Archive for December 2009
Well, the health deform passed the Senate this morning after a long fight with Senators who demonstrated this Reagan principle:
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. – Ronald Reagan
So with sellouts like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, and others who scored windfalls for their states by demonstrating they can be bought off like the political whores that they are, proved Reagan right once again.
The House and Senate, once again, have disregarded the will of the American people in passing this bill. Many states polled showed majority opinion against the bill, yet the senators and representatives from those states voted for it with extreme arrogance. And I look forward to the legal fight when Obama signs it into law and within seconds after, the federal courts get slammed with suit after suit, questioning the bills constitutionality.
Basically, the Senate language is the first big step towards a single-payer system, completely socialistic and in violation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments.
But did you see this little “gem”?
Turns out, Senator Jim DeMint, R-SC, noted that, with the passage of the bill, there as a Senate rule change that stated, with regards to the Independent Medicare Advisory Board:
"it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
So basically, the “Death Panels” as Governor Palin has named them, not only are a pencil-whip away from being law, but to bring legislation up that would repeal them would be “out of order”, according to Senate rules, requiring a 2/3 vote in the Senate to change the rules. Of course, this rule change is in violation to the Senate’s own rules of requiring a 2/3 vote to change the rules, but it also can very well be construed as unconstitutional. The same goes for the House. Of course, what good are rules if the House and Senate can break them whenever they want.
You see, no law is unrepealable. If you recall, even a law set in motion by the Constitution can be repealed, as we saw with prohibition, which was enacted by the 18th Amendment and later repealed by the 21st Amendment.
So no matter how much that moron Harry Reid likes to think he can put down a law that no one can move, it can be moved. But such a provision even putting this in shows the utter arrogance and lack of concern in this standing congress. They simply don’t believe in representing the American people anymore, but rather, pushing the “agenda”. I’m thinking we’ve quietly moved from a constitutional republic to a oligarchial democracy, where the majority of congressional elites make the rules and the American public is wholly ignored, except when these elites come to prostitute themselves for your election vote.
So America not only gets a lump of coal in her stocking with this idiotic piece of dung legislation but the stocking now has a stain that will take a whole bunch of Americans, scrubbing, before it comes out.
I really wonder what the Founders would think of this.
So, in the week of a very underreported story with regards to the climate change, farcical, summit-y thing going on in Copen-HAH!-gen, with the half-dressed protesters outside parading in the snow and complaining that the earth is too hot, President Obama arrived to try and convince the world, through his metro-sexual machismo that we’re all going to die of heat stroke. Despite the rising populations of polar bears who have a very different take about their habitat going away, deceptive pictures of large power plant exhaust stacks burping out ginormous amounts of the greenhouse gas that we call “steam”, and Al Gore’s personal testimony to liberal hypocrisy by reading a piece of literary rubbish, barely fit to be called art (unless we talk about art as something that can be drawn or somehow applied to toilet paper, while living it up from the only “carbon-neutral” which has a carbon footprint visible from space, the rest of the nations of the world are buying the concept of man-made global warming as little more important than the tale of wolf, cried out by a shepherd boy.
So, as Obama celebrates a so-called win by urging China to give up on its emission inspection sovereignty, the rest of the summit goers are packing up this circus and heading for home, calling the “Copenhagen Accords” a dismal failure. And with the same look in his face that he had when he picked up his soapbox and left Copenhagen the last time, after an epic fail to convince the IOC of bringing the 2016 games to Chicago, Obama’s attempt to strong-arm the Chinese into agreeing with him has had less than optimal results (if you are a global warming kool-aid drinker).
The thing here is, do we honestly expect the Chi-Coms to play fair and nice regarding any treaty that could affect their economic windfall? After all, they continually cheat in the marketplace through the Chinese government subsidizing any tariffs placed on them by import nations, continue to devalue their currency, use slave labor, and pollute without any regard – why should they consider any policy that will undermine what they have going – a delicate balance of economy even more elusive than Tiger Woods’ love dodecagon (or is it a tetradecagon now?)
So as Alaska reports record snows and weather patterns in Washington D.C. threaten to layover an already cranky, health-care weary Congress beneath a ton of flurry white, uh, global warming, the world begins to wonder just exactly what this climate change stuff is all about and whether they can actually control the world’s temperature to the arbitrary 2°C ceiling. And as the world ponders this, we, once again, see that the celebrations coming from ObamAd, Inc not in direct alignment with reality. We, on the other hand, sit on this side, laughing at the buffoons who can’t seem to prevent a summit on an imaginary problem any less farcical than a skit on Saturday Night Live (perhaps they should fly Stuart Smalley in).
Oh, and by the way, Mr. President, we’re keeping score over here too. And right now, you got another big, fat, zero in your column. In other words, Obama – 0, Copenhagen – 2…brother.
So, because people don’t agree, Progressives opt to use the power of government to force their will on the people, even if they don’t want it. This is the reason why the health care bill is still being pushed forward, even though every opinion poll out there shows a majority of Americans simply don’t want ObamaCare.
Did you ever see this movie? The context is that a masked character wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, depicted here, launches a single assault on a dictatorial government in Britain, one created as the result of people giving silent consent to a charismatic figure who made lofty promises of peace and security, will removing from it the ideals of freedom. The story was edgy and gutsy. The characters were believable and the ending pretty poetic. I could have done without the one girl-girl kissing scene, however.
Anyway, I was trolling through the net this morning and, after looking at quotes, I saw one that reminds me of the perspective of what government should be, “People should not be afraid of their governments, Governments should be afraid of their people.” I, then, happened on this quote by Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times:
There are ideas in this film. The most pointed is V’s belief: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." I am not sure V has it right; surely in the ideal state governments and their people should exist happily together. Fear in either direction must lead to violence. But V has a totalitarian state to overthrow, and only a year to do it in, and we watch as he improvises a revolution.
While I have great respect for Roger Ebert’s take on movies, having watched him back on WGN-9 Chicago (before they went cable), I find his position on this point to be part of what is wrong with how America relates to its government. Yes I know this movie has been out there for a while and what Ebert said has a great deal of time between it and now, but it’s still a perfect teaching moment.
Ebert first says, “surely in the ideal state governments and their people should exist happily together”; he has two things wrong in this statement. First, the people are not the possessive of the government; it is the other way around. People possess THEIR government. The minute we start thinking that the people are owned, controlled, or managed by their government, we create a state that is very different than the one the Founders envisioned. Today’s Progressive moment likes to think, in their sheer arrogance, that people are the ward of the government. This is an absolute distinction from this writer’s point of view. Second, it is naiveté to think that people and government exist happily together. Thomas Paine said in Common Sense, “Government at best is a necessary evil, at worst, is an intolerable one”. Either way, it is not cynicism to consider that government itself is evil. The minute we begin to think in this idyllic fantasy that people and government live in some sort of ‘kum-bay-ah’ harmony, we are turning ripe for the conquering and subjugating.
God’s original intent was for people to govern themselves and the primary unit for humanity’s management was the family, not some elected, appointed, or nobility-born external body, designed to regulate the affairs of people. The Founders understood this clearly because they believed in the utmost respect for individuals and their families. Progressives today simply push for more government because individualized self-governance means that people won’t always comply with Progressive dogma. So, because people don’t agree, Progressives opt to use the power of government to force their will on the people, even if they don’t want it.
This is the reason why the health care bill is still being pushed forward, even though every opinion poll out there shows a majority of Americans simply don’t want ObamaCare.
Ebert then goes on to make the statement, “Fear in either direction must lead to violence”. This is not necessarily true, and it’s not true generally. Fear doesn’t always produce violence, but rather, as the Bible correctly states, fear, specifically of the Lord, produces wisdom. Fear of disciplinary action keeps students in school from becoming delinquent twits. Fear of legal punishment keeps people from breaking the law (why else does a person slow down in an area where they know the police are monitoring for speeders?). Fear from constituents keeps the government from getting so out of hand that its citizens don’t begin expressing anger at the ballot box. Fear doesn’t always produce violence; I’m not saying it doesn’t, just not always.
Government exists at the pleasure of God and the people (even when God and the people disagree) and has risen and fallen when either has mandated for a change. This is the reason why the best forms of government are those that are “of the People, by the People, and for the People”. Governments that are not of/by/for the People have great reason to fear, because if the people, in unified consent, decide to remove their government, they’re toast.
Freedom forever, my friends.
Because it’s not their money, and it’s not even our money. It’s our great-grandkids money.
Democrats today announced plans today to kick up the debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion. It’s bad enough that they do this and kick our national debt to $14 trillion, but the reason they are doing this now…? Because if they do it next year in 2010, they fear the backlash of losing votes come November.
So rather than take a logical course and reduce spending and not try to ramrod legislation that better than half the country doesn’t want, namely so-called health care reform, the Dems interest is to continue their full court press in implementing as much of their radical left wing agenda and burden our successive generations with a debt that is now approaching 25% of worldwide GDP (currently $60T as of 2008).
Perhaps because they understand that if they take out the public option, they will have to bolster Medicare to get their government-run policy in place and someone is going to have to pay for that. And since that arbitrary one trillion watermark represents the spending barrier that Congress seems to want to avoid these days with the healthcare bill, well, the only other place to pull the cash is from the government’s Heward’s handy haversack that contains all the money imaginable. (I guess someone forgot to tell them that their bag of holding was really a bag of devouring.)
In any case, the way that government is presently spending (taking note, again, that President Bush started this insane spending back in 2000 when the national debt was only $5 trillion, not the $14 trillion today), it would seem that their spending is without any sort of fiscal accountability or responsibility.
Because it’s not their money, and it’s not even our money. It’s our great-grandkids money.
Thing is, again, the Dems don’t have the spine to do this next year, when the money is actually needed. Instead, they want to do it now, capitalizing on the thought that Americans won’t be so angry about yet another debt raise when it comes time to pull the switch.
How typical. How pathetic. I guess they realize that raising the debt ceiling is wrong and they don’t want to take the repercussions of their actions.
[B]ecause an objective informed American usually votes more center-right, rather than radical left.
Today’s post comes from an article with the headline, “Obama to GOP: Stop trying to frighten the American People”. And I simply retort with the title of this post, because Obama has been griping since during the campaign about the so-called “failed policies of the last eight years under George Bush”. He continues to moan and groan about George Bush’s time in office, even as he comes up on his first year complete.
George W. didn’t do everything right. For my part, I thought he was a bit too spendy-spendy with money that the government didn’t have. And he’s the one who started this bailout/stimulus mess. However, sitting back listening to Obama complain like he was still on the campaign trail just basically makes me want to say, “Dude, get over it!” But no, he continues to bellyache about the GOP, today saying that Republicans are only out there to scare Americans.
But the thing is, anytime any policy is put out there, Democrat or Republican, that erodes our liberties for the sake of the “greater good”, Americans should be frightened, even to action. But what gets me is that the only thing I see these days from the GOP is them trying to get the truth of things back out there in the face of the public – something they’re not really used to doing, but have had to do since their fall from grace in 2006. Despite my cynicism towards the Grand Ole Party, there are Republicans out there who are trying to tell Americans the truth of the Democrat agenda, such as the stimulus, health (s)care de-form, crap and tax (cap and trade), and climate change. And of course, the Dems don’t like the dirty little secrets of their agenda getting out because an objective informed American usually votes more center-right, rather than radical left.
For example, with more and more government programs in place by this current administration continue to grow government without limit. Democrats continue to assert how they are trying to do things that benefit Americans and then we see a health care reform bill from the Senate that casts aside the public option, yet expands Medicare. Congress makes a pact to not add provisions for federally funded abortion in the bill, yet the Senate bill now allows for it (because they won’t explicitly deny it – kind of like how liberals view the 9th and 10th Amendments: If the law says we can’t, they we can!). And then we see the unemployment rate hovering around 10% when the President promised it wouldn’t go above 8% if the stimulus bill was passed.
The most blessed thing about America is that it was to be the country where one man could not rule over another without their consent, unlike the system in Europe and most everywhere else in the world. Yet today, the Democrats are either trying to take that power through legislative means and bullying or through soft tyranny, such as what DeTocqueville wrote in Democracy in America.
And the American people are showing that they are not frightened, but rather, increasingly incensed about being deceived by an administration that promised all of this “hope and change” and yet is showing more of the same – the same tone since before even W was president. Obama has already told some whoppers and broke some campaign promises. Here are three that are especially close to my heart:
1) Five day public review period for non-emergency legislation: In May 2009, Obama broke this one by signing the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009, effectively stops credit card companies from increasing rates without notice and requires them to post their rules on the Internet, among other things. This wasn’t an emergency measure, as it goes into effect next year, but he signed it just two days after it passing Congress.
And like it matters, after all, putting bills online for public comment for five days doesn’t matter because the public’s comments are generally ignored by the administration. Obama is going to sign or not sign and it doesn’t matter that the public gets to see it a week earlier – it won’t change anything. So this view of transparency is impotent.
Obama also signed an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides health coverage for low-income children. He signed it on Feb. 4, 2009, just hours after it was finalized in Congress.
2) Health care reform debate televised on C-SPAN: Obama promised — repeatedly — an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn’t delivered. Instead of open talks of C-SPAN, we’ve gotten more of the same — talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there’s a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed
Obama made the point that we would address this in a bipartisan fashion, but, at present, the Democrats have locked the GOP out of any possibility of being involved in the bill’s work and genesis. The House negotiation was done behind closed doors as well. The Dems have demonstrated that they have no interest in involving the GOP in this discussion because this is their end run to passing health care de-form (yes, you read that right).
3) Tougher rules on appointing lobbyists into the Administration: This bridge got burned when the Administration announced the use of recusals and waivers to allow folks like William Lynn of Raytheon, Jocelyn Frye from the National Partnership for Women and Families, and Cecilia Muñoz, from the National Council for La Raza (NCLR), all of which presently have cushy jobs within ObamAd, Inc. Senator Grassley asked for information on this, but the White House arrogantly sandbags the process and talks about waivers to policy – waivers that the White House creates. In short, the White House says it won’t appoint lobbyists to the administration, but it gets to choose when to implement a waiver.
President Obama has been appointing a number of crazy people into his administration as of late and the Democrat PR machine has been doing whatever it can to cover up the shady history of the people there. Van Jones was a classic example, a self-proclaimed communist right in the administration and Anita Dunn who thought Mao Tse Tung was just a wonderful guy. (both have since been kicked to the curb). There’s the Safe Schools czar, Ken Jennings who believes discussing “fisting” with 14 year olds is perfectly acceptable. Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar who believes that animals should have the same legal rights to bring a lawsuit as human beings. John Holdren, the dimwit who wrote in his 1977 book EcoScience that “population control measures such as mandatory abortion could be sustainable within the Constitution”. And let’s not forget about Mark Lloyd who would use localist tactics, such as regional content review boards to silence conservative (and Christian) radio stations.
Of course, when the GOP or right-wing commentators like Glenn Beck, Hannity, or Rush make mention of these things, they’re participating in fear mongering.
I’ll tell you this, if you and your party can stop lying to the American people, we’ll stop scaring them with our exposing the truth, because we won’t have to do it. Instead, your admissions of liberal, big government hostility would be clear and plain – enough for any objectively thinking American to turn their voting switch to the right.
ObamAd Inc doesn’t see us as people – it only sees us as wallets from which to take money.
As I listened to the news today, I heard the headline regarding the unexpected drop in the unemployment number, going back down to 10%. And while this isn’t a bad thing, for it is better to see people going back to work, that number rang in my head…10%. While it has gone down, 10% of Americans are still out of work.
But yet, the Senate seems hell-bent on pushing the Senate bill for health care reform through the upper chamber, touting that some 30-40 million Americans don’t have health care. And then that number, 10%, came right back.
And while I’m sure I’m oversimplifying my analysis of the numbers, that 10% of Americans without health care doesn’t equal the 10% of Americans who don’t have work, it is startling that the government is about to spend a trillion dollars of unearned money (which no one has really figured out definitively from where it’s going to come) to fix a system that is not really broken (although it is flawed in a few places) yet the Administration and the Congress are doing nothing to promote jobs.
And then I remember Crazy Uncle Joe Biden’s statement about how the priority needed to be on a three-letter word, J-O-B-S. After laughing at a mistake that my kid would have found amusing, I started shaking my head because J-O-B-S doesn’t really seem to be too important these days, based on how much cash is being thrown at the topic of health reform.
Now before any of you kool-aid drinking liberals out there start talking to me about the stimulus, well, just know that I am not buying that line. The stimulus had nothing to do with really creating jobs because with only 6% of the money spent (again, unearned money from some invisible coffer) and the promise that the jobless rate wouldn’t go above 8% (another lie), I’m not convinced that the stimulus is helping anyone except Democrat cheerleaders, special interests, and pork projects.
But did it ever occur to anyone in Washington that if more emphasis were put on creating jobs by making US companies more competitive, that the problem with health coverage may not be as pervasive? That maybe health reform isn’t all that big of a concern if a person can’t even put food on his/her table.
Americans have made frugality a priority this holiday season, but it would seem that the government doesn’t consider wise spending and fiscal responsibility an issue.
But then, when ever has government ever truly been in sync with the priorities of the people. ObamAd Inc doesn’t see us as people – it only sees us as wallets from which to take money.
I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts. – Unknown
Recently, I became aware of a project that analyzes the US Historical Climatological Network and the Global Historical Climatological Network, taking a physical site survey of all the monitoring stations out there that track temperature trends over the course of years. The USHCN has about 1200 of them out there, which the GHCN has about 30-ish.
The survey found that nearly nine out of ten of these stations were positioned in such a way where there temperature data could be corrupted by things like radiating or reflecting heat from buildings, exhausts or other shadow producing objects. As a matter of fact, government regulation that manages these sensors require their placement where they could not be biased.
Many of these sensors were put in place and later, their surroundings encroached upon by development. These encroachments and biases for the sensors, under the control of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), are generally undocumented. But the biggest problem here is that the sensors are being relied upon by NCDC and GISS to report on rises in global temperature, part of the body of evidence used to advance the case for global warming and climate change.
Simply put, government climate scientists are relying on data from sensors that are being biased by things like air conditioner exhausts, parked vehicles nearby, and radiating heat from stone and brick walls. Maybe they are unaware of this, but the study at Surface Stations.org represents a serious problem with provided data. Commentator Anthony Watts put up this website which is using a grassroots effort to catalog and photograph all the monitoring stations through photographic survey – putting them into a database.
But it would seem that Watts’ research is being largely ignored, with climate change people calling him a crock.
Recently, we were all made aware of scientists in the climatology world who knowingly tried to tamper with data in order to present supportive evidence for man-made climate change, rather than actually reviewing that the data shows a falloff as of late. But rather than come clean on the data and, more importantly, their reasoning for wanting to tamper with the data, the guy at the center of this, University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit director Phil Jones is stepping down. Penn State professor Michael Mann is also under the microscope. Investigators are looking into the matter, but it seems to me that Jones and Mann will get flushed so as to turn the spotlight away from one of the biggest hoaxes in the last 20 years.
And then, there is the unfair handling of evolution scientists in the entire Intelligent Design debate. These scientists ignore the body of creation-based science, because it requires the involvement of a supernatural God. While God goes unmentioned in much of the creation-based evidence, the evolutionist argument outright dismisses anything coming from I.D. simply because it involves God.
And I always thought the purpose of science was to observe and record everything, not just the things that were convenient for the ones recording the results. But as of late, that is suspect.
My post though isn’t necessarily to beat up on the global warming alarmists, yet again, since I’ve already done that on a few occasions. My point here today is to make note that there seems to be something very wrong with the scientific community today. It seems that the body of minds that we’re counting on to provide us insight to what the truth is, win, lose, or draw, is being affected (and subsequently polluted) by people who are concerned by agenda.
We saw this before, all throughout history. Perhaps the most poignant example that comes to my mind is when the Church (and then the public) ostracized Galileo when he noted that earth was round and not in the center of the known universe. It’s one of lifes great ironies that Galileo was a man of very deep faith who believed that the mysteries of nature can never contradict with the Holy Writ (scripture) and yet was persecuted by the Inquisition and confined to house arrest; his only crime: being a scientist that was true to his conviction of the truth. (oh and calling Urban VIII a "thick-headed" man)
I wonder how Galileo would accept how humans have taken to science. Perhaps in the same way as Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Urban VIII received his views. The saddest thing is that it took over 150 years after Galileo died before the Church was forced to conclude he was right and then nearly 350 years before he would get anything close to an apology from the Church.
Not like anyone is really apologizing for having an science-interfering opinion these days.