Orwell's New Speak seems to have been augmented with New Read with regard to the Constitution. Using New Read, "choice" is absolutely part of a Constitutional Right to Privacy even though the words "right to privacy" are not written into the physical document. However, freedom of speech and the press, as well as the right to bear arms, are virtual. They appear to be there in the written document, but using New Read they disappear.
Feb 16, 2014
George Washington has universal approval because he refused to be crowned as a king or dictator with emergency powers for life. He believed the central government had to be strong enough to defend the country, but he believed in limits to power. Washington, like all of the founders, believed in checks and balances. The One We All Were Waiting For, by contrast, wants to be a king or dictator. Like Charles I of England, our Dear Leader wants to rule by decree without having to get anything past the legislature, as his constant unilateral revisions of Obamacare “settled law” demonstrate. Progressive condescension conceals their ignorance of history, specifically the history of England from 1600 to 1789 that informed the drafters of the Constitution. The antics of Charles I (1600-1649) and his son James II (1633-1701) lead to the English Civil War (1646-1651) and later to the overthrow of James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The idea that government exists by the consent of the governed was first advanced by John Locke in 1688 in reaction to James II's claim to be king by divine right. Charles I and James II both had a habit of ignoring or bending the laws. This history lead to the Constitutional provision that the president "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Community Organizer in Chief has a habit of revising the laws by decree to suit himself, which undermines the rule of law. Since Progressive Liberals, like the author of this article, find little intellectual content in Conservative thought, it's likely they have no knowledge of this relevant history and are in favor of repeating it. I guess they have the benefit of a Progressive Liberal education. But I'm just an ignorant red neck, so don't mind me.
To me, the Community Organizer in Chief. looks like Charles I of England (1600 - 1649). Charles tried to rule without Parliament for 11 years. Our Dear Leader is talking about using his pen and phone to rule by decree. Charles thought he should be an absolute monarch by divine right. This is quite similar to the thoughts of The One We Weren't Really Waiting For. The Constitutional Professor in Chief believes he can grant exemptions to any law at any time, like refusing to collect Obamacare employer mandate taxes or the ordering the enforcement of the Dream Act for illegal aliens brought here as children after it failed to pass Congress. I believe we can solve our problems with the Smartest President Ever without following the historical pattern of Charles I. Charles' insistence on absolute power lead to the English Civil War. Charles I lost the Civil War he initiated by trying to arrest 5 members of Parliament on the floor of the house. Oliver Cromwell became a military dictator and executed Charles. We have the next 2 elections to fix the problem. It's important we give it our best shot to win these elections.
Article I was reacting to: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/17/3297131/george-washington-tea-partys-worst-nightmare/
Increasing the minimum wage helps unions who negotiate their pay based on a percentage over the minimum wage. It also means that 2 unskilled workers become too expensive to compete with one skilled (union) worker. Finally, by eliminating most of the low wage chances to learn how to get and keep a job, it increases dependency on government and makes it cheaper and easier for Democrats to buy votes with taxpayer money. So Liberals sell it as a "living wage" when actually it suppresses employment, which is what they want. Progressives are now saying that Obamacare suppressing employment is a good thing. They finally came out of the closet on this.
Reagan's policies created 5.32 million jobs net in his 1st term. Our Dear Leader's policies created 1.2 million. Reagan restrained government spending, cut regulation, worked with the Federal Reserve to curb inflation, and cut tax rates across the board. The Smartest President Ever did the opposite in every respect. He increased government "stimulus" spending, increased regulation, worked with the Federal Reserve to have lots of "quantitative easing" to expand the money supply, and raised tax rates on the rich. In Reagan's second term, 10.78 million net new jobs were created. Reagan inherited a much more troubled economy that the Community Organizer in Chief, with 13.5% inflation and increasing unemployment. Based on the results, Reagan's policies worked, and those of The One We All Were Waiting For did not.
Feb 11, 2014
According to the dictionary, socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Isn't that the definition of Obamacare with regard to health insurance? The One is a socialist, according to the definition.
Feb 9, 2014
Dinesh D'Souza is being prosecuted for campaign contribution violations for producing a documentary. This is really a selective prosecution. I seem to remember that the Obama campaign website was reputed to have removed the residency check for small contributions by credit card. In other words, they did not check to see if the billing address of the credit card was in the US. However, maybe they were unable to set the website up correctly. After all, they seem to have a lot of trouble with setting up websites.
As a lawyer and professor of law, the author of the article on Obamacare referenced below has a conflict of interest. He and his fellow lawyers stand to make a lot less money under any Republican malpractice reform, which would make doctors cheaper at the expense of trial lawyers. Any trial lawyer would prefer Obamacare, with our Dear Leader changing "settled law" every day, creating more causes of action with every change. The author's whole reason for writing the article is to stop malpractice reform. The rest is just fluff to hide what he really wants. He really doesn't care if half the country loses their insurance as long as they want to sue some deep pocket insurance or health care company afterwards. That way he can skim off his third of the "pain and suffering" awards when he settles the cases. Citing the Congressional Budget Office as the authority on the benefits of malpractice reform is really funny. The CBO estimated Obamacare would save money. LOL
Link to article:
Gun control laws are really stand still and be fleeced laws. Violent crime is a progressive method of wealth redistribution. Since the end result is a progressive goal, the means are not a big concern. My favorite Chicago gun story was in the news over 30 years ago. A very large man was breaking into an occupied apartment with a crowbar. He heard a little old lady voice say, "Go away. I've got a gun!" He laughed and resumed his break in. The little old lady put 6 rounds of .38 cal through the door. The robber was killed. The gun was illegal, but the little old lady was not prosecuted. It amused me so much, I have remembered it all these years.
I work in IT with a lot of people who would like a chance at citizenship. Some live here on H1B visas which tie them to a single employer. Others rotate here for 6 months of on the job training then are forced to return to their countries. There are even more who I deal with who live offshore because they can't get even a temporary visa. All of these folks are highly educated and very productive people. The immigration change we need is to allow these educated, productive people to come here and enrich our country instead of forcing them to live somewhere else. Proposing a bill to allow educated immigration for these people and their immediate families makes good economic sense. The Democrats would fight such a bill, because they want to increase the number of voters dependent on government largess that will vote for the Democrats who are giving them money. If they did fight such a simple bill or insisted that it could only be a part of a "comprehensive" package, we could call them racist! That would amuse this ignorant red neck very much.
As the community organizer in chief is well aware, this "punish your enemies" behavior is expected of Chicago government. We've had a saying here for at least 50 years, "If you don't vote right, you don't get your streets fixed." The Washington Bridge closure is a national issue for the Pravda Press only because they have begun to worry that Governor Christie might have a chance against "Hillary The Inevitable." The media pattern is quite clear. First they build up a Republican "moderate" as a reasonable presidential hopeful. The buildup is designed to demonstrate the bipartisanship and objectivity of the Pravda Press. It also is intended to pull all Republicans leftward. When these "objective" reporters overdo the buildup, or start to believe their own propaganda, then they overcompensate and regretfully find that their former choice has fatal flaws. So they destroy their choice. The Pravda Press can repeat this as often as necessary in order to fill the time until the Democrats choose a nominee. Then they get busy straining at Republican gnats and swallowing Democratic camels. Once you've seen the pattern a few times, it's so predictable that it's funny.
Nixon's ghost is green with envy. If Nixon had possessed the kind of total support in the Pravda Press that the Chicago Machine Hack in Chief does today, Nixon would have never had to resign. Watergate would have been found to be just a case of some guys taking a wrong turn in an office building.
The Democrats' attitude towards war is that it's a needless expense that drains money from domestic vote buying, I mean valid domestic needs. Part of the reason they can get away with this is that there were no "recriminations'" after the Vietnam defeat. Congressional Democrats cut off all of the money for supplying the South Vietnamese military while they were being attacked in 1975. This betrayal lead directly to the fall of Saigon and the infamous helicopter evacuation of the American Embassy there. While 500,000 Vietnamese fled the communists in leaky boats, and tens of thousands died in Vietnam and millions died in Cambodia, the left was proclaiming that there should be no recriminations. Now the Democrats are repeating their war losing strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Political Hack in Chief bugged out of Iraq as quickly as possible. He is also on his way out of Afghanistan. Once defeat is assured, the Democrats can argue that defense spending is futile, because it doesn't win wars. This argument justifies cuts in military spending which can enable satisfying more domestic needs to buy more votes. The right should learn that there should be the maximum amount of recriminations possible from this scandalous behavior. Swift boating selected candidates is not enough retribution to stop this liberal/progressive/Democrat strategy.
Feb 8, 2014
The debates on voter ID seem ridiculous to me. As a long time observer of Chicago politics, it seems absurd for anyone to argue that vote fraud is not a problem. Here "Vote early, vote often" is a cliche. Liberals often say requiring ID to vote is racist. Are they trying to make the US safe for vote fraud? If not, are Liberals willing to have heavy federal supervision of inner city voting places where the fraud by political machines is often rampant? Just one example: Harold Washington was elected mayor of Chicago by a lot of Indiana voters who crossed state lines to register at friends' addresses.
The way to open the West is to sell off federal land and use the proceeds to balance the budget. Compromise with liberals on spending as long as any spending in excess of revenue will be paid for by land sales which will specifically include timber and mineral rights. This would pay off in lots of ways. Sale proceeds would balance the budget. Liberals would have to make a tradeoff between spending and preventing more land sales. Once the land was in private hands, it would become much more productive than it is now under the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service. It would create jobs when the land is developed. It also will sound reasonable to everyone who is not a mean green.
Whether women can control themselves or not, contraception is cheap. Why can't whoever wants to use it buy it for themselves? Why can't people who believe in everyone having access to contraception create charities to fund it for the small percentage of women who can't afford it? Refusing to force employers to purchase contraception is not the same as outlawing contraception! /Sarc on/ Why not make a law to require any man having sex with a women to pay for the contraception? It would at least place the cost on the same people who were enjoying the benefits. /Sarc off/ The reaction to this post said marriage forces the men to pay for contraception, among other things.
Haven't Congressional Republicans learned by now that "comprehensive" anything is a recipe for government caused disaster by either malevolent hidden provisions or unintended consequences. We need to pass something that does not get made into a comprehensive mess in a conference committee run with remote control by Harry Reid. The basic premise for immigration ought to be a better than average chance of being able to support yourself in this country without any government assistance. To start on this, change the law so that anyone with a US college degree in Math or Technology can stay here as a permanent resident. Further state that becoming a citizen requires that no member of your family uses any government funded assistance, including the "refundable" low income tax credits or medicaid, for 5 to 7 years before becoming a citizen. Finally, remove all national origin preferences and all family preferences beyond parents, spouse and children. That should be comprehensive enough for anyone. Done. We don't need deals about enforcement that is never going to take place. We don't need deals that create a new subsidized class of Democrat votes. If we need some piece of the "Dream Act," it should stand on it's own and require an honorable discharge after 4 years military service. Getting a bachelor's degree in Sociology should not be a ticket to citizenship.
Liberal assumptions about my beliefs are funny. They assume I'm a fundamentalist Christian with a racist tinge. I actually believe that married gay couples need to own guns to protect their homes and marijuana plants. Just to save Liberals guessing wrong again, I go to a Protestant church once a year for Easter. My wife is not a Christian. My sister in law is black and I'm really glad she married my brother. It's amusing that liberals start the story of American education in the 1830's. It allows them to skip over falling test scores and graduation rates in inner city schools in more recent years. I don't think my grandmother teaching in a one room schoolhouse in Colorado in 1914 at the age of 16 has much to do with current conditions, although I do agree she was a successful teacher. I assume that union teachers are being paid for "voting right" as we say in Chicago, because the education they provide in inner city public schools is so poor there could be no other reason to pay them. Many voucher schools, like Milwaukee College Prep for example, are non sectarian. I suppose in the liberal mind any voucher school is a front for Jesus Freaks. I'm sure the Jewish philanthropist who raised the money to found Milwaukee College Prep would be surprised to hear he's just a front for Jesus. I still don't understand why Catholic charities have to be given a choice between signing an approval form for their insurance to pay for contraceptives and going out of business. I guess we all need to genuflect before taxpayer financed contraception. Why can't Sandra Fluke buy her own? They certainly don't cost that much. I guess Liberals would say it should be that way because they like it that way. Their intolerance for Christianity reminds me of the Taliban a lot more than religiously affiliated schools and charities they detest. Don't let me disturb the Liberals hour of hate. I'll play Emmanuel Goldstein for liberal convenience.
Settled science is an oxymoron. Remember that the original climate hockey stick work depended on raw data that was "accidentally" erased. To this ignorant red neck, that sounds like the scientific equivalent of the dog ate my homework. As someone with a little bit of statistics training, I have always been amazed that climate scientists are willing to use less than 150 years of rigorous temperature records and proxies for earlier observations to predict temperature patterns that unfold over thousands and tens of thousands of years. For just one example, look up the patterns of Lake Missoula glacial floods over time. During a 2000 year period between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago, ice dams would build up a huge amount of water, then burst. Geological evidence indicates that this happened at least 25 times. Missoula is a town of about 45,000 people today. There is no lake. (I used to live in Missoula.) It's clear that temperatures varied widely over the period of time before man was a factor. Anthropomorphic global warming has always struck me as extreme hubris.
Warren Buffet needs corporate welfare because he's a big Democrat fund raiser. His railroad competes with the Keystone Pipeline, so he's an environmentalist. He got rich buying businesses at estate tax sales, so he thinks the death tax is only fair. Isn't it time for Conservatives to start to question Liberal motives? They say we start wars to make money. Why can't we say, early and often, that they use any excuse to increase government power and then sell regulatory relief for campaign contributions? Given how even low information voters feel about the government, I think this would be an easy sell.
Actually, the double standard of the Pravda Press means that Republicans can't use the IRS to target opponents. Nixon did it, along with the Watergate cover up. It was a strong second reason Nixon was driven from office. When a Democrat uses the IRS to harass opponents and then stonewalls a Congressional investigation, the Pravda Press doesn't think the story is worth covering. End result is the Democrats can get away with it, as they are doing right now, and the Republicans can't.
This article is a prime example of the Pravda Press in action. Every possible Republican is fatally flawed. Any possible Democrat is an interesting possibility with lots of advantages. Is the author reporting this article as an in-kind contribution to the Democratic Party? Clinton left people she was responsible for protecting unprotected, unsupported and ultimately dead. Nobody was fired, reprimanded or even scolded publicly for this criminal negligence. Clinton says at this point what happened doesn't matter, and the Pravda Press accuses Republicans of Benghazi Syndrome for pursuing an investigation. Chris Christie's aides cause a traffic jam and the administration loudly starts a criminal investigation. The Pravda Press piles on with all sorts of unsubstantiated charges and then concludes Christie is too damaged to run for president. When Democrats fail to patch Chicago potholes in neighborhoods that "voted wrong," everybody laughs about it. The Democratic Party passes Obamacare using fraudulent promises, brings up a website that doesn't work and fails to build a back end to pass enrollment information accurately to insurance companies, and the Pravda Press says Obamacare is working well. After 5 years of the Smartest President Ever, the unemployment rate is falling only because people have given up trying to look for work. This is OK by the Pravda Press, because Bush did it. At this point, reading the Pravda Press is mainly good for laughs at how far they will go to support "the narrative" of the left. At this point, the facts don't seem to matter.
I love the author's smugness in this article. Liberal policies, both foreign and domestic, have resulted in multiple "man-made disasters." Obamacare probably canceled more insurance than it granted. Liberals proved they can't set up a web site. The Libyan intervention went so well that 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi, but at this point what does it matter? There has been no global warming in the last 15 years and a group of scientists studying global warming in Antarctica had their boat trapped in ice and had to be evacuated by helicopter. We spent over a trillion bucks in "stimulus," but all it purchased was enough votes to reelect our Community Organizer in Chief. Our unemployment rate is falling only because so many job seekers have given up. Our red line on poison gas in Syria was erased after it was crossed. We are negotiating with the Iranian mullahs, but we have scared other Middle Eastern countries so much that the Saudis and Israelis are becoming chummy in self defense. If the Iranians get the bomb, and it's clear that the Smartest President Ever is not going to stop them, then we have a high risk of nuclear, or at least general war between the Israelis, Saudis, Kurds and Gulf States on one side, and the Iranians, Syrian Alawites and Hezbollah on the other. We bugged out of Iraq so fast that now Al Qaeda is in control of Fallujah again. We are set to bug out of Afghanistan and leave Al Qaeda and it's affiliates in charge there too. So while liberals move from disaster to disaster with enthusiasm, the only problem worth talking about is aging red necks in the Republican Party who rightly think the government is too big, too broke and begging for more terrorism from jihadists. It would seem that red necks like me are too ignorant to appreciate the glories of the One We All Were Waiting For. By the way, why is the Tea Party racist by definition while Al Sharpton, who actually cheered on a race riot, is not?
If the Tea Party is weakening, perhaps it's because the IRS is harassing them? Worse, the IRS has just come out with even stricter regulation of educational foundations free speech rights, which seem tailor made to gut Tea Party groups. However, unions can continue to do as they please politically under the same law that the Tea Party groups operate. For the Pravda Press, the George Washington bridge scandal is the big news, and the IRS is not worth covering. I know for a fact that their priorities would be vastly different if the president was a Republican. I know this because when Nixon used the IRS to harass his enemies, it WAS front page news and described as an impeachable offense. I agree with the historical assessment of Nixon, but I wonder why it doesn't apply to the current occupant of the White House.
The fact is the only way Israel can destroy enough Iranian centrifuges is to nuke their underground facilities. Please explain to this ignorant red neck why it's wise to encourage the Israelis to nuke the Iranians. While the unanticipated result of Obama's foreign policy is to reconcile Israel and Saudi Arabia, the improved relationship itself shows just how terrified both countries are of a nuclear Iran. Add in the Kurds, who are already very friendly with the Israelis and are getting friendlier with Saudi Arabia, and a general war in the Middle East becomes much more likely. The world in general is very reminiscent of 1914, when a minor league assassination set off World War I and millions died. In the face of all this, commenters on this site are talking about John Bolton's mustache. A new level in Liberal/Progressive ignorance.