When I read stuff like this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/02/aclu-others-slam-obama-for-signing-defense-bill-that-includes-detainee/
It makes me really think we need a truly strict constitutionalists as our next president. Someone who will look at this and strike it off the books on principle.
- Edit: I fixed the link to a FoxNews story that's close to the opinion piece I originally read. All copyrights belong to FoxNews etc. No infringement is intended.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Monday, January 2, 2012
Monday, September 26, 2011
I haven't mentioned politics in a while.
I suppose there are a few reasons for that. But I have to say.
The only job I want the great anointed one to talk about is he won't be seeking a second term for the one he has.
The only job I want the great anointed one to talk about is he won't be seeking a second term for the one he has.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
It's a double dip recover?
So, the DOW drops 400 or so point on Friday, then another 600 some on Monday when the great zero stood up at the podium, you know the one that has the seal and everything, and said "Move along, nothing to see here... Nothing to see..."
Quick math... carry the one...
That puts us down 1000 points at the beginning of Tuesday. When the market creeps up 400 that day, we've got talking heads touting the "Obama Recovery"... ZOMG We all be saved! Praise the Lord Anointed One....
Now, today that the market has dropped all it was able to get yesterday and then some by noon, the crickets chirping is deafening.
Edit: And in further news, in true liberal form, they're calling for "reform" of the credit ratings system. Figures, if something happens they don't like because of their actions... Well, just cheat till it goes away.
Quick math... carry the one...
That puts us down 1000 points at the beginning of Tuesday. When the market creeps up 400 that day, we've got talking heads touting the "Obama Recovery"... ZOMG We all be saved! Praise the Lord Anointed One....
Now, today that the market has dropped all it was able to get yesterday and then some by noon, the crickets chirping is deafening.
Edit: And in further news, in true liberal form, they're calling for "reform" of the credit ratings system. Figures, if something happens they don't like because of their actions... Well, just cheat till it goes away.
Monday, August 8, 2011
I listened on the radio....
To the President's speech today....
I think he's got Baghdad Bob writing for him now.
I think he's got Baghdad Bob writing for him now.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
OBL dead.
Apparently, The Anointed One micromanaged the intelligence and operation that resulted in OBL's death. I wonder how he fit that in between all the golf games.
Seriously, if his press conference was to be believed. He was directly involved in all the intelligence and all the briefings. And then he apologized to the world for America.
Oh and Quote of The Day:
From IRC's #Gunblogger_Conspiracy
(NinjaViking): I wonder if OBL will be counted as another tragic victim of senseless gun violence
Seriously, if his press conference was to be believed. He was directly involved in all the intelligence and all the briefings. And then he apologized to the world for America.
Oh and Quote of The Day:
From IRC's #Gunblogger_Conspiracy
Monday, April 25, 2011
Changes, and not the way we'd want them.
Both Libya's and Egypt's regime changes started as food riots.
Now watch what current gas prices are doing to the price of a gallon of milk.
When gas hit this price at the pumps last time, Bush signed an executive order suspending the moratorium on oil exploration. And gas prices plummeted to under 2 dollars a gallon in the space of weeks. Mind you, no actual drilling took place. Just the fact that it could brought price speculation down. This regime says they can't do anything about it, but they'll form a commission to look in on price gouging by the oil companies. Seriously? They banned exploration, banned new drilling, banned just about anything that would make us more energy independent as a nation and when prices do what they will do when that happens, they try to blame someone else.
But, I'm not surprised. This regime believes corporations are evil, that capitalism is evil, that freedom is evil, that being an adult and standing on your own two feet is evil. This regime would love to see European prices at the pumps here in the states. It would make their dream socialist state that much closer.
On a side note, have you seen some states are proposing a usage tax on electric and hybrid vehicles to help offset the drop in revenue from sale of gasoline?
How's that hopey changey thing working out for ya?
Now watch what current gas prices are doing to the price of a gallon of milk.
When gas hit this price at the pumps last time, Bush signed an executive order suspending the moratorium on oil exploration. And gas prices plummeted to under 2 dollars a gallon in the space of weeks. Mind you, no actual drilling took place. Just the fact that it could brought price speculation down. This regime says they can't do anything about it, but they'll form a commission to look in on price gouging by the oil companies. Seriously? They banned exploration, banned new drilling, banned just about anything that would make us more energy independent as a nation and when prices do what they will do when that happens, they try to blame someone else.
But, I'm not surprised. This regime believes corporations are evil, that capitalism is evil, that freedom is evil, that being an adult and standing on your own two feet is evil. This regime would love to see European prices at the pumps here in the states. It would make their dream socialist state that much closer.
On a side note, have you seen some states are proposing a usage tax on electric and hybrid vehicles to help offset the drop in revenue from sale of gasoline?
How's that hopey changey thing working out for ya?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
My initial thoughts on Libya...
and the US's involvment in this "Police Action". And they're not happy ones.
I can't help thinking the only reason Obmama did this was so...
1) He'd APPEAR to be tough to the people in the US and
2) He's set up the precident that the UN takes precidence over the US in international matters. Now, he only does what the UN wants and not till they want it.
So when the UN says we need to go into Ohio to stop whatever, then he'll get to say, "We have to, because we let them in Libya, See... See? Let me be perfectly clear...".
I can't help thinking the only reason Obmama did this was so...
1) He'd APPEAR to be tough to the people in the US and
2) He's set up the precident that the UN takes precidence over the US in international matters. Now, he only does what the UN wants and not till they want it.
So when the UN says we need to go into Ohio to stop whatever, then he'll get to say, "We have to, because we let them in Libya, See... See? Let me be perfectly clear...".
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Just some thoughts from a long drive.
The outgoing speaker of the house, based on her tactics and shenanigans, would have been one the the greatest Soviet Premiers of all time. All the dirty tricks and underhanded dealings and outright threats and corruption would have made Stalin proud. All she needs is a national gulag system to make her complete.... oh wait....
The tax compromise that was maybe almost reached this week. IT'S NOT A TAX CUT! In fact, it's worse than that, it's a 2 year temporary reprieve. Taxes are not going down, they're staying the same, so the situation that's existed for the last two years that's made this mess we're in, IT'S STILL HERE! On top of that we can't run on a temporary economy, that's what this "compromise" has created. Businesses are not going to expand or spend or whatever if they're staring at being in the pickle barrel in two years. And on top of that, 2 years is nothing in terms of business plans. They look at 5 and 10 year business models. I seriously doubt that any smart business will do anything if they know that just as they're getting started, they'll get slapped down with extortionate tax burdens. Looking at individuals, this equates to less than what most of us spend on car insurance per year. You think people are going to look at that 500 dollars and go all spendy crazy? Hell, no. Especially with the government printing money like it's going out of style and devaluing it in job lots. So, all that will happen is in 2 years when the next election cycle rolls around, is the dems will get to shout "SEE, LOWERING TAXES DIDN'T WORK!" Which is complete and utter bull shit. But if you say the lie often enough and loud enough it becomes the truth. The dems have proved that over and over the last few years.
The liberal mindset that will insist on demonizing the item and ignore the fact that it took a person to put that item to an evil purpose, is the same liberal mindset that's running DHS and TSA. They have time and time again refused to look at the people, under the guise of "Oh we can't profile, that's evil.", and demonized the fingernail clippers and bottle of shampoo that you have. We will not be be safe, we will not be anything other than a joke, till we change the mindset that runs these agencies. Listen, some people are bad. That's just the shit of life. And what's even shittier is some people do evil things for what they believe are good reasons. That's just the way it is. The sooner we get over this stupid notion that somehow box cutters are intrinsically evil and realize that it was the fucking nutjob jihadist wielding it that was evil, the sooner we'll actually start making things safer.
And don't get me started on the porno-scanners.
STOP THE PRESSES! We have definitively located the epi-center of fug bucking nuts crazy: http://www.my9tv.com/dpp/my9_news/Berkeley-Mulls-Resolution-to-Honor-Army-Private-Accused-of-Passing-Secret-Info-to-WikiLeaks_49833953 Yes, that's right. These moonbats sitting on the door step to our outgoing speaker of the house's home district have that warped a view of the world. It does go a long way to explaining why Pelosi is the way she is. No?
The tax compromise that was maybe almost reached this week. IT'S NOT A TAX CUT! In fact, it's worse than that, it's a 2 year temporary reprieve. Taxes are not going down, they're staying the same, so the situation that's existed for the last two years that's made this mess we're in, IT'S STILL HERE! On top of that we can't run on a temporary economy, that's what this "compromise" has created. Businesses are not going to expand or spend or whatever if they're staring at being in the pickle barrel in two years. And on top of that, 2 years is nothing in terms of business plans. They look at 5 and 10 year business models. I seriously doubt that any smart business will do anything if they know that just as they're getting started, they'll get slapped down with extortionate tax burdens. Looking at individuals, this equates to less than what most of us spend on car insurance per year. You think people are going to look at that 500 dollars and go all spendy crazy? Hell, no. Especially with the government printing money like it's going out of style and devaluing it in job lots. So, all that will happen is in 2 years when the next election cycle rolls around, is the dems will get to shout "SEE, LOWERING TAXES DIDN'T WORK!" Which is complete and utter bull shit. But if you say the lie often enough and loud enough it becomes the truth. The dems have proved that over and over the last few years.
The liberal mindset that will insist on demonizing the item and ignore the fact that it took a person to put that item to an evil purpose, is the same liberal mindset that's running DHS and TSA. They have time and time again refused to look at the people, under the guise of "Oh we can't profile, that's evil.", and demonized the fingernail clippers and bottle of shampoo that you have. We will not be be safe, we will not be anything other than a joke, till we change the mindset that runs these agencies. Listen, some people are bad. That's just the shit of life. And what's even shittier is some people do evil things for what they believe are good reasons. That's just the way it is. The sooner we get over this stupid notion that somehow box cutters are intrinsically evil and realize that it was the fucking nutjob jihadist wielding it that was evil, the sooner we'll actually start making things safer.
And don't get me started on the porno-scanners.
STOP THE PRESSES! We have definitively located the epi-center of fug bucking nuts crazy: http://www.my9tv.com/dpp/my9_news/Berkeley-Mulls-Resolution-to-Honor-Army-Private-Accused-of-Passing-Secret-Info-to-WikiLeaks_49833953 Yes, that's right. These moonbats sitting on the door step to our outgoing speaker of the house's home district have that warped a view of the world. It does go a long way to explaining why Pelosi is the way she is. No?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Too much time to think and the First
Had to do a lot of driving today and as such got to listen to a lot of talk radio. Never a good thing. It seems there's a bit of a kerfuffle about a question asked by a conservative of a liberal. Specifically the question was; what five freedoms are enumerated in the First Amendment.
The short answer is freedom of:
Lots of commas and semi-colons.
The first clause. "...make no law respecting AN establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise THEREOF;" (emphasis mine)
The highlighted "thereof" is where most people point and say "See, freedom of religion" and libs say "See, freedom FROM religion". I blogged about this before, complete with Websters and Oxfords definition of "thereof". I don't feel like repeating myself, so go dig through my archives. The upshot? The founding fathers meant, and they expounded on this in the Federalists Papers among other places, you're free to practice, don't practice, whatever, pray, don't pray, God, Ghu, Nature, Glaciers (The Great Pumpkin help us), Trees... well you get my drift. If you want to dance naked around trees on the summer solstice and that's how you worship whatever you worship that was honky-dory with our founding fathers.
The "an" on the other hand. You see, the libs, and this is just my guess, look at "establishment" as a verb. The "an" on the other hand sort of forces "establishment" to be a noun. And therein lies the rub. The libs read that and say "Look! Separation of church and state! See, you stupid conservative bible banging idiots.", and then laugh in a condescending and superior way.
Which is ironic.
Because the "an" is sitting there right in front of "establishment". The noun establishment is a different beast and sort of makes the libs wrong. Which means they're... well, the idiots in this case and even dumber for laughing at the conservatives about it.
At the time the First Amendment was drafted, most, if not all, of the 13 states had official state religions. So, the founding fathers were limiting the federal government from stepping on what they saw as the purview of the states. Which is what the first 10 amendments are all about. Limiting the power of the federal government.
So, "establishment of religion" was meant to be a fancy way of saying churches. Or any organized religious body. (The sticky bit here is that read that way, it makes all those laws exempting churches from taxes unconstitutional)
On a side note, the complaint is if churches had to pay taxes they'd be paying things that were against their beliefs, like abortions and civil union marriages, etc. I'd counter with two arguments. Show me where in the constitution abortions are enumerated. Or for that matter where does it say ANYWHERE that the government has any business in marriages?
Secondly, the government has it's fingers in places that would make the founding fathers flip their powdered wigs. Things like soup kitchens, housing the indigent, orphanages, etc were originally funded in a secular manner by the churches and local charity organizations. If they were put back in their hands the churches wouldn't have to pay taxes for things that were against their beliefs. And besides, I have to pay taxes that go for A LOT of thing I don't want to pay for, why should they be any different.
But I digress.
So, when you look at the word establishment as a noun, you sort of make the concept of separation of church and state vanish from the first amendment. But as it was never there in the first place, that's not that amazing.
People have an astonishing penchant for reading the constitution using modern definitions. Which is boggling when you consider that the people writing the stupid thing could have no way of knowing how the definitions would evolve. They wrote using words with definitions that were valid for their time. We should read the constitution using those definitions, NOT ours.
The short answer is freedom of:
- Religion
- Speech
- Press
- Assembly
- Redress
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Lots of commas and semi-colons.
The first clause. "...make no law respecting AN establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise THEREOF;" (emphasis mine)
The highlighted "thereof" is where most people point and say "See, freedom of religion" and libs say "See, freedom FROM religion". I blogged about this before, complete with Websters and Oxfords definition of "thereof". I don't feel like repeating myself, so go dig through my archives. The upshot? The founding fathers meant, and they expounded on this in the Federalists Papers among other places, you're free to practice, don't practice, whatever, pray, don't pray, God, Ghu, Nature, Glaciers (The Great Pumpkin help us), Trees... well you get my drift. If you want to dance naked around trees on the summer solstice and that's how you worship whatever you worship that was honky-dory with our founding fathers.
The "an" on the other hand. You see, the libs, and this is just my guess, look at "establishment" as a verb. The "an" on the other hand sort of forces "establishment" to be a noun. And therein lies the rub. The libs read that and say "Look! Separation of church and state! See, you stupid conservative bible banging idiots.", and then laugh in a condescending and superior way.
Which is ironic.
Because the "an" is sitting there right in front of "establishment". The noun establishment is a different beast and sort of makes the libs wrong. Which means they're... well, the idiots in this case and even dumber for laughing at the conservatives about it.
At the time the First Amendment was drafted, most, if not all, of the 13 states had official state religions. So, the founding fathers were limiting the federal government from stepping on what they saw as the purview of the states. Which is what the first 10 amendments are all about. Limiting the power of the federal government.
So, "establishment of religion" was meant to be a fancy way of saying churches. Or any organized religious body. (The sticky bit here is that read that way, it makes all those laws exempting churches from taxes unconstitutional)
On a side note, the complaint is if churches had to pay taxes they'd be paying things that were against their beliefs, like abortions and civil union marriages, etc. I'd counter with two arguments. Show me where in the constitution abortions are enumerated. Or for that matter where does it say ANYWHERE that the government has any business in marriages?
Secondly, the government has it's fingers in places that would make the founding fathers flip their powdered wigs. Things like soup kitchens, housing the indigent, orphanages, etc were originally funded in a secular manner by the churches and local charity organizations. If they were put back in their hands the churches wouldn't have to pay taxes for things that were against their beliefs. And besides, I have to pay taxes that go for A LOT of thing I don't want to pay for, why should they be any different.
But I digress.
So, when you look at the word establishment as a noun, you sort of make the concept of separation of church and state vanish from the first amendment. But as it was never there in the first place, that's not that amazing.
People have an astonishing penchant for reading the constitution using modern definitions. Which is boggling when you consider that the people writing the stupid thing could have no way of knowing how the definitions would evolve. They wrote using words with definitions that were valid for their time. We should read the constitution using those definitions, NOT ours.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Frustration Level.... 7.9
Interesting conversation today. Well, interesting in a pull-whats-left-of-my-hair-out sort of way. And interesting considering where I work and the type of people that frequent the place.
I met someone who doesn't vote.
"Okay", thinks I. "Why not?"
"I don't care to." hmmm.....
When pressed, she finally gave me these reasons (in no particular order);
Wow. Since I couldn't tell her what I thought of those reasons to her face, I get to take the chicken way and blog about them. I know, lucky you.
Here goes.
Reason one: Wow, how unimaginably lazy of you. Don't want to learn about all that stuff. Great, so... you just want someone to tell you which lever to pull and thats good enough for you. Congratulations! YOU ARE THE REASON WE'RE IN THE MESS WE'RE IN NOW! Thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you off stage.
Reason Two: She expanded on this reason by saying she happy living in her little corner and everyone can leave her alone since she's not bugging anyone else. Really, you think none of this is relevant to you? You want to know how not relevant it is to you? Look at your paycheck. See all that withholding? You realize you're working till late May every year just to pay for the DIRECT taxes that the government takes out? If the Bush "tax cuts" are allowed to expire, you'll be working till the end of June. Literally 50% of your pay will be taken by the government. Tell me how that's not relevant to you?
You know what? All this talk about flat rate or fair or just plain tax reform. Throw it out the window. What I want is a law that says the government can no long do withholding and everyone must write a check every month for what they have to pay in taxes. That more than anything else will bring about tax reform. The second people start actually seeing how much their losing they'll get pissed. Trust me.
Reason Three: Your vote doesn't really count for that much. That has got to be the most self-centered, egotistical, narcissistic thing I've heard since the last presidential address. You wont vote because your opinion doesn't count for that much. Guess what Princess Lookatme, your "opinion" counts for just as much as MY opinion. I wouldn't want it any other way. No, that's not entirely true, I want my opinion to count for more than yours, but that opens up the door for all sorts of political shenanigans and we don't want that. If you think your opinion is so fucking important that it should really REALLY count for more... Guess what, fuck you. I don't want you voting. We've got way to many narcissists in politics now.
Ultimately though, voting is a privilege. Everyone is free to not exercise that privilege if they so choose. But if you don't vote, don't bitch to me about what life hands you.
I met someone who doesn't vote.
"Okay", thinks I. "Why not?"
"I don't care to." hmmm.....
When pressed, she finally gave me these reasons (in no particular order);
- I don't want to learn about all that stuff.
- None of it is relevant to me.
- My opinion doesn't count for that much. (Yes, she said opinion.)
Wow. Since I couldn't tell her what I thought of those reasons to her face, I get to take the chicken way and blog about them. I know, lucky you.
Here goes.
Reason one: Wow, how unimaginably lazy of you. Don't want to learn about all that stuff. Great, so... you just want someone to tell you which lever to pull and thats good enough for you. Congratulations! YOU ARE THE REASON WE'RE IN THE MESS WE'RE IN NOW! Thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you off stage.
Reason Two: She expanded on this reason by saying she happy living in her little corner and everyone can leave her alone since she's not bugging anyone else. Really, you think none of this is relevant to you? You want to know how not relevant it is to you? Look at your paycheck. See all that withholding? You realize you're working till late May every year just to pay for the DIRECT taxes that the government takes out? If the Bush "tax cuts" are allowed to expire, you'll be working till the end of June. Literally 50% of your pay will be taken by the government. Tell me how that's not relevant to you?
You know what? All this talk about flat rate or fair or just plain tax reform. Throw it out the window. What I want is a law that says the government can no long do withholding and everyone must write a check every month for what they have to pay in taxes. That more than anything else will bring about tax reform. The second people start actually seeing how much their losing they'll get pissed. Trust me.
Reason Three: Your vote doesn't really count for that much. That has got to be the most self-centered, egotistical, narcissistic thing I've heard since the last presidential address. You wont vote because your opinion doesn't count for that much. Guess what Princess Lookatme, your "opinion" counts for just as much as MY opinion. I wouldn't want it any other way. No, that's not entirely true, I want my opinion to count for more than yours, but that opens up the door for all sorts of political shenanigans and we don't want that. If you think your opinion is so fucking important that it should really REALLY count for more... Guess what, fuck you. I don't want you voting. We've got way to many narcissists in politics now.
Ultimately though, voting is a privilege. Everyone is free to not exercise that privilege if they so choose. But if you don't vote, don't bitch to me about what life hands you.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Who's a better Christian.
Apparently that question is flying around the news and blogosphere. Who's a better Christian, our president or Glenn Beck.
Interesting.
Okay, for the record Glenn Beck is a Mormon. And none of the recognized Christian religions like Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. recognise Mormons as Christian. So, Glenn Beck is disqualified for that.
And also for the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being Mormon. Its just that's the way it is.
Also, in my opinion the Great 0 is disqualified as well. He's really too narcissistic to have any god other than himself. So, he's out.
So for that great question, who's a better Christian, Glenn Beck or BObmama? Neither.
Now if you were to ask who was more religious, that's a tougher one. I'd go with Obmama, because he spends all day every day worshiping at the altar that is himself. No one can beat that.
Interesting.
Okay, for the record Glenn Beck is a Mormon. And none of the recognized Christian religions like Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, etc. recognise Mormons as Christian. So, Glenn Beck is disqualified for that.
And also for the record, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being Mormon. Its just that's the way it is.
Also, in my opinion the Great 0 is disqualified as well. He's really too narcissistic to have any god other than himself. So, he's out.
So for that great question, who's a better Christian, Glenn Beck or BObmama? Neither.
Now if you were to ask who was more religious, that's a tougher one. I'd go with Obmama, because he spends all day every day worshiping at the altar that is himself. No one can beat that.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Politics vs. the Rule of Law
With all the rhetoric and arguments over the mosque at ground zero issue. One thing kept popping up in the back of my mind. Snarkybytes, I think, brought it up. Placing the mosque at that location is a political move. Granted the Imam fronting it may just be a convenient fool, but his mysterious backers with the hundreds of millions to fund it may not. For them, the mosque is a political move that has no lose to it. If it's built, the Islamic world will look on it as commemorating a tremendous victory over the infidels. If it's denied, it's a victory for them by showing how the "US devils persecute the poor Muslims of the world". Win/win.
Okay, like it or not as the case may be, we have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. Go look it up. It's actually the first amendment to the constitution. That's how important the founding fathers thought it was.
So, for all of you who want the mosque banned. Sorry. The rule of law that this country is supposed to be founded on and following precludes that.
But, this is a political thing. So, we should be able to go to someone we've elected to handle political matters for help in this. Shouldn't we? Except the one we elected, for better or worse, to be our advocate on the international political stage is, for some strange reason, not on our side. This was the man that was chosen to represent us to the world. And when the majority of us want one thing, he always seems to be on the opposite side. Srsly, WTF?
I guess his transition staff was right when she said they would be ready to rule. Because this administration sure as shit ain't about representing us.
Okay, like it or not as the case may be, we have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. Go look it up. It's actually the first amendment to the constitution. That's how important the founding fathers thought it was.
So, for all of you who want the mosque banned. Sorry. The rule of law that this country is supposed to be founded on and following precludes that.
But, this is a political thing. So, we should be able to go to someone we've elected to handle political matters for help in this. Shouldn't we? Except the one we elected, for better or worse, to be our advocate on the international political stage is, for some strange reason, not on our side. This was the man that was chosen to represent us to the world. And when the majority of us want one thing, he always seems to be on the opposite side. Srsly, WTF?
I guess his transition staff was right when she said they would be ready to rule. Because this administration sure as shit ain't about representing us.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
This is almost a twist worthy of M. Knight Shambala
In it's usual Bus/scapegoat/toss methodology. The White House today made an announcement that something that someone said was wrong and all their fault and not the WH's. Except that this time that someone was the boss.
President Obama's PR Blunder Is "Purely" His Own Fault Says...White House Official?
The money quote and big hat tip go to Snarkybytes and his post here.
President Obama's PR Blunder Is "Purely" His Own Fault Says...White House Official?
The money quote and big hat tip go to Snarkybytes and his post here.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
What's old is new again.
It seems that the dems are going to try to run on what worked for them in the past, namely Bush Bashing.
Okay, yes in the last election the democratic party won on a platform that basically read "Ebil Bush McHitlerburton is evil and you should vote for us because we're not."
But here's a news flash for ya. You have had the vast majority of both houses and the white house for more than 18 months now. Anything wrong with this country is YOUR FAULT. Got that? Your policies and agendas have had more than enough time to cause whatever good you wanted. They've also had plenty of time to screw things up, if that's what they were gonna do. Guess what? nearly 10% unemployment, tax revenues taking a dive for the basement, a national debt that chews up most of what taxes do bring in, it's all due to your handiwork in DC.
I was gonna say that the American people are not dumb enough to fall for the same song and dance twice. But honestly, so long as the bread and circuses continue, the majority of them probably will. Yes Alan, I'm a pessimist it seems.
It's sad that 2 years after the fact, the dems are still running against Bush, the younger. Honestly, I don't think he was that good of a president. Granted I think he's exponentially better than the current one, but he's no Reagan either.
What's will be even more sad is in 2012 or 2016 when they continue to run against Bush II. My advice is if you want to run against a ghost. How about Reagan or Lincoln or, hell, how about Washington or even Tyler. Hey, let's go classic, how about the ghost of Banquo from MacBeth.
Okay, yes in the last election the democratic party won on a platform that basically read "Ebil Bush McHitlerburton is evil and you should vote for us because we're not."
But here's a news flash for ya. You have had the vast majority of both houses and the white house for more than 18 months now. Anything wrong with this country is YOUR FAULT. Got that? Your policies and agendas have had more than enough time to cause whatever good you wanted. They've also had plenty of time to screw things up, if that's what they were gonna do. Guess what? nearly 10% unemployment, tax revenues taking a dive for the basement, a national debt that chews up most of what taxes do bring in, it's all due to your handiwork in DC.
I was gonna say that the American people are not dumb enough to fall for the same song and dance twice. But honestly, so long as the bread and circuses continue, the majority of them probably will. Yes Alan, I'm a pessimist it seems.
It's sad that 2 years after the fact, the dems are still running against Bush, the younger. Honestly, I don't think he was that good of a president. Granted I think he's exponentially better than the current one, but he's no Reagan either.
What's will be even more sad is in 2012 or 2016 when they continue to run against Bush II. My advice is if you want to run against a ghost. How about Reagan or Lincoln or, hell, how about Washington or even Tyler. Hey, let's go classic, how about the ghost of Banquo from MacBeth.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Oklahoma Primaries
Yesterday Oklahomans set a bit of history. For the first time in state history the ballot for the governor will be between 2 women. From what I understand it is also only the third time something like this has happened in US history.
Before you get all happy dancy, our choice for governor come november will be between a liberal and a RINO. :-/
Before you get all happy dancy, our choice for governor come november will be between a liberal and a RINO. :-/
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Lest we forget this.
On March 23, 2010 one of the greatest crimes against this country was perpetrated by a select group of people that has long ago ceased to listen to the people they were supposed to represent.
On that black day, the mis-named, so called, Health Care Reform Bill was passed by a corrupt and despotic regime.
We need to remember now and in November and in 2012 and beyond. None of them should be allowed to forget that to cross us, the American people, has dire consequences. I would be completely okay with the lot of them having to live in exile for the rest of their lives.
On that black day, the mis-named, so called, Health Care Reform Bill was passed by a corrupt and despotic regime.
We need to remember now and in November and in 2012 and beyond. None of them should be allowed to forget that to cross us, the American people, has dire consequences. I would be completely okay with the lot of them having to live in exile for the rest of their lives.
REPEAL
THE
BILL
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Okay, it happened....
The Feds finally got around to filing suit against the state of Arizona.
(the link goes to the .pdf file of the actual court document)
It was bound to happen. The feds, by some accounts, have been falling down on the job of border protections for well over a two decades now. But that's not the point. The point is borders are in the federal sandbox and they don't want anyone playing there except themselves.
Although, it seems to me that they've sort of been absent from that sandbox for a long time and the toys are just sitting there going to waste and all the other kids are getting kinda angry about it.
But I do have a point here. The Arizona law does not enact any new laws. It only allows local law enforcement to enforce those federal laws that the federal government has failed to enforce. And here's where I get confused. See, it used to be that the federal government didn't have any enforcement branches. Any laws it passed had to rely on the states for enforcement. I doubt any of you are old enough remember, but when the FBI was originally established they weren't allowed to carry guns. Why? Because they were only supposed to be an investigative aid to local law enforcement. When the FBI was first established most people still looked to local and state governments for most things, and a federal anti-crime agency was looked on with suspicion.
So, why do the feds have a problem now with Arizona stepping up to enforce laws the feds have passed?
Well in the last 100 years since the FBI was founded, we've allowed the federal government to enact, or create whole gigantic enforcment agencies or just plain usurp whole areas of law enforcement. We've got the FBI, DEA, NEA, CIA, ATF (or BATFE or whatever), plus a whole slew of others. Hell, even the U.S. Dept. of Education has an enforcement branch with armed agents. Puts a whole new light on truant officers doesn't it. And we even have federal laws that state that if it's a federal agency, it's people can be armed. H'Ray for National Endowment for the Arts and it's jackbooted armed thugs... wait...
So, more and more power in the form of law enforcement has been transferred from local and state authority to federal authority. Which in the short term looked great. The local governments didn't have to pay for that anymore. (They neglected to realize that the feds now pay for it and the money still comes from the taxpayers, but that's a different rant.) At first it was "please, let us do this. It'll be easier on you and you won't have to worry your pretty little head about it." Now it's, "How dare you try to take authority for this. We'll show you in court that it's ours!" How far away can we be from, "That's ours, and this gun pointed at you proves it."
The path from freedom to tyranny is sometimes hard to see, till hindsight kicks in.
I know this post isn't all that clear or well written. Fact is, the idea behind it is still sort of misty and amorphous in my mind. The idea is there though. We, as a people, got complacent and lazy and allowed the start of our falling away from freedom and democracy, we fast approaching the time when even if we pull the ripcord on the parachute we'll still slam into the ground of tyranny and oppression.
It was bound to happen. The feds, by some accounts, have been falling down on the job of border protections for well over a two decades now. But that's not the point. The point is borders are in the federal sandbox and they don't want anyone playing there except themselves.
Although, it seems to me that they've sort of been absent from that sandbox for a long time and the toys are just sitting there going to waste and all the other kids are getting kinda angry about it.
But I do have a point here. The Arizona law does not enact any new laws. It only allows local law enforcement to enforce those federal laws that the federal government has failed to enforce. And here's where I get confused. See, it used to be that the federal government didn't have any enforcement branches. Any laws it passed had to rely on the states for enforcement. I doubt any of you are old enough remember, but when the FBI was originally established they weren't allowed to carry guns. Why? Because they were only supposed to be an investigative aid to local law enforcement. When the FBI was first established most people still looked to local and state governments for most things, and a federal anti-crime agency was looked on with suspicion.
So, why do the feds have a problem now with Arizona stepping up to enforce laws the feds have passed?
Well in the last 100 years since the FBI was founded, we've allowed the federal government to enact, or create whole gigantic enforcment agencies or just plain usurp whole areas of law enforcement. We've got the FBI, DEA, NEA, CIA, ATF (or BATFE or whatever), plus a whole slew of others. Hell, even the U.S. Dept. of Education has an enforcement branch with armed agents. Puts a whole new light on truant officers doesn't it. And we even have federal laws that state that if it's a federal agency, it's people can be armed. H'Ray for National Endowment for the Arts and it's jackbooted armed thugs... wait...
So, more and more power in the form of law enforcement has been transferred from local and state authority to federal authority. Which in the short term looked great. The local governments didn't have to pay for that anymore. (They neglected to realize that the feds now pay for it and the money still comes from the taxpayers, but that's a different rant.) At first it was "please, let us do this. It'll be easier on you and you won't have to worry your pretty little head about it." Now it's, "How dare you try to take authority for this. We'll show you in court that it's ours!" How far away can we be from, "That's ours, and this gun pointed at you proves it."
The path from freedom to tyranny is sometimes hard to see, till hindsight kicks in.
I know this post isn't all that clear or well written. Fact is, the idea behind it is still sort of misty and amorphous in my mind. The idea is there though. We, as a people, got complacent and lazy and allowed the start of our falling away from freedom and democracy, we fast approaching the time when even if we pull the ripcord on the parachute we'll still slam into the ground of tyranny and oppression.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
On the passing of a long serving reigning Senator
This week we mark the passing of the longest sitting senator in DC. Sen. Byrd passed away. I'd like to take a moment to put down my thoughts about this man.
Not bad, for a racist fuck.
Not bad, for a racist fuck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)