Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

New rules for radicals

August 8, 2009

Saul Alinsky must be rolling over in his grave! Adding insult to injury, what follows is from the far left lapdog known as The Denver Post.

If you’re a virtuous and patriotic American, you may find this column either offensive or misleading. If so, please forward it to White House authorities at the Department of Fishy Activity. (E-mail the good people at flag@whitehouse.gov.)

As many of you have heard, the White House now requests that the public tattle on those of us spreading “fishy disinformation” regarding Washington’s proposed takeover . . . oops, I mean “reform” . . . of your health care. This step, naturally, is for our own good.

Now, don’t get overly paranoid, you freaky right-wing zealots. Judging from the Obama administration’s track record, the program will do absolutely nothing other than add billions to the deficit.

The vital thing to bear in mind, though, is that the nation needs a concerted plan to corral this wacko “mob” of “thugs” who recklessly use the First Amendment to decelerate all this forward progress.

We are talking about a moral imperative here. As one senator asserted this week, passing government-run health care is the “sacred duty” of Congress. (Boy, it’s a good thing we banished all that moral preening from Washington.)

When your mission is the same as that of the Lord himself, well, you can imagine the kind of scandalous characters populating the opposition camp. It is the type of individual that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi astutely points out has the tendency to carry “swastikas and symbols like that” to local town hall meetings on health care.

You might be curious to find out what symbols Pelosi believes are “like” swastikas. Maybe she’s referring to the Gadsden flag.

In any event, it’s true that people who believe in health-care choices and free markets are zombies. For one thing, they are entirely too well dressed to contemplate serious issues independently — and thank you, California Sen. Barbara Boxer, for pointing this out. A man without Birkenstocks, after all, is a man without a soul.

Organizing and protesting, as any sensible and compassionate citizen already understands, is exclusively the bailiwick of ideologically diverse and free-thinking groups like unions.

And, really, the most galling aspect of this entire spurious uprising are the rumors that protesters are actually organized. Can you imagine?

The question now becomes: How can we, thinking people, stop this horde of well-heeled, Nazi-loving, insurance-industry funded (and possibly organized) robots? What can we do to destroy our health care?

Well, as always, the president has crafted a glorious plan forward. In an e-mail to the nation, President Barack Obama begins by telling Americans, “This is the moment our movement was built for.”

“That’s why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month,” the president goes on, his words stirring even in pixel form, “where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you’re counting on them to act.”

Who knew? “Organizing” for America? Movements? Sounds familiar.

For those of you who will gleefully point out the hypocrisy of Democrats grousing about organized grassroots activism — whether well-funded or organic — you just don’t get it. It is imperative that we start thinking about the world in a counterintuitive way.

In today’s world, the “radicals” are the ones who protest the takeover of a huge swath of the economy by government bureaucrats who have proven they can’t even run a program that gives free money away to car buyers properly. It is radicals who want to preserve the pillars of a system that over 80 percent of Americans still believe works — though certainly not perfectly.

In this new world, radicals are the ones who protest adding trillions to our debt and who have the temerity to ask if legislators have read the bills they sign. You’ve seen them. Those radicals who are ranting and raving about silly things like the Constitution.

So here is a plan. Instead of making the case for health care “reform,” let’s launch an offensive against citizens. Nazis. Fanatics. Mobs. Thugs. Whatever you call them.

And if you’re really patriotic, you can even report them.

E-mail David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

SOURCE

Score one for the good guys

August 8, 2009

Wimps of various stripes will not like the story that follows. Then again, they don’t give a hoot about the rude men that protect their right to be wimps…

Pakistani Taliban head’s death a blow to militants

ISLAMABAD—Pakistan’s Taliban chief was killed by a CIA missile strike, a militant commander confirmed Friday—a severe blow to extremists threatening the stability of this nuclear-armed nation and a possible boost to U.S.-Pakistani cooperation in fighting insurgents who wreak havoc along the Afghan border.Pakistani officials vowed to dismantle the rest of the network run by Baitullah Mehsud regardless of who takes over, a move seen as essential to crippling the violent Islamists behind dozens of suicide attacks and beheadings in the country.

Already, the Taliban were holding a “shura” council in the lawless, rugged South Waziristan tribal region to choose Mehsud’s successor, intelligence officials and militants told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the information. It was unclear when they might reach a decision.

Full Story

Ninth Circuit to Hear Gun Case

August 8, 2009

Second Amendment: Ninth Circuit to Hear Gun Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed this week to review en banc (by the full court) a panel ruling from earlier this year which held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The idea of such incorporation has long been a question regarding the Second Amendment, though no one would seriously question that the First Amendment, for example, applies to state and local governments. And the First Amendment contains the far more specific provision of “Congress shall make no law…” (emphasis added). The Second is far broader: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Still, we were rather surprised to see even a panel of the Ninth Circuit find that the Second Amendment means what it says.

Furthermore, Ninth Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s ruling in favor of gun rights is at odds with rulings by other Courts of Appeal — including a ruling penned by Sonia Sotomayor on the Second Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court deliberately left the issue for another day in its Heller ruling last year, because the District of Columbia is not a state. Expect that silence to be broken in the not-too-distant future.

SOURCE

Climate Change This Week: NYT Hypocrisy

August 8, 2009

The Gray Lady continues her downward death spiral:

It must be great fun to be part of the mainstream media these days: Make up stories, unencumbered by fact, and when contradictory facts do get in the way, just spin it a little more. A prime example is The New York Times’ treatment of global warming. In a recent article, the Times named this summer the coolest in the Big Apple in over a century, citing a “persistent jet stream” (a.k.a. Mother Nature). Yet the Times was also careful to remind us that 2009’s cool summer and extremely cold winter do not disprove the theory of man-made climate change.

Granted, there is a difference between the weather and the climate, but when asked to explain its 2000 article stating that the warmer-than-usual winter of that year was man-made, the Times responded simply that those temperatures had been on point with scientific predictions — made by scientists purporting that humans are causing global warming. And around and around.

But the media are not alone in pumping out bogus stories of anthropogenic global warming. Many scientists are bent on suppressing any opinions (along with the very real scientific findings supporting those opinions) that run contrary to their own. But a revolt has started among the “deniers” (as those who do not believe in man-made climate change have been dubbed). Recently, several members of the American Chemical Society wrote scathing letters to its global warmist editor in chief, Rudy Baum, exposing his shoddy treatment of them and their work. “Your editorial was a disgrace,” wrote ACS scientist Dennis Malpass. “It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!” One can only imagine the similar disgust journalists with integrity must feel toward those in their profession.

SOURCE

Broken Window Economics: Redux

August 8, 2009

The Truth About Cash-for-Clunkers

The Obama administration has been raving about the success of “Cash for Clunkers” (officially named the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS), and this week Congress dutifully approved $2 billion more for the program. Why the popping of champagne corks? First, the demand for the program was so great that consumers burned through the $1 billion allotted for the rebates in a matter of days. Second, with the amount of flak the administration has taken for its mismanagement of the economy and the health care debate, any perceived victory is welcome. But this is simply not the victory that Obama wants us to believe it is.

Even in the handful of days that the program was active, CARS was plagued by administrative problems — just like any other government program. The government Web site that dealers were told to use to submit buyers’ rebate applications crashed repeatedly due to the high volume of requests. Dealers also had a difficult time registering for the program. Fine-print stipulations about the types of cars and light trucks that could be turned in and which ones could be bought led to customer confusion. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) said, “If this is how the government is going to handle billion-dollar programs affecting all Americans, I ask, whatever will we do if this administration takes control of our health care?”

Meanwhile, the positive impact on the automotive industry and the economy, and indirectly on energy consumption and the environment, is grossly overstated. The upsurge in new vehicle sales that CARS is expected to bring will likely to be short lived — all it did was condense several months of expected new vehicle sales and old vehicle trade-ins into a shorter period of time. No new wealth is being created; it’s just moving from one pocket to another. And destroying thousands of older, cheaper automobiles negatively affects the economy. Having trouble finding an inexpensive used vehicle for your newly driving son or daughter? Thank the CARS program.

Beyond all these issues, Fox News’ Glenn Beck reported that the federal government posted an ominous message at the Clunkers Web site stating that while logged into the Department of Transportation CARS system, users’ computers would be considered property of the federal government and therefore all materials on the computers could be scanned, recorded, monitored, inspected and disclosed to any element of the government, including law enforcement. After Beck’s program aired, the government quickly “clarified” that users who logged into the site had no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy, which sounds essentially like what Beck reported, just in better legalese.

This should be considered an outrage of epic proportions, but the response from watchdog groups has been muted. The ACLU, which challenged every move the Bush administration made during his eight years in office, had this to say: “[I]t is hard to believe that [the Obama administration] would do something like this.” Unfortunately it’s not hard to believe that the ACLU’s selective view of civil liberties would cause them to be asleep at the switch while Socialists run the White House.

SOURCE

Calling All Informants

August 8, 2009

More from the Patriot Post.

THE FOUNDATION

“In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.” –Alexander Hamilton

GOVERNMENT & POLITICS

ObamaCare opponents beware

Calling All Informants

The White House this week took to quoting John Adams in an effort to “debunk” criticism of and opposition to ObamaCare. “Facts are stubborn things,” said the administration. After videos resurfaced of Barack Obama saying in 2003, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program,” and in 2007, “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process,” damage control became imperative.

Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, came to the rescue with a video of her own, claiming that opponents were simply cherry-picking quotes to create a “very false impression.” The trouble is, simply repeating Obama’s claims about Americans keeping their insurance plans isn’t the same as disproving the critics. Facts are stubborn things, Linda.

Not only is this administration intellectually lazy, it is thuggish. “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care,” says the aforementioned post. “These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.” Got that? Team Obama wants you to be a snitch; they want you to report even casual conversation with those who oppose ObamaCare directly to the White House itself.

Red State blogger Erick Erickson says that could be illegal. “According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President, shall ‘maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.'”

Next, the erstwhile community organizer and his Chicago thugs attacked community organizers around the country for attending town hall meetings hosted by congressmen and expressing their disapproval of Washington’s takeover of health care. According to some Democrats, American citizens, when they actively protest the policies of the ruling party and the president, are a “mob” that is out to “hurt our president,” not Americans exercising their constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly and petition to the government. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) went so far as to claim that the protesters were “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” Class act, that Speaker of the House.

Meanwhile, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) strongly implied that ObamaCare opponents are all just pawns of the insurance companies: “I hope my colleagues won’t fall for a sucker punch like this. These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town meetings for visual impact on television. They want to show thousands of people screaming ‘socialism’ and try to overcome the public sentiment, which now favors health care reform.” He added, “There are health insurance companies that are … very profitable and they don’t want to see this reform so they are helping to organize these rallies.”

To recap then, more than half the population is opposing massive, unconstitutional government intervention in health care only because profit-making health insurers told us to. And Obama supporters are supposed to rat out their friends and family for opposing this unprecedented Socialist power grab. Witness the Democrats’ version of America.

Quote of the Week

“‘Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.’ We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away…. Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should ‘do something’ about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don’t have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.” –economist Thomas Sowell

News From the Swamp: ObamaCare Costs More

The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 31-28 last Friday to approve health care legislation. The Senate Finance Committee is nearing a “compromise” bill, as well. The only real compromising going on, however, is that of the principles of so-called fiscally conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats. A public option insurance plan still dominates the House bill and the estimated cost is still about $1 trillion over 10 years, though we don’t believe that low-ball figure for a moment. As The Wall Street Journal notes, “The press corps has noticed the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the House health bill increases the deficit by $239 billion over the next decade. But government-run health care won’t turn into a pumpkin after a decade. The underreported news is the new spending that will continue to increase well beyond the 10-year period that CBO examines, and that this blowout will overwhelm even the House Democrats’ huge tax increases, Medicare spending cuts and other ‘pay fors.'”

According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, new revenue to pay for health care would grow at 5 percent per year for the decade following 2019, while spending will increase at more than 8 percent per year. Worse, the Journal adds, “[T]he CBO score almost surely understates this deficit chasm because CBO uses static revenue analysis — assuming that higher taxes won’t change behavior. But long experience shows that higher rates rarely yield the revenues that they project. As for the spending, when has a new entitlement ever come in under budget?” Democrats may indeed win approval for their plan by claiming it will be “deficit neutral” through 2019, but that’s what we call the BIG lie.

From the ‘Non Compos Mentis’ File

“President Obama and I are working closely with Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate and health care experts to make sure we get the details of health reform right. But we can’t let the details distract us from the huge benefits that reform will bring.” –Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who admitted that she has “no idea” about a provision in the health care bill that requires her to “develop standards for the measurement of gender.” Details, details…

Best of the web

August 8, 2009

Here’s a compilation from The Patriot Post of this weeks Best of the Web.

On ObamaCare:

Utopia Versus Freedom by Thomas Sowell

Impossible Promises by John Stossel

Health Politics Quagmire by Tony Blankley

Sebelius: Don’t Sweat the Details by Cal Thomas

Hazardous to America’s Health by Debra Saunders

Fat Load by Jacob Sullum

Tea Party-Bashers Gone Wild by Michelle Malkin

The Villains of Health Care by Paul Greenberg

On politics:

Obama’s Great Race to Change America by Victor Davis Hanson

The Global Redistributionist at Obama’s Left Hand by Terence Jeffrey

On foreign policy:

Russo-Georgia One Year On: From Reset to Repeat? by Austin Bay

On the birth certificate kerfuffle:

Obama Birth Certificate Spotted in Bogus Moon Landing Footage by Ann Coulter

Triggering The Vote!

August 7, 2009

With each election, Americans go to the polls and make decisions that affect — for better or worse — the future of freedom in America.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 72 percent (142 million) of the eligible voting age citizen population (197 million) were registered to vote in 2004. This means that as many as 55 million people were eligible to vote, but unregistered — and therefore did not participate in the November 2004 elections.

Far too many gun owners and hunters are among them. And every year, millions of teenagers turn 18, thus becoming eligible to register and vote. Many of them have spent their formative years learning hunting and shooting skills, and could be expected to pay attention to NRA’s message.

Now, NRA-ILA has created a new affiliate, the NRA Freedom Action Foundation (NRA-FAF), which focuses on nonpartisan voter registration and citizen education.  The NRA-FAF has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt charity under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Donations are fully deductible.

The NRA Freedom Action Foundation, in turn, has launched a new campaign – Trigger the Vote. And to serve as Honorary Chairman, we brought on board one of America’s most persuasive action heroes — Chuck Norris.  Visit www.TriggertheVote.org to hear his message.

This campaign has deployed a new approach to reach the younger generation, using new social media outlets. It will also use traditional methods of outreach including TV, radio and direct mail.

And Trigger the Vote is mobile, going on the road to educate and register voters at gun shows, shooting ranges and anywhere else gun owners, hunters and shooters can be found. The campaign will post regular updates on the site, including short videos of volunteers explaining why they are putting their time and effort into the campaign.

You too can be part of the campaign. Visit the website, recommend it to friends — and use it to persuade any unregistered gun owners, hunters or shooters you may know to get on board by registering to vote.

Then, click on the “Why Me Why Now” tab to send us your testimonial, whether a short video, photo, or even just an e-mail telling us what you did to sign up new voters. We’ll post the best submissions for all to share, and to inspire other visitors to the site to do their part as well.

Visit www.TriggertheVote.org today – and Trigger the Vote in your community.

SOURCE

Mack Daddy’s fan club…

August 7, 2009

So many times people on the web are branded racist’s, or misogynist, or whatever because of political correctness by those that are ruled by their politics rather than any sort of rational logic.

Never mind that they speak the words that so many are afraid to say. Tracy at No Compromise, Texas Fred, and Romantic Poet come to mind, not to mention Pamela at Atlas shrugs, and Anthony at The Liberty Sphere.

What these good people attempt to communicate is not a thing of hatred, as they are so often portrayed to be doing. But one of love; for this nation, it’s traditions, and yes, it’s people.

Guess what? They are not alone, and not all of their supporters are white. Today while surfing around the web I came across an allied site and one heck of an inspirational speaker, and no, he is not at all white.

Check out this man here.

Senate Confirms Radical Anti-gunner to the U.S. Supreme Court

August 6, 2009

We knew this was coming. Now, we need to see to it that anyone that voted for her is out of a job.

Senate Confirms Radical Anti-gunner to the U.S. Supreme Court
— But Obama nomination suffers a higher than normal number of opposition votes

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Thursday, August 6, 2009

The Senate easily confirmed the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Only 31 Senators took seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution and voted against this radical anti-gun nominee, with 68 voting for confirmation.

All the Democrats in attendance voted for Sotomayor, while nine Republicans joined their ranks.

The Republican Senators who voted for Sotomayor were:  Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Christopher Bond of Missouri, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Mel Martinez of Florida, George Voinovich of Ohio and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.

Many Democrat Senators campaigned on a pro-Second Amendment platform, yet voted to confirm a nominee who does not believe you have a fundamental right to self defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

Placing the prerogatives of President Obama over their constitutional “Advice and Consent” duty, many so-called pro-gun Senators reneged on their promises to voters that they would support the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The common refrain heard in the Senate before the vote was:  “The President deserves his pick.”

Of course, Senator Barrack Obama did not hold that view in 2006, when he opposed President Bush’s pick of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.  Then-Senator Obama said:

There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.

Thankfully, we are seeing more and more Senators stand up to Obama’s radical agenda.  You will remember that GOA encouraged you to lobby other gun groups so that gun owners across the country could speak with a unified voice in opposition to Judge Sotomayor.

We were hugely successful in this endeavor!  News reports credit the gun lobby’s strong and unified opposition to Sotomayor as resulting in at least three NO votes from Senators who were previously undecided or in favor of the nominee. Even that figure is probably low, considering that 31 NO votes is a lot better than three NO votes (in the case of Justice Ginsburg) and nine NO votes (in the case of Justice Breyer).

One of the fence-sitting Senators who voted right today was Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah.  For the first time in his 33 year Senate career, Hatch voted against a Supreme Court nomination.  You may remember that Hatch even supported Obama’s pick for Attorney General and voted to end the filibuster on Harold Koh, the radical choice for the State Department counsel.

But faced with mounting pressure from grassroots in his state, Sen. Hatch broke with long-standing tradition regarding his support for Supreme Court nominations.  Today, he voted against Judge Sotomayor.

“I feel very badly that I have to vote negatively — it’s not what I wanted to do when this process started — but I believe that I’m doing the honorable and right thing,” Sen. Hatch was quoted as saying in Newsday.

Thank you, everyone, for putting the heat on your Senators.  President Obama would do well to interpret 31 NO votes as a “shot across the bow.”  With his approval ratings plummeting, the president’s next Supreme Court pick may have to be far more in the mainstream.