Saturday, October 30, 2010

Part 3 - First DUDE

Yep, he's targeting the filibuster.

He MIGHT want to wait until AFTER the election. The Democrats may need that filibuster.

Share

The "First Dude" on Jon Stewart

Listen.

That Whirring Sound you hear is the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

The PREZ - That DUDE - appeared on Jon Stewart.

That DUDE is complaining that the last 2 years have been more difficult that any time since the Great Depression.

Please.

How about that little thing called WWII?

How about the Cuban Missile Crisis?

How about the 60s and 70s, when radicals such as YOUR BUDDY, Bill Ayers, bombed, rioted, and did all that they could to tear down this republic?

How about the Iranian Hostage Crisis, when we were freezing in our homes (thanks, Jimmuh) - I actually had frost on my inside walls in the winter of 1977-78 - and the Whiner in Chief dithered about what to do, what to do.

It wasn't until that - what did they call him? - that COWBOY was inaugurated that the Iranians stopped the party, and released them, pronto. He may have walked tall, but he was also willing to carry a big stick - and they knew that he would use it.

So, the hostages came home.

To return to the DUDE show:

Obama is stuttering, hesitating, meandering around.  He doesn't SOUND presidential.  He sounds like a used-car salesman.

No, that's an insult to used-car salesman.  He sounds like a cheap hustler.

He's still claiming that Obamacare will do all that he promised.  He's talking about "a woman in NH that doesn't have to sell her house to get her cancer treatment".  Not sure if that's a real person.

His posture is horrible.  He slouches, leans on the desk, looks lazy.

Oh-Oh!  He's complaining about the rule that 60 Senators are needed to pass legislation, saying it's ONLY in the rules, not the Constitution.

He's right, but that doesn't tell the whole story.  The reason that 60 votes are needed is that objecting Senators have the right to filibuster - and, he is correct, that is a rule, not Constitutionally mandated.

HOWEVER, filibusters (and the threat of one) are relatively rare.  In my youth, they usually happened when Civil Rights legislation came up.  At that time, a majority of the Senate (but NOT 2/3) wanted the legislation.  The other 1/3 + did not.  It became a tactic that a large minority could (and did) use to keep the majority from running over their objections.  In other words, use of the filibuster forced the majority to compromise - to make modifications to appease a large and vocal minority.

Same way it's used today - although today, it's to keep the Democrats from imposing their will without any regard or input from the Republicans.  For example, ABC News reported that Democrats refused to allow Republicans any say in the negotiations over the Stimulus Bill.

the real negotiations having transpired privately among the White House, the House Speaker’s Office, the Senate Majority Leader’s Office, some committee chairmen and a few key aides and advisers.
The only Republicans involved in most of the talks are the three moderates who voted for the package on the Senate floor. Their votes, of course, are critical to passing the measure.
As ABC’s Z. Byron Wolf points out, back when Democrats were in the minority, they promised open negotiations when they took control of Capitol Hill.
He's now bragging that, with the Health Care bill, he has "put a structure, a framework in place, that will allow us to make progress".

I can hardly wait.

/sarcasm

Share

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Waiting for the Hubby

I'm at my husband's school - he has parent night - they pick up report cards, and discuss the performance of the students.

He has a lot of students' parents in tonight; he only took over the class just over a week ago.

I'm catching up on relaxing time; I left work late, so I've earned a little time off.

Share

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Your Money, Or Your Life?

Which is more important? [Click image to enlarge.]


So, why do we take so lightly the possibility of theft of our votes?

Share

Monday, October 11, 2010

This Is IT, Folks

WHY the TEA Party People are so P!$$&D OFF! 

The modern Tea Party movement is made up of people peacefully protesting tax rates that, taken in total, approach half of all of their income; protesting the takeover by unelected czars of entire sectors of the economy; protesting the drunken orgy of spending not only the present wealth of the nation but the wealth of our children and our children’s children; protesting waste on a scale where a billion dollars – one thousand million dollars – is essentially undectable, a rounding error… all of that, which its critics decry as mouth breathing paranoia… while the founders, enshrined in the mural surrounding these documents and which these same critics claim to revere – these founders, the greatest minds ever assembled in one place in the history of the world – took their country to war against the greatest military force on the planet because of a one-cent tax on tea.
Think about that! Forget the penny tax! It was never about the tax. It was about the idea of being ruled by people who cared not a whit about your lives but who only saw you as a source of revenue for their own grand ideas.

The why of America – when it’s all said and done – is simply this: we will be governed with our consent, but we will not be ruled.
And THAT'S why people are so mad about the current political situation - it's not the money (well, partly it is), but it's really the PRINCIPLE - those Washington politicians treat us like we are their SUBJECTS, not their BOSSES!

Share

Some Titanic Ideas

Bill Whittle is back, and he's on a roll.  Click here.

Share

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Resistance is Futile - I Mean Feudal

As a history major in college, I was familiar with the basic facets of feudalism.  I would have said that just about all of those features were absent in modern life.

And, I would have been wrong.

Let's just take one aspect of feudalism:
Legal Equality

Feudalism assigned people to different classes based on birth and assigned different privileges and obligations to the classes. The noble classes were considered a different order of humanity from the commoners, and the two groups led separate lifestyles. In addition to huge economic disparities, the two groups had very different rights. If one was of noble birth in Japan, for instance, he could carry a sword. For commoners, unlawful possession of a sword was a capital crime.

In progressive America, two groups today have a parallel distinction. Birth, and birth alone,* determines whether one is a member of a designated victim class, entitled to preferences in college admissions, scholarships, and employment, factors which have a major formative influence on life prospects. Moreover, the ability to litigate as the victim of discrimination with the possibility of massive financial returns is enhanced. According to the testimony of two Department of Justice lawyers, membership in a designated victim class brings with it immunity from prosecution under Civil Rights statutes.
It's an interesting analysis - go check it out.

Share

Wisdom From Our Neighbors to the North

I'm going to share only a small part of this TrulyGood-No-ExcellentPost.
Perhaps no other truth rattles the liberal brain as much as the recognition that Fascists, and Nazis in particular, are a Far Left phenomena.
I’m reminded of a skit by the English comedy team, Mitchell & Webb.  In the skit they portray two Nazi officers, one of whom suddenly notices that they all have a skull-and-crossbones on their caps.  “Does that make us the baddies?” he asks.
One may feel a certain compassion for the many liberals who must be feeling varying degrees of cognitive dissonance these days (“We’re the Nazis?  Doh!”). 
Now that the cat’s out of the bag, so to speak, it’s only a matter of time before liberals start rewriting, revising, and otherwise changing, history, in order to paint Hitler as not only misunderstood, but unfairly demonized, as well.  There have already been moves made in that direction.    (Link)
The Liberals will, by and by, no doubt make a semi-saintly icon out of poor ol’ Adolph, and will soon be singing “Deutschland Über Alles,” instead of “Kumbaya,” around the campfire.
Unfortunately for the liberals, this means that they will have give up one of their favorite epithets to hurl at conservatives—“Nazi.”  They can’t continue using the word “Nazi” in a derogatory sense, when it undeniably refers to themselves.  (Link)
Well, actually they can, and will, regardless of the absurdity of such verbal attacks.  Old habits die hard.  (Link)
Truly, y'all gotta read it - it's more common sense than I thought was possible to pack into 1 web page.

Saturday, October 09, 2010

Back Again - What Are Social Issues, and How Will They Affect the Election?

If you don't read Eternity Road, you're missing a treat.  One recent post asked:
Just what are the "social issues?" What priorities do social conservatives hold that they feel are being unduly slighted?
Time was, the political topics that escaped economic classification went collectively by the termvice: illegal drugs, prostitution, illicit gambling, pornography. We don't hear that term too often these days. The War on Drugs has been lost de facto;prostitution has proved ineradicable, and in some manifestations has even become somewhat respectable; gambling is mostly done through state lotteries and state-licensed casinos; and pornography, except for child porn, is now protected by law. So that old quinella has been displaced from the marquee of political discussion. What has replaced it?
For many, the social issues boil down to abortion, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and same-sex marriage.  Yes, there are other social issues that are important, maybe even with more ultimate long-term significance, but those seem to be the hot buttons for most of the American public.


Coincidentally, those issues are also ones that will mobilize the voting public out of their seat in front of the wide-screen, and into the voting booth.  Why do they mobilize?  Do they suddenly get their knickers in a twist, and decide to legislate via the ballot-box?


No.


They act in response to initiatives from liberals, who push their agenda to the point that they trigger a response.


In other words, the "average" American is a bit of a centrist, not bothering to get involved in an active way, unless he/she feels that the politicians have pushed a particular agenda beyond a certain point.  Then, the villagers come out with torches held high, and rout Dracula.


Then, predictably, the villagers return to the hovels they sprang from.


It's truly and well, the essence of Americanism.  We've done it since even before we declared independence.  Whether we personally participate in the midnight rout (or daytime voting) is unimportant - we agree with the villagers, and support their efforts.


That's a factor that the liberals that elected Obama and his crew didn't anticipate.  They expected that, once in power, they'd ram through legislation (for our "own good", of course), and we, being the mouth-breathing slackers/fools/taxpayers they assumed we were, would accept the imposition of rules, regulations, and taxes laid upon us by our "betters" - i.e., the liberals.


Whoo-boy!


Didn't expect us to push back!


Didn't expect us to organize!


Didn't expect us to signal a non-proletarian refusal to take whatever they felt like shoveling at us!


So, now we are in the middle of a push-back campaign, filled with amateurs and not-ready-for-prime-timers (Christine O'Donnell is an example), who, nonetheless, are on the ballot.  Who may be elected (assuming the fraudsters don't overwhelm the honest).  Who will, once again, remind the annointed ones elected ones that it is the citizen who pays their salary, and the citizen who expects them to fairly represent their interests.


So, how does this relate to the social issues?


Quite simply, you can lie and play accounting tricks with the money of government, but the one thing you can't do is mess with the American people's sense of what's right, in a values sense of the word.  At this time, the average American is more pro-life than pro-choice, and REALLY doesn't like same-sex marriage.  They don't hate gays, most of us have gay friends and/or family members; BUT, for us, marriage is special.  It's NOT primarily meant as a social recognition of our love; its purpose is protection of minor children, and, by extension, the female parent during the time she is pregnant, nursing, or caring for young ones.


Think about it - do we truly want the government to get involved in our love lives?  Do we want their interference in, really, ANY facet of our lives that is not absolutely necessary?


No.  The only reason for government recognition of marriage is because it has the potential to bring forth children; whether it does or not is irrelevant; it has that potential, therefore, in the interest of protecting minors (those who cannot fend for themselves), government regulates marriage.


Could the government protect children without officially recognizing marriage?  Sure.  But, honestly, it would take a major adjustment of many laws.  I don't see it as a priority.  If gays and their supporters want to change all the laws so that marriage is no longer a governmental concern, knock themselves out.  We may be heading in that direction now; certainly, if the government forces all Americans to "accept" gay marriage, expect that the only result will be for most, if not all, businesses to eliminate marriage benefits.  Expect that families will have to pay more for any health benefits, insurances, and retirement incomes.  It's gonna be VERY costly to have a traditional family.


What you SHOULDN'T expect out of it is any benefit, financial or otherwise, to accrue to gays, married or not.  Won't happen; all of the "bennies" will be eliminated, instead.


Wonder how kindly those traditional families will feel towards the gay marriage activists when that happens?


I really don't care whether the government recognizes my marriage; my main focus is on the meaning of my marriage in the context of my God.

Share

Lies of the Left

This COULD be a lengthy post. But, I'll try to winnow it down to a reasonable length. The CA Parent Bribery 'Scandal' - the 1...