.

And he repeated: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

Obama called the “death panels” argument spread by Sarah Palin “an extraordinary lie.”

The president called on religious leaders to “speak the truth” and help him spread the good word about health care reform.

At the end, Obama did not take any questions, and, with a simple “bye bye,” ended the call.

I wish I could think that he honestly believes what he is saying, but with what little he has let us know about him, and his action thus far, it is clear that he is desperate and cynical.  Desperate enough to call on people he would just as soon marginalize any other time, and cynical enough to believe that if he talked to them, portrayed his cause as a moral imperative, and threw in some phrases they would recognize, that they would be as gullible as the fifty-two percent who voted for CHANGE! without knowing what it meant.  And to end it with the request that they “speak the truth” on the very subject he had just brazenly lied to them about was a special touch.  Imply that putting the government into health care for all is a system that God would endorse, when God has not proposed that governments of men are an appropriate solution to any problem, but also to speak with such a forked tongue to God’s servants.  One would think that this “Christian” does not know his Bible, and the story of Ananias and Sapphira from the book of Acts, and how their lies to the apostles cost them their lives:

“”Then Peter said “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that  you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?  What made you think of doing such a thing?  You have not lied to men, but to God.”  When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died.  And great fear seized all who heard what happened.”  Acts 5:3-5, NIV.

And did he think that his political desperation was not apparent to those he was speaking to?  Perhaps he forgot this also:

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principals of the world rather than on Christ.”  Colossians 2:8, NIV.

Of course, now that he dragged God back out of the closet in which the left has stuffed him in their unholy crusade to separate the reasons for the law from the law, the left might find that they cannot pretend that God was invoked by them when he proves difficult to put back in the box later.  Poor Obama.  His salvation wasn’t enough to carry the day, but now that he has called on the real God for help, he just might get it, and realize the error of his ways.

Read Full Post »

Paging Dr. Clue, Paging Dr. Clue…[Updated]

The left might be amusing, in a grinning idiot sort of way, if they didn’t think their crippled sense of reason and curious turns of thought about “how things should be” HAD to be imposed upon the rest of us who know better.  I returned to the thread I talked about in yesterday’s post, and found that these were a topic of discussion.

The trap had been baited (I really wish I had thought of it), and predictably, a commenter, we’ll call her Lib1 wandered in and bit the cheese:

On another note, that guy carrying the gun in the video Elric showed as well as the radio host interviewing admitted it was staged. Regardless of that, I’m sure there were some “racially biased” individuals that were also carrying guns.Either way, guns around any president is ridiculous in this day and age.[Emp. Mine]

After such a perfect pitch, how do you not swing?  My response:

Regardless of that, I’m sure there were some “racially biased” individuals that were also carrying guns.

Aside from the fact that your certainty represents an omniscience not in evidence, it is part of a larger contempt of a free people exercising their Consitutional rights. Living free means taking responsibility for yourself and your actions, and accepting the consequences, even bad ones. As A free person, I will accept bad consequences, rather than continue to surrender my rights to a state determined to give me the security of a child in exchange for all I have and all rights I have been invested with. Would I have done it? No, but only because the howling choruses of simpering wimpletons, too afraid to live like free people, would once again turn their hand-wringging tirades to bear on the whatever sinister motives they would eagerly to ascribe to the rest of us.

Either way, guns around any president is ridiculous in this day and age.

Yeah, those Secret Service agents should not [knock, not ‘not’]that crap off, right now!

When you grow up, and quit deciding what is right for the rest of us, and cheerleading for those who are determined to give that to us, whether we want it or not, then you might start to appreciate the genius inherent the form of limited government that Congress keeps trying to usurp for itself. Until then, enjoy your cud, sheep.

Still no answer from Lib1.  I imagine that it is more difficult than usual to draft a “Shut Up!” for that, but, where there’s a will, there’s a way. 

In the meantime, LibHost took it upon himself to respond:

BiW, let me give you the real simplistic view on this:

There are only two reasons to own a gun.

1. Recreation (hunting, target practice, skeet shooting, etc.)
2. Shoot other people

Now you will of course bring up “self defense” but that implies you are defending yourself from someone else with a gun who plans to shoot you with it which brings us back to reason #2.

We used to have a society where everyone carried their sidearm. It was called the Wild West. It was called wild for a reason. I prefer living in a civilized society.

This may no longer be the case but the last time I checked, British cops didn’t carry guns. They carried night sticks.

Regardless, I’m ok with cops carrying guns to defend me from the loonies who have them and should not have them.

Oh … by the way BiW, could you possibly explain what I need with an AK-47 (or AK-15 or whatever) at a public event? Ahhh don’t bother ,,,, I know the answer, you need it to kill the ten guys who came with regular pistols to shoot at you.

Now, truth is, I like LibHost.  He’s wrong on just about every topic imaginable, but I like the guy.  Having said that, there was just too much low hanging fruit to ignore:

BiW, let me give you the real simplistic view on this:

There are only two reasons to own a gun.

1. Recreation (hunting, target practice, skeet shooting, etc.)
2. Shoot other people

“Simplistic” is right. I’m sure that the fact that the Americans had only recently fought a war in which the government they sought to separate themselves from made deliberate moves on arms and ammunition that could have been used against them never entered into their thinking at all when they proposed the Second Amendment. Yes, how silly is it to think that a fledgling nation, not too many years removed from the tyranny of a government that deemed itself the epitome of “civilization” at the time might not recognize that a check on such tyranny might be an armed populace? I’m sure that “recreation” was paramount in their concerns.

Now you will of course bring up “self defense” but that implies you are defending yourself from someone else with a gun who plans to shoot you with it which brings us back to reason #2.

No, it also implies that I am defending myself from a person who might be a threat without a gun, like say an addict brandishing a needle. You also forgot defense of property. I have lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods, and when a stranger is busting into my home at 2 am, the general assumption is that he is up to no good in doing so. Rather than wait to see if this person is going to hurt my family or fleeing my home and surrending the things I worked hard to provide for my family, I prefer a more permanent means of helping the offender break out of a life of crime. The revidicism rate is considerably lower, and fewer tax dollars are spent on a prison stay where they learn to be better criminals.

We used to have a society where everyone carried their sidearm. It was called the Wild West. It was called wild for a reason. I prefer living in a civilized society.

This may no longer be the case but the last time I checked, British cops didn’t carry guns. They carried night sticks.

When using an example to make your point, you might want to educate yourself about it first. When the Brits moved on private firearms a few years ago, they removed a major deterrent to violent crime, which has been on the rise ever since. And once they took the guns, the nogoodniks simply reverted to knives. Stabbings have increased tremendously. You choose to be unarmed, it is your choice, I’m not stopping you. Please don’t violate my rights and presume to stop me.

Regardless, I’m ok with cops carrying guns to defend me from the loonies who have them and should not have them.

In the coming days of shrinking budgets, increased unemployment and economic malaise, if the police are your only resort for defense, then by all means, accept that. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Oh … by the way BiW, could you possibly explain what I need with an AK-47 (or AK-15 or whatever) at a public event? Ahhh don’t bother ,,,, I know the answer, you need it to kill the ten guys who came with regular pistols to shoot at you.

Why would I have to profess a need to exercise a right? Have you ever asked any one why they felt the need to engage in political or religious discourse? Have you ever asked someone why they demanded authorities show them a warrant before entering their home and searching for something. Why do you apparently believe some rights have to be justified? As for this particular instance, I have already said I wouldn’tdo it. The sanctimony and hand-wringing from the usual suspects is more than I want to accept. I suppose if I subscribed to the liberal world view in which no one could or would ever be held responsible for his or her actions, I might be alarmed by the presence of a tool strapped [spelling corrected here] to another person, to whom I might automatically ascribe an inability to act responsibly, since it is beyond the scope of a typical liberal’s worldview to believe otherwise, but since I don’t see the world that way, I don’t see the need for the squealing histrionics[spelling corrected here] that I would expect from such a display.

No answer yet.  That’s disappointing.  Twice I have asked a question that isn’t too difficult, and yet I have no answer.

As long as I live, I don’t think that I will ever understand how a normal person succumbs to the mindset that says its ok for a liberal to choose to abbrogate other’s rights on the basis of their fears or feelings of offense, etc.

**********************************************************************************************

LibHost responded. For the sake of brevity, I’ll leave his remarks in italics and mine normal print:

You’ve written a long and heroic defense of your 2nd amendment rights, BiW.

Not really, but its nice that you think so.

First, this is not 1776.

And it is not 1787 when the Constitution was ratified, or 1789 when the Bill of Rights was ratified (just so I don’t get accused of saying something untrue that I didn’t say.)

I understand the genesis of the 2nd amendment and don’t you think, health care be damned, that it’s a bit premature to take up arms against the government? Is it really that bad?

HHHHmmmm. Where to start? In order, I guess.
Are you implying that because a right important enough to write into our primary legal source document is old and you are so gentile that you feel it is no longer necessary, it is subject to ridicule and hyperbole if you cannot simply waive your hand and make it disappear? I don’t recall advocating taking up arms against the government. What I did suggest is that the wise men who drafted the law did so because they understood the tendency of governments of men to drift into tyrannical behavior, and because of it, they took pains to ensure that the people had the right to be armed as much as a means of defense against the tyrannical impulses of government as defense of our person against the transgression of others and the “recreational” uses you would diminish. It is a way to keep those who serve us in memory of their role, lest they determine to reverse them (and borrowing to the point where increasing tax burdens will be necessary just to service the debt comes damn close), but no, supporting the right to bear arms is not a call to arms against the government. Please avoid putting such words in my mouth when I take such great pains to be clear.

Second, if I understand my law properly, you cannot shoot an intruder in your home unless he demonstrates that he is going to use lethal force against you.

Entirely dependent on what state you live in. Some states have enacted laws that basically say you have a duty to withdraw, even in the curtiledge of your own home, which disrespects centuries of law regarding one’s home and hearth, and others like Texas, have specifically upheld the right to use deadly force to protect property. In states like that, as the shooter, you will most certainly face a grand jury, however, as long as you were defending your property, it is almost a certainty that the grand jury will not indict you.

You certainly cannot shoot him as he is running out of your house with your stereo. Try it sometime and see how fast the cops arrest your ass. This ain’t primetime TV. I don’t have the stats handy but there is a high incidence of folks with your delusions of defense of self and property who only wind up wounding themselves and loved ones accidentally.

If you’re going to continue to argue the law with me, would it be too much to ask if I am debating an attorney? You forgive me if I don’t accept your word about those stats. Experience in politics and law has made me a firm believer in the maxim “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.”

If I’m not mistaken, NYC threw Bernie Goetz’s ass in prison for “defending himself” on a subway some 30 years ago.

You are mistaken. NYC “threw his ass in prison” on a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, despite having been charged with that, attempted murder, and first degree assault charges. He was eventually sentanced to a year and served eight months. One of his “victims” later falsely reported to police that Goetz had tried to kidnap him, and later held an 18 yr old pregnant woman at gunpoint while an associate sodomized and robbed her. Yet another “victim” went on to commit two robberies.

Third, as I said before, you have the “right” to go to church on a pogo stick. It doesn’t mean you’re going to do it.

I saw that, and as you can read, I did not dispute it.

There is no sensible reason to bring a gun to a political rally, particularly outside a venue where the President is speaking.

Again, I did not dispute this. I took issue with you asking me to explain why I’d need to carry a semi-automatic rifle to a “public event”. No one should have to justify the exercise of a right, especially to those who are hostile to such rights. I already stated that I wouldn’t do it. For me, it simply isn’t worth the harrassment and the whining. It also gives the press even more reason to not do their jobs and cast a critical eye on this bill, and others. Much more sensational to talk about those wacky gun-freaks, who by the way, abided by the law, and in all respects acted legally.

I’d have to go do the research but I’d bet dollars to donuts not a single one of our American assassins or would be assassins (e.g. Hinckley) was carrying his fire arm illegally … i.e. they had permits to carry.

Well, Oswald didn’t need a permit to own a rifle, and in the case of the assasins before him, the current nanny state had not been brought into existance, so I doubt very much that there would have been a valid concept of “illegal” firearms possession. However, if you are trying to imply that all “legal” firearms owners have them because they harbor ambitions to kill people, you are being uneccessarily insulting to those people while laboring an irrelevant point. Which still is indicative of nothing, by the way. This whole tangent still appears to be rooted in the belief that having a gun necessitates the “need” to use it for nefarious purposes. People are killed every day in car accidents. Some due to drunken driving, some other factors. Do we ban cars so that we can keep people safe? Do we ban alcohol? Seriously, where does it end?

When a bunch of folks in a crowd outside a presidential appearance are armed, how are we to tell who is potentially dangerous?

Well, I suppose that is between the Secret Service, the citizen, and the lawyers and judges. Or you could just ask Sensico to find them for you. She seems to think that she can divine the fact that some who attended that event were racists. I’m sure it would be even easier to determine which ones were the wanna-be assasins.

Sorry BiW, it’s bad form to come to a protest rally packin’ heat.

True enough, Kent State seems to symbolize this well. Oh wait, that didn’t count because it was government employees who acted irresponsibly. I’m sure that could have worked out just fine if someone had called the police, though.

Again, I wouldn’t do it. Some things are not worth the hue and cry, but it really isn’t your place to question a person’s “need” to exercise a right.

Read Full Post »

Assumptions

They’re the mother of all screw ups.  They make an ass out of you and me.  We could probably go on for hours with such sterling witticisms.  Why am I talking about assumptions?  Because after reading more missives from the Healthcare Faithful today, I am convinced that there are a few things that they assume to be true to help harden their belief that Congress is doing the right thing in considering the bill being bandied about.

At one site, I asked the host to explain to me how the bill is Constitutional, a question that I ask a lot, while recieving no specific answer from anyone.  The response I got in this case?

BiW, please don’t go all constitutional on me. I’m no constitutional scholar but I’d wager the constitution gives wide latitude for the government to protect the well-being of its people. When multitudes don’t have health care, that falls under protecting the well being of the citizenry.

What?  The government proposes to muscle its way into a large portion of the private sector, and put itself in a position where it has access to you most private information, and spend buckets of your money while doing so, and you aren’t sure where it gets the authority to do so?  My response?

Don’t wager. Be sure. If we have a “right of privacy”, distilled from Constitutional “penumbras” that says the government has to keep its laws off women’s bodies, from government intrusion in our bedrooms that makes sodomy ok, what allows government to regulate the retention and format of each person’s health care records, and decisions about our care, including the innocuous ‘end of life counseling? Read the Constitution carefully. The authority is not there.

Honestly.  The only way that I can even see a way of thinking that says that supporting this bill without even asking the question is by being firmly gripped by two assumptions:

1.  My money is not my money, it is the government’s money, and they will only let me keep what they have not yet figured out how to spend for me.

2.  Healthcare is a right.

I got confirmation of the first later in that thread when one supporter answered the question of how to pay for it:

LOL So how is this monstrosity going to be paid for?

Capping the charitable deduction at 28 percent for the very rich (who would otherwise be able to save 35 cents on each dollar they give to charity) is one way to finance healthcare reform. It’s estimated that it would generate $318 over 10 years. Another is to apply a graduated surcharge, or “surtax,” on the very wealthiest Americans. 96% of small business would be unaffected, so too would 98.8% of taxpayers. There is also a plan to tax “gold-plated, Cadillac” insurance policies that only the rich can afford.

“Yeah! Soak the rich!  They don’t have a right to determine how they spend their money!  Why should they when the government can take it and give it to me?”  What happens when it isn’t the other guy who is “rich” any more?  What happens when it is you?

The second is more sinister.  Its the elephant on the living room couch that the left is quietly ignoring while making these arguments.  Granted, not all are silent, and a few try to say it out loud.  My question for these people is “Really?  Health care is a right?  Did we decide that as a nation, or did a few dreamers and schemers on the left decide this for all of us?”

Don’t bother.  I know the answer, and you don’t speak for me.  Quit presuming you have the right to do so.

Read Full Post »

They Don’t Get It And Never Will

The Left continues to think that it is an imperative to pass a health care reform bill, despite the fact that they don’t have Constitutional authority to do so, and Americans are continuing to wake up to the fact that they don’t want the government controlling health care.  Nonplussed, the Left soldiers on, determined to do what they shouldn’t, because there is great power at stake to be taken under the guise of being a caring and kind government.  What kills me is the bridges they are willing to burn, and the utter failure to understand that if Republicans aren’t in support of it, may be it is a bad bill.  Instead, they are only to willing to assume the worst because, well, because its what they did for the previous eight years.  Case in point?

WASHINGTON – Frustrated liberals have a question for President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers: Isn’t it time the other guys gave a little ground on health care? What’s the point of a bipartisan bill, they ask, if we’re making all the concessions?

Translation:  Shut Up, That’s Why!

“It is clear that Republicans have decided ‘no health care’ is a victory for them,” Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, said in an interview. “There is a point at which bipartisanship reaches a limit, and I would say it’s reaching that limit.”

First, I have to say Andy has it wrong.  ‘No heath care [reform bill]’ is a victory for the republic and the Constitution.  But more importantly, why is a news outlet quoting an SEIU official about bipartisanship?  Is he also a member of Congress?  I only ask, because it seems to me that a news story about Liberals whining about not getting their way on the health care reform bill, and framing it as a deliberate failure of bipartisanship would quote liberal members of Congress.  It isn’t like there is a shortage of them, and nothing is beneath them, so why are we hearing from SEIU Andy?

While liberals are discouraged, the endgame remains unclear. Some still hope that Obama and congressional Democratic leaders will use all their parliamentary powers — which could prove especially divisive in the Senate — to pass a far-reaching bill that would include a public option for health insurance and more palatable consumer costs for prescription drugs and other needs.

There is that damn public option again, the gateway to single payer…the goal The Pretender In Chief had in mind for years until he had to lie recently about it.  When he says its dead, don’t believe him.

The continued outreach to Republicans, meanwhile, is testing Democrats’ unity. This week, more than 50 House Democrats issued a letter saying: “Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, for a public option with reimbursement rates based on Medicare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable.”

No.  You jackasses have it wrong.  Any bill at all is unacceptable.  What you propose is unprecedented intrusion into the private sector that threatens the very future of this nation due to its prohibitive cost and unavoidable negative effect on the population over all, as many commonplace treatments will almost certainly become too cost prohibitive to continue, and as doctors, faced with the inevitable price controls, go into other professions, causing a shortage, and even further rationing.  Then there is the little matter of the Constitutional authority for doing so.  You see, you don’t have it, and people like me are not going to be silent about it any longer. 

I’m one of those Americans who you’re pissing off.  I’m tired of not just the brazen lies from members of Congress, the Administration, and the Pretender In Chief, I’m pissed off that you have the nerve to gaslight us about this.  I’m pissed off that when I take my time to express my opinion to my Congressman on this matter, you have the cojones to mouth off to the media that I am in the employ of the RNC, that I’m in the pay of Big Pharma, who is in bed with you guys on the Bill, that I am a sucker and a shill for a special interest, while at the same time, SEIU and ACORN members are being bused in to these same meetings.  I’m pissed off that we tell you “HELL NO!!”, and you just smile, rhetorically pat our heads and say “Its for your own good, silly!”  I’m pissed off that you attempt to use the argument about the spiraling costs of private healthcare, when your refusal/inability to pay market rates for Medicare and Medicaid patients causes medical providers to charge my insurance company more to subsidize the care you aren’t paying for, while at the same time, you publicly laud yourselves for your ‘sucesses’ in controlling costs, despite over 60 BILLION DOLLARS in fraud in Medicare alone.  Nice trick, that. Make it so the private sector bails out the government, then vilify the effect that you caused, while claiming efficiency.  I’m pissed that despite the crippling taxes that this bill will impose upon individuals and families, you are Hell bent on making it so.  I’m pissed that so blatant a power grab is in the offing, and yet so many of my fellow citizens continue to slumber, rather than stretching forth and awaking in you, our elected officials, a well-founded and justified fear of a reckoning that will surely come if you pass this monstrosity, this affront to freedom itself.

The Power to Tax is the Power to Destroy.

Spendulous:  “We must spend our way to prosperity!” (With spending unmatched by all other administrations combined?)

Cap and Trade:  “We will pioneer green jobs, and find prosperity!” (It should be called the Great American Jobs Migration Act of 2009.  “Now with the largest single tax increase on American families EVAH!”)

Health Care Reform: “Single-Payer Neglect For Everybody!”  (Well except for federal employees, and health care that is collectively bargained for.  But I’m sure it will be wonderful for all you peasants!)

I’m only going to ask this once, Congress.  Please don’t do this.  The result will rend this Union asunder in a battle between free peoples and sheeple.  Not even you arrogant jerks can want that on your conscience.

Read Full Post »

Its Nice To See That…

…I’m not the only one considering the idea that “HealthCare Reform” as it is being contemplated is Unconstitutional.

Read Full Post »