More On The Misinformation Front
Feb 3, 2010 Political
Barack Obama and James Carville like to call the last decade the lost decade. It is a swipe at George Bush and the assertion is that the economy was terrible while he was in office. Randall Hoven at American Thinker has a great post up comparing the years and how we did and it is broken down by which party controlled the government.
This should drive the Democrats nuts (OK, it is more like a short putt):
So that “lost decade” was really just five lost years: the years when Republicans did not control Congress. When Republicans did control Congress, all of ten years in the last eighty, the economy did just fine — better than most recent decade averages.
Let me be clear. We got “lost” only when Democrats took over Congress. That is a fact.
Not to worry, the Obama apologists who frequent here will come up with some defense of the anointed one.
The Canadian premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is coming to America for heart surgery:
The Canadian premier of Newfoundland and Labrador will be coming to the US for heart surgery for a procedure his deputy claims is not available in his home province. Just One Minute
I am certain that someone will point out that this guy’s province is small and does not offer the surgery that is needed and that this is the case all over Canada depending on where people live and what the population is. This is the excuse we hear when they make excuses for wait times.
But surely this surgery is offered somewhere in Canada. You mean to tell me this guy could not find some place in Canada, with its wonderful health care, where he could get the heart surgery he needs?
No, he is wealthy and he is coming to America to get his surgery. He is coming here for a reason and it is not that the surgery is not offered in his province…
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen does not feel safe under Obama [Big Dog Salute to Just One Minute]:
There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer. Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to America’s critics but the message sent to Americans themselves. When, oh when, will this administration wake up?
Bit by bit, circumstances are forcing President Obama and his aides to come to grips with reality.
Hey Richard, welcome to the club.
Bonus
Republicans get more in fundraising money in December.
That’s the wrap up for now. As always, your comments are appreciated.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: canadian health care, democrat, fundraising, national security, Obama, republican
Republicans Must Save Country From Slavery, Again
Dec 7, 2009 Political
It looks like Harry Reid is cracking up under all the pressure being put on him to get a health care bill passed. Combine that pressure with his diminishing chance for reelection and it all adds up to a crack-up. Today, Reid compared Republicans’ resistance to the health care legislation to those who opposed the ending of slavery in this country.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.
The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement — even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery. Fox News
It was indeed the Republican party that ended slavery in this country and the Democrats were the ones opposed to it. Republicans were the movers and shakers in the ending of the suffrage of women and in getting civil rights legislation passed. The Democrats were the ones who opposed all those things so at least Reid has his party’s history to look at when making the comparison.
The Democrats still espouse slavery in this country and they work hard to keep minorities, particularly blacks, on their plantation. Democrats do not work for equality and support plans that view minorities and women as second class citizens who need a helping hand because they are unable to make it on their own. The Democrats keep select groups enslaved in order to ensure votes. They are aware that as long as they keep promising to make things better they will keep people in chains, beholden to the Democrats who look down upon them.
The health care plan being pushed along will make every American, except the very wealthy and the political elite, slaves to the government. We will depend on government for one of the most important and personal items in our lives, our medical care. The Democrats know that if they can take over health care they will hold people hostage and will use this advantage to ensure wins in future elections.
Look at how the elderly are held hostage over Medicare and Social Security. The Democrats, at election time, always talk about Social Security and how it will be lost under Republicans. The Democrats use the threat of decreased SS or Medicare benefits as a weapon to keep the elderly in line. Fear of losing these benefits is what the Democrats want.
This will happen if we are all forced to be at the mercy of government. The government can justify anything it wants if it holds the keys to the health care mansion. They will regulate what you eat, how much exercise you get, what your kids do, and will increase taxes all under the threat of health care expense and in the name of the common good. It is a dangerous game and it is up to Republicans to stop it.
Republicans ended slavery in this country at the cost of a lot of lives all because Democrats wanted to keep blacks on a leash as servants.
After bondage ended the Democrats worked to enslave blacks and other minorities with social programs that keep the downtrodden at the bottom of the social ladder and always looking up for a hand.
“Please sir, I want some more.”
Republicans have traditionally believed that people who need a helping hand get one but that it is temporary and that the help one gets should be in helping him to improve his lot in life. We believe that you cannot make the poor wealth by making the wealthy poor and that making people dependent will not miraculously lead them to independence. Democrats don’t actually believe it either, they know that making the wealthy poor makes everyone poor and that the best way to control people is to make them dependent. This is their goal.
Once people are hooked they will always do what their masters say because they are afraid of losing what meager things they get.
One only needs to look at how people in New Orleans were unable to care for themselves after Hurricane Katrina to see the harm of dependence on government.
Republicans must rise up and defeat this health care legislation so that we maintain our independence.
I never want to have to tell my grandchildren that they are servants of the government because I stood silently and allowed it to take away our freedom.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: democrat, dependence, health care, Obama, Reid, republican, Senate, slavery
Democrats Might Lose Obama’s Old Senate Seat
Nov 15, 2009 Political
Wouldn’t this be a kick in the pants? It looks like it is possible that a Republican could win the Senate seat that was held by Barack Obama. There is some infighting in Illinois among politicians who wanted the seat (part of the Blago deal making) but did not get it. The seat went to Roland Burris and he is not running for reelection.
Democratic Party leaders in Washington — and the Obama White House — failed to recruit a candidate strong enough to scare Rep. Mark Kirk — the Republicans’ best bet — from the race. The only luck they had was the decision by Sen. Roland Burris — appointed by now-indicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama’s remaining term — not to run to keep the seat. Chicago Sun Times
It looks like Mark Kirk has plenty of money and will make a contest of the whole thing.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the seat held by Obama turned parties and that took the filibuster proof majority away from Harry Reid (who will likely be gone as well) and the Democrats?
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: burris, control, illinois, mark kirk, republican, senate seat
I Don’t Have To Wait On Sotomayor
May 26, 2009 Political
After years of having Bush judicial nominees hammered by Democrats in the Senate as soon as they were nominated the Republicans decided they would wait to pass judgment on Obama’s first judicial nominee. They pretty much have to because Obama selected a Latino who happens to be a woman so if the Republicans jumped all over her right now they will be painted with every brush in the liberal arsenal. Racist, sexist, blah, blah.
I don’t have to wait because, despite Obama’s claims about her qualifications (which seem to be only her ethnicity and her sex) I have already determined she is not qualified based upon several things.
First she is an activist judge and she is a racist. Obama did say he wanted someone who would empathize with those before the court. Empathy is an emotion and the courts are supposed to base decisions on the law and not emotions. Sotomayor is on record as saying that the court is where policy is made. This is absolutely untrue in our system. I am not saying it does not happen but her acceptance of that premise disqualifies her.
That statement is not the only place she disclosed that life experiences dictate rulings. Sotomayor stated; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” New York Times
In one fell swoop she managed to show that her rulings are guided by life experiences (empathy or sympathy depending on the circumstances) and that she is a racist. Her comment about white males is out of line. Imagine if Justice Alito had stated; “I would hope that a wise white man with good family values and experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latino woman who has not lived that life.” (Sotomayor was also involved in a case where whites filed a discrimination suit. She was not in favor of their rights)
The liberals would go nuts. Ted Kennedy would have stroked out with his “concern” for women. Alito would have been labeled a misogynist pig and Borked out of contention. But I am willing to bet this issue will be left untouched by Republican Senators and if they address it the left will attack. Remember, you can only be a racist or sexist if you are a Democrat. One only needs to see how Kennedy or Clinton were treated compared to Justice Thomas. A murderer and an adulterer were defended and a man who had unfounded allegations thrown at him was slammed.
It is obvious that Sotomayor is fuzzy on how the judicial system works and though she claims to be in favor of staying in line with the Constitution she is either lying or does not understand the document. It is obvious from her statements of making policy and life experiences that she is an activist but the icing on the cake for me is her position on the Second Amendment.
Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right and believes it only applies to the federal government so the states can do what they want which would make it different than any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and runs contrary to the equal protection clause. I know there are many anti gun zealots out there who believe the same thing but the reality is that gun ownership is an individual right and the right existed before the Constitution and before we were a country. The Second does not say the government gives the right, it states that THE RIGHT (meaning it already exists).
How is it that the Bill of Rights is a list of INDIVIDUAL rights but the Second Amendment is not one? How can that be? How is it that the Founders are on record as stating that gun ownership is an individual right but our activist judicial system has ignored that? A list of Founder’s quotes on the Second Amendment is here. Here is a sample:
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution [emphasis mine]
The quotation states the people which is the phrase that means all of us and private arms. This means the people and the arms do not have to be part of the militia especially when the first part discusses raising military forces to pervert power and injure fellow citizens (not members of the militia). The words of the Founders echo this sentiment. The Bill of Rights contain individual (civil) rights. To say the Second is not an individual right like the rest perverts the Constitution and demonstrates a misunderstanding of it.
I know that the argument has been made that the issue is settled law and gun control advocates point to the Miller decision. This is what was decided:
In the case of U.S. v. Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court ruled there was no Constitutional basis for Miller to own a sawed-off shotgun without registering it under the National Firearms Act (GPO 1193). Miller’s argument was based upon the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” and as such, was not required to register his shotgun (ibid). After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that:
“[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view” (1194).
Continuing, the Court defined the militia as a force consisting of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion” and that it was “comprised [of] all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time“ (emphasis added) (ibid).
Whereas the Court had ruled that the firearm in question was not exempt from registration, it also highlighted two key points that reinforce the notion the Second Amendment provides for private firearm ownership. First, the Court states that the militia was composed of “civilians primarily,” which is contrary to gun-control activist’s views that the militia of the Constitution equates to the National Guard (i.e. “professional soldiers”) of today. Second, the Court states that those civilians, when called into service, “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves,” which is only possible if private firearm ownership is permitted. Lythosants
People claim that this is the only definitive adjudication of the Second Amendment (until Heller) but that is not true. If one looks at the Dred Scott decision then one can see the court acknowledged that carrying a weapon was an individual right. The merits of the case and whether they got it right is a subject for another time. The important thing here is this argument against granting Scott’s petition:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
~snip~
The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.
A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. [emphasis mine] Cornell Law
This is case law and it is an opinion by the Supreme Court. It clearly states that firearm possession is an individual right and this is affirmed by discussing a negro (not a militia member) would be allowed to keep and carry a firearm. Dred Scott is not brought up in the gun debate as anti gun forces work very hard to deny us our basic right. The same people who will fight to the death to protect a “right” that is NOT in the Constitution (abortion) will fight just as hard to deny one that IS in there and is clearly defined.
Sonia Sotomayor is not fit to serve in the Supreme Court. She rules by empathy rather than the rule of law, is a racist and lacks a fundamental understanding of the Constitution.
Maybe she sat in on one of Obama’s lectures. I hear he was a Constitutional law professor.
The Republicans in the Senate need to do their homework and come prepared to batter her on the Second Amendment. She needs to be beaten as hard and as badly as Alito and Roberts were with the issue of abortion. She needs to be hammered on her racist views just as Sam Alito was for his membership in the Concerned Alumni at Princeton (CAP). Kennedy portrayed Alito as a racist for belonging to that group. The Republicans need to hammer on Sotomayor for her racist views as well. If any Democrat objects, take him out back and shoot him (a tongue in cheek remark clarified for the benefit of Meathead).
Drudge has a headline asking if Republicans can vote against a Latino nominee. Why not? They are not voting on Miss Latin America or for an ethnic issue, they are voting to put someone on the highest court in the land. What they are is of no consequence; what they believe and how they administer the law is.
Besides, it is not like the Republicans are going to get much of the Hispanic vote. That demographic is captured by the promise of Democrats to give away other people’s money and to give them amnesty. They will vote for the party that gives away what is not theirs and enslaves people in the name of diversity and the common good.
So hammer Sotomayor because it won’t make one bit of difference with regard to election day.
Besides, it is better to lose an election doing what is right than to win one while selling out the country.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: activist judge, alito, constitution, democrat, law, Obama, policy, republican, roberts, Second Amendment, sotomayor, unqualified
Specter Might Have Sealed His Own Fate
May 7, 2009 Political
Arlen Specter, the Democrat who came out of the liberal closet, has been stripped of his seniority even though he was promised he would keep it. Now he might not be able to bring home the bacon, so to speak, and that might just move Pennsylvania Democrats to select someone else in the primary. That would be the best slap of all. Imagine; Specter leaves the Republican party because he cannot win the primary and then loses the Democratic primary. This would be the best punishment for him.
There is an article in the Washington Post describing the strange things that have taken place since Specter defected. In the article there is discussion about the loss of seniority and how it might affect Democratic voters and then there is a major gaffe Specter made:
In a sitdown with the New York Times’ Deborah Solomon, Specter said he was hoping that the Minnesota courts would do “justice” and declare former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman the winner in the contested 2008 election. Whoops! Specter tried to walk the comment back told Reid that he briefly “forgot what team I was on.” WaPo
This is funny because no matter how he tries to get out of this he will end up looking bad. He already said that a victory for Coleman would be justice which means a victory for Franken would be an injustice. It is obvious that his rhetoric is all political because he admitted he forgot what team he was on. Then again, he was on the Democratic team so much he should have known his team…
Should this surprise anyone? He forgot what team he was on when he was needed for a number of critical votes. He forgot he was a Republican countless times so I can understand how he could forget the team he is on.
He also forgot the team of people who voted for him when he switched parties. The ones who voted for him were cheated out of 18 months of having the guy they voted for. Of course, since he did not represent their values too often it was probably not a huge shock.
Any way, it will be fun to watch this unfold and things might be unfolding now. The article states:
And, average voters are not likely to be following every jot and tittle of the Specter saga — especially so far from an election. Still, insiders are paying very close attention and, if Specter’s stumbles over the past week encourage Rep. Joe Sestak to run in the primary, then the damage will have been done.
Joe Sestak announced today he was considering a run. That cannot bode well for Specter.
Maybe the Democrats should put their least senior guy in the back of the room so no one will pay attention to him.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: arlen specter, coleman, democrat, franken, gaffe, republican, seniority