The Rabid Conservative

Think Right, Act Right, Be Right.

Posts Tagged ‘pelosi

New Note to Democrats: Hold Up – Obama Still Needs Pelosi

leave a comment »

During a fundraiser speech in Cali-foreign-ia, ObamaAd, Inc made the pitch of how important it was that the Democrats win back control of the House in the 2014 mid-term elections and bring back Speaker Pe-lousy and her fake plastic surgery smile back to the podium.  

I guess he doesn’t like John Boehner very much.

It might be that Boehner and Obama have butted heads over the notion of the so-called fiscal cliff deliberations.  Or the ongoing head-butting that came after when it came time to try to stave off Obama’s sequester action (aka Obama wanted to kill his own sequester idea and then blame the GOP for it).

I’m sure Pelosi would be a lot more agreeable to Obama’s ideas of reckless uncontrolled entitlement spending.  I guess he got used to the idea when Pelosi held open the door for ObamaCare with her, “we got to pass it to find out what’s in it” nonsense.  

Cry me a river, Mr. President.  If John Boehner is the guy who stands between you and your “fundamentally transforming America” through your Karl Marx loving, socialistic, garbage, then so be it.

 

Obama in California: ‘I could get a whole lot more done if Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House’ | WashingtonExaminer.com.

Written by Rick

April 4, 2013 at 10:17 pm

Posted in Political

Tagged with , , , ,

Those Pesky Things Called Elections

leave a comment »

I’ve said it before, elections are one of those things that have consequences.  But I’m not the only one who has said that.  Over the course of the last four years, the Lib-crats have pontificated that 2006 has been about the “mandate of the people”.  And with that power, boy howdy did they ever run with it:

Liberals doing their thing. Gotta love Marxine Waters playing her socialist card.

 

So today, Nancy goes in and says, “elections should not matter as much as they do” to a group at Tufts University this week.  She certainly wasn’t thinking that way in November 2006 when she gave that self-congratulatory speech, now was she?

But now, with the Tea Party firmly tearing through the Washington establishment, Nancy is missing those good ol’ days when people didn’t stand on beliefs – they just stood on what special interest would fund them at the time.

Elections are supposed to matter a lot because if people don’t like the direction of their government, they should have the power to change it.  November 2010 demonstrated that, after four years of change promises made by lib-crats, which only made the problem worse by failing to pass a budget – instead, spending every waking hour pushing the socialistic Health Deform bill. 

By the way, Nancy, while you may call Republicans your friends, I scarcely can think of a Republican who would openly call you their friend.  You represent government that no one really wants – at best a necessary evil, at worst an intolerable one.  And you’ve never been the best at anything, except for caricatures.

In closing, I give you this insta-classic video to play over and over until either you get tired of it or Nancy gets actually voted out of the House…or your computer crashes.

Written by Rick

April 12, 2011 at 9:21 pm

Pelosi: I Don’t Care If You Want It or Not

leave a comment »

Once again, Pelosi shows us her hand and tells us how much she doesn’t really care about the will of the American people.  According to Rasumussen, 56% of Americans today don’t want the Democrat idea of health reform.

But Nancy Pelosi doesn’t care about what Americans say, as this article shows.

Previous to this post, I talked about the sham of a publicity stunt by Democrats about how they are reaching across to Republicans to get health reform done, asking GOP members that, if they offered any good ideas, they would listen to them.  Obama said it this last week, Pelosi this week.  And the GOP has constantly provided ideas, but the Dems have automatically wrote them off, even before consideration.  It’s pretty easy to say that the GOP has no good ideas to consider when they get dropped before any consideration.

But the point here is, once again, to note that Nancy Pelosi does not care about what the American public wants or doesn’t want.  Instead, she is only concerned with ramming some sort of Progressive bill through and making the public pay for it.

That bag has got to go.

Written by Rick

February 28, 2010 at 8:00 am

Posted in Political

Tagged with ,

Pelosi’s Win Spinning

with 7 comments

The Dems absolutely hate the idea of a federal republic because it takes power from Washington and keeps it in the hands of the individual states or the individual citizens.


There has been a lot of analysis (ad nauseum, actually) regarding the 2009 election, about whether it was a Democrat victory – the beginning of a GOP revolution, a referendum on President Obama’s first year, etc etc.

But the thing that I found most amusing was Nancy Pelosi’s remark about how it was a Democrat win because [they] "picked up votes".  And to that end, she’s right, the Dems added two to their number in the House majority – a majority that is whipping the rest of the House Dems into supporting the Nationalist Health Care Malform Bill.  And while I won’t go into the particulars of that 1900 pages of bureaucratic rubbish today, I must say that, yes, with Pelosi having a chance that the bill could be defeated in the House, she needs every vote she can muster.  So, when the delta is at about ten votes, two votes are important.

But aside from that, there’s one other angle that I’ve not heard the pundits discuss – and one that the Democrats in Washington seem to give very little care – the autonomy of the State and how this past election affects that dynamic.

Consider the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:

IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Dems absolutely hate the idea of a federal republic because it takes power from Washington and keeps it in the hands of the individual states or the individual citizens.  The Dems want a stronger central government to control what the states and the people can do, rather than leaving them to govern themselves, as the Founders intended.

There are scores of violations of these two amendments that have allowed for inappropriate growth of government.  Using the federal court system to override the decision of people, such as Prop 8 in California (which was decided properly) and or 1972′s Roe v. Wade decision (improperly overriding Texas law) are clear if we apply the Ninth Amendment properly.  Implementing exorbitant government programs and regulating behavior through these programs violates the Tenth.  And all of these things are issues that should be left to the Several States or the People.

So when Nancy Pelosi gets the word that the Virginia and New Jersey will have GOP governors, she could care less.  Pelosi and her liberal bunch don’t care about the rights of the Several States (unless they are in alignment with the liberal agenda).  Liberals seek to subvert the power of the States in favor of their agenda – using the power of federal government to override the will of the people.

It’s quite interesting to see that when decisions are left to the people, such as recently demonstrated by Maine’s voters over Question One, exercising a People’s Veto (something that I like, BTW), the rights are preserved in the hands of where they should be – with the people, first.

Pelosi doesn’t believe this. 

BTW – Had Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races gone Democrat, we would have heard from Pelosi and her ilk that this was a clear referendum that the liberal policies are what the people wanted.  But they certainly don’t believe it to be true with GOP wins.  The spin on this one is pretty high for sure.

Written by Rick

November 5, 2009 at 12:26 pm

Clunker-Cashless, Stimulus Porn and Pelosi’s Shrieking

leave a comment »

Well, there a lot of little things on which for me to comment.   Lately, there’s been so much going on in the world, I wonder if the liberals are sorta running a media blitz play with all the noise on the radar in hopes of diverting attention away from the real threats, namely Crap and Tax and the Careless and Unhealthy Reform Bill. But here is a three-fer for you of bite size rabidity on which to munch…

1. Well, my friend Roy should love this one. Turns out the Cash for Clunkers program may be stalling out (as much as (p)MSNBC hated reporting this story).  As I previously wrote on TRC, one of the reasons that this program was such a bad idea was my number one reason – adds to the overly exuberant government spending.  The program hasn’t been active very long – just a couple weeks and about 23,000 cars have already been purchased, with a government price tag of about $95M.  If left to itself, it probably could sap $1B of non-existent money from the federal treasury.

But there is a lesson to be learned here – one for the auto manufacturers to understand.  If you make a product that people want and price it competitively, people WILL buy it.  If people don’t want to buy your product, it could mean that your product is priced too high.  Remember, the ultimate value of something is what someone will pay for it.  Otherwise, my kid would be able to set up her lemonade stand, charge $58 for a 6 oz. cup of lemonade and gripe to the government for a bailout because sales are down.

2. Well, I guess the liberals think that providing funding for pornography is an important project, designed to create jobs and grow the economy.  As we found out today, the National Endowment of the Arts has dropped some of their red-inked money into the red light district, funding projects like the San Fran-freak-o debauchery Perverts Put Out and putting up $50k on a horror-erotica called Thundercrack, featuring three men, four women, and a gorilla.  Hmm…spending taxpayer money on porn involving killing and animals to me doesn’t fall into the “money well spent” column.

It would seem that crazy Uncle Joe is asleep at the wheel while he’s supposed to be watching for any fraud, waste, and abuse of any of the stimulus money.  So what we’ll do is take an impossible task, such as monitor the expenditure of stimulus money and give it to an incompetent boob like Biden.  Of course, earlier last month, Biden came out saying, “duh, yup, money’s a-being wasted!”  Good one, Uncle Joe.  We don’t need Urim and Thummim to figure that one out.

(can I say “boob”…considering that this bullet is all about taxpayer dollars for porn?)

3. The Queen Bee, the Head Battleaxe of the House, Nancy Pelosi lashed out in fury, demonizing all the evil insurance companies, telling us all about their immorality.  Now, I won’t disagree wholly with Pelosi here, because I believe any industry that makes millions off the suffering and fear of others (insurance and legal, for example), is evil.  But Pelosi’s attack isn’t over what the insurance companies do, but rather, it is to demonize them in order to push the Health Care(less) Reform Bill through Congress.

The thing is, as Rush Limbaugh eloquently pointed out in his radio program this week, Democrats need a demon, an enemy to fight.  They can’t keep lashing out at Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, or the like anymore because they’ve got all the cards now.  They’ve had the House and the Senate since 2006 and for the last six months, the White House.  They’ve even got the Senate filibuster-proof, so there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to get their agenda done, right?  What do they need the GOP for?  But that’s not enough – they don’t have a dragon to fight, so they have to attack windmills for their glory.  Without a demon to fight, the Democrat party has nothing. 

To my friends…

Written by Rick

July 30, 2009 at 9:36 pm

In Short – A Primer on the Basic Rights of Man

leave a comment »

Within the Declaration of Independence, one of our most hallowed and sacred of documents covering the governance of our land, there are three inalienable rights of man, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I believe that every American and every human has these three basic rights. However, as we learned, these rights can override one another, as we learned from Oliver Wendell Holmes.  So, as I think over this list, I see that it is an ordered list, and correctly prioritized.

In other words, the right to life reigns over the right to liberty; the right to liberty trumps the right to the pursuit of happiness.  So, it is improper, then, for one’s pursuit of happiness to infringe on another man’s liberty, and a man’s liberty should never override another person’s right to life.

I think about the abortion issue and the fact that I believe the unborn child, from conception to birth, is a human life and is deserving of equal protection. I do not believe that a woman’s pursuit of happiness should ever override that baby’s right to life.

Now, if one chooses to give up their right to life so that another might have the right to life, or even more, the right to liberty, this is an act of bravery and courage. The Bible even says, “scarcely for a good man would one dare to die”.  My brethren and sisters-in-arms offer up their lives so that I may have the right to liberty – and for that, I offer my humblest gratitude, as we all should, for they are the true heroes of our country, not Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid.

Giving up one’s liberty for someone else’s happiness, however, is an act of stupidity, and giving up one’s right to life for another’s happiness is an atrocity.

So we see there is a priority to these rights and I believe George Mason, who penned these words into the Virgina Declaration of Rights might agree with my premise*. But even if he would not, I do believe that there are priorites to rights, based on the precedents set in the Scriptures.

Lastly, these truths are self-evident, that is, they need no explanation. And just like the charges listed in the Declaration, one has to suspend rational and logical thought to not see it this way.

*An interesting sidenote is that Mason was in-fact a slave-owner. Even more interestingly, he was, at heart, an anti-slavery advovate. He said, “It is far from being a desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and infelicity to be now deprived of them.” So he might not have truly agreed with my premise, given his right to property and pursuit of happiness would not be overridden by their right to liberty, but I digress.

Written by Rick

January 23, 2009 at 5:32 pm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: