Federal government bombs Pearl Harbor...

--awakens sleeping giant with a terrible resolve?

How many times have I said over the last few months that Hussein Obama and the Socialist Democrats are moving the ball forward way too fast, way too aggressively on such items as the infamous 'stimulus' package, 'federalizing' health care and etc., resulting in the alarm they've engendered within a significant and growing proportion of the general American populace?

There's a good discussion ongoing at VFR in which commenter Mark P. touches on this exact point.

Mark P. writes:

Basically, the Left is attempting to do too much, too fast, with way too many changes occurring in too short a time, with results experienced too sson to allow memories to fade. They are too impatient, probably due to the short-term thinking of the new cohort of liberals.

Yep. And though Auster's entry concerns itself with health care specifically, and which Mark P. is mainly speaking to, I suspect that like me Mark understands that it goes beyond federalizing health care.

The Democrats are -- under Hussein, Pelosi, Reid -- fast and furiously, and with reckless abandon such as we've never witnessed in this country, trying to ram every God-forsaken leftist-communist item they can while they can down our throats. And they somehow expect Americans (particularly self-governing producers) to simply lay down and take that b.s.?

I personally think they overestimate the extent of the damage liberalism has already done to the American spirit and psyche. Perhaps not on a conscious level, but the world is to them as they perceive it to be anyhow. I'm not saying that liberal dominance hasn't caused a lot of practically irreparable harm to the country, such as creating a large dependent class, fostering an entitlement mentality amongst certain and sundry demographic groups, constitutional and civic illiteracy and a host of others. I'm simply saying that government indoctrination hasn't quite worked out the way they planned it for a bunch of us. Some of us, evidently, and in spite of all of their efforts to train us up in the ways of the all-encompassing ideology of liberalism, were just too stupid (or hard-headed), evidently, to get it.

I've said before that my education just didn't take because I wasn't that interested in it to start with. No one ever expected or otherwise demanded me to achieve academic excellence, so I didn't because I had no reason to. No; I just did what I had to do, nothing more, nothing less. Which is to say that I maintained something like a B- average throughout my educational career because that was all that was required of me. And as you probably already know, it takes very little effort to maintain a B- grade average, so little in fact that one rarely needs to take a book home or "study" in any meaningful sense of the word. Indeed, I missed so many days of school, so many assignments and tests one year in H.S. that about 2/3 of the way through the semester I finally decided to start attending classes on a regular basis and pull my average up from an F to a high C. That is all it took, going to class, completing my assignments, memorizing test answers and such.

Anyway, I don't rightly know how I got off on that tangent, except to say that I think I was trying to lead to a point, which is this -- perhaps liberalism is, unbeknownst to itself and its wild-eyed kooky advocates and promoters, its own worst enemy what with its low expectations and standards. You know, if you begin with low standards for academic achievement, and you create an entire educational apparatus (curriculum, methodology, philosophy and so forth) lining up with those low standards, then maybe it contains its own inherently self-destructive mechanism which is bound to self-initiate at some point along the way. Generations come and they go, and liberalism continues its march forward until it reaches its apex. After which point, what? -- that which goes up must come down, following the laws of physics? I don't know, but it's an interesting thesis that might be worth pursuing further.

Y'all be sure to read the VFR discussion linked above.

Read More

The Constitution according to Nancy

Nancy-baby (H/T: Tenth Amendment Center):

The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).

Translation (as if you needed one):

The Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution is inoperable and meaningless, and has been for a long long time. Why this obstructionist, divisive amendment was ever added as part of the Bill of Rights is anyone's guess. Surely the founders didn't expect the states to make the mistake of ratifying it. But whatever. That was then, this is now. And the joke's on them.

Since Congress has successfully used the commerce clause to control various aspects of American life, building line upon line, precept upon precept, the sky is now the limit. Indeed, given that virtually (qualifier added as merely a matter of form) every aspect of everything done in America effects, in some way, shape, form, interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate all aspects of American life is unlimited. Challenge my authority and I'll bury your sorry constructionist, literalist, originalist, traditionalist *ss!

She forgot to mention that Congress only need "occupy the field" and "intend a complete ouster" in order to take absolute control over any subject matter. But she's clear enough methinks. The central government is [essentially] all powerful, and by its good graces alone does it allow the states and the people to retain any portion of their sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, if you care to retain what little you have left, you had better bow down before the U.S. government and its Communist power brokers and beg for its mercy and forgiveness. For has it not been written, "if the People ask bread [their government] will not give them a stone."

Read More

Repeat after Bob

I don't like the guy, I don't have to like the guy, I'm not going to like the guy." -Bob Beckel on G.W. Bush

Actually, that's probably not an exact quote, but it's close enough. I did a quickie google search for it, but couldn't find it in the allotted time. Anyway, he said it, trust me.

Allow me to say the same as an expression of my personal opinion of the Alien-in-Chief Hussein Obama. I would say more, but it wouldn't be appropriate for a G-rated blog.

Hey!, it's (somewhat of) a free country still!

Read More

'Green' Black Nationalist Communist cut loose

Is this what New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin meant when he said that "If he's (Hussein O.) the man we thought he was, he'll now choose to make peace, before the country concludes he's the mistake."?

Oh wait!, Goodwin was speaking of Hussein's (you know, the man who's so far turned out to be the polar opposite of the the man we all thought he was) nationalized health care scheme, that's right. What we're talking about here is the 'resignation' of one radical Black Communist 'Czar' that he (Hussein O.) appointed to a high level position under the USSA.

The full WND article is posted below the fold.

'Green Jobs Czar' Van Jones resigns
WND's 5-month series of exposés leads to White House's 1st casualty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 06, 2009
1:18 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Van Jones

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones quit late last night after pressure mounted over his extremist history first exposed in WND.

The last straw for Jones was being caught on tape in an expletive-packed rant, directly attacking Republicans in the Senate who he said abused their majority position in the past to push legislation through. He admitted after the statements were released that the comments were "inappropriate" and "offensive."

"They do not reflect the experience I have had since joining the administration," Jones said in the statement.

Jones was also linked late last week to efforts suggesting a government role in the Sept. 11 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

When the White House press corps grilled White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about Jones on Friday, a reporter asked how the administration could reject "conspiracy theories" about his birth certificate while employing someone who previously charged the U.S. government with masterminding Sept. 11.

Get Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine

Gibbs said only that Jones "continues to work in the administration," a non-ringing endorsement that set the stage for his ouster. Jones' name appeared on a petition calling for congressional hearings and other investigations into whether high-level government officials had orchestrated the 9/11attacks.

Jones flatly said in his statement that he did not agree with the petition's stand and that "it certainly does not reflect my views, now or ever."

As for his other comments he made before joining Obama's team, Jones said: "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."

In April, Aaron Klein, Jerusalem bureau chief for WND.com, broke the first major story on Jones who was identified as a self-described radical communist and "rowdy black nationalist" who said his environmental activism was actually a means to fight for racial and class "justice."

Read More

Catch 'er if you can

Well, ahem, somebody could and did.

Watch the video. These people obviously ain't real smart (is it any wonder that they couldn't achieve the simple task of cobbling together a genuine-looking COLB for Hussein Obama?). At about 1:20 in the video Jackson-Lee addresses the 'we are a dying breed' remark of 'Dr.' Mayer, indicating that she (Jackson-Lee) is working on legislation which will increase the number of primary care physicians in America -- you know, that 'dying breed' that Mayer spoke of, as being one of; that breed that apparently can only be revitalized as part of the 'Obamacare' package. Not true at all! We just need more people like 'Dr.' Mayer to step up to the plate, and we'll have an abundance of primary care physicians in this country, on the government payroll.

Continuing her comments on the topic, Jackson-Lee speaks of the difficulty of getting young people (approx. 2:00 in the video, using her son as an example) to go to the doctor for preventative care. The obvious answer to that dilemma, though Jackson-Lee doesn't state it explicitly, is to force people to receive 'preventative' care. Well, that's actually not completely true. You can entice certain people to go to the doctor when they get the sniffles IF it is free to them. In those cases it isn't a matter of forcing them to do something they don't want to do, but of enticing them to do what they wouldn't do otherwise, that is if they had to pay for it out of their own pockets. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the government will most definitely try to force people to receive 'preventative' care and health assessments against their will. And all that that implies.

Read More

Is Hussein Obama a royal screw-up, and why?

Chiu Chunling wrote a post over at Loyal to Liberty from whence I extract the final interesting paragraph posted below.

Chiu writes:

Even so, I will make my plea to those without moral scruples. Make the smart choice. This communist revolution thing never works out anyway, not even when upgraded with fascist regulatory and propaganda schemes. And Obama has royally screwed up the whole timetable and provoked a counter-force. The fence is about to be torn down, so you'll be needing a new place to sit. You might even have to stand. Just don't stand with the commies, okay? I know it seems like they're 'the future' and all that, but that's all a bunch of propaganda. Learn from history. Or just ask yourself if you really want to be queuing up for bread and band-aids. (emphasis mine)

I'll admit up front that I'm partial to the view highlighted in italics, and that my partiality to it is the reason it caught my attention as well as why I chose to post it in its own blog entry here at Webster's. Part of the reason I'm partial to it is that I've been saying all along that Obama cannot possibly know what he's gotten himself into. And before the election that he could not possibly understand what he was about to get himself into. Part of the reason I've been saying that is because I don't believe he can possibly understand real people who still possess real souls, his being surrounded all of his life by people who had long since sold their souls to the devil. So he only knows what evil, soul-less people are thinking, and his radical movements are predicated on how he thinks people will react to his destructive policies and his radical drive to impose them; he thinks that all normal people have no souls and no consciences like those individuals who've always surrounded him. Hence, without some outside help from someone who does understand real people, only by blind luck itself can he possibly avoid provoking real people.

It is a serious problem for him. But that's what he gets for thinking he was qualified for the presidency in the first place.

But, of course, he couldn't accomplish any of this without the aid of the radical leftists in Congress who suffer from perhaps a somewhat milder form of Hussein Obama's delusion and misunderstanding of basic human nature of those whose souls remain intact.

Read More

When all things are seen as on a par

Here's the beginnings of a discussion that may or may not prove to be fruitful. We shall see in time.

Someone named Dale Caruso posted the poem by Martin Neimoeller which I'm sure you've all heard some version of at one time or the other. Here is the text of the poem Caruso posted at the Tenth Amendment Center with Mr. Caruso's preparatory comments added:

There was a poem was written by Martin Niemoeller in 1946. It has been varied over the years to apply to different causes … but the original message carries a powerful moral impact;

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Yes, yes, by the time they got around to getting me they'd already long since disposed of everyone else. You know, the communists, the socialists, the Jews and trade unionists, etc. There I stood alone, with no one there to back me up -- you know, the communists and the socialists, friends I never knew I had.

Well, the poem did receive a couple of approving comments in the thread, to wit:

Michael Boldin writes:

The pastor Martin Niemoeller commentary is as relevant today as it ever was. We can’t just turn our heads because “they” are coming for someone we don’t like. Every time the government takes more power and violates another person’s rights is another step closer to you.

Jeff Matthews adds:

Exactly! That’s why I hate to see “enlightened” people submit so easily to laws that target the “unenlightened,” such as smokers and drinkers.

Huh?! I'm reminded here of the passage "...and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." (Can yo believe I had to look that one up? That's ok, I knew exactly where to find it. ;-))

Well, you know, with the approval rating of the poem quickly growing, I thought I might as well enter the fray.

TM writes:

Smokers and drinkers? Well sure. Certainly many of the same folks that support imposing “sin taxes” on personal practices and habits they don’t particularly care for as individuals, or that are not currently in vogue, engage themselves in practices and habits equally repulsive and self-destructive which they would never support the imposition of excessive taxation on. But Communism; Socialism? These are totalitarian philosophies of government which are completely and utterly antithetical to American Representative Republicanism. And the Constitution does, afterall, guarantee to each state in this union a Republican form of Government.

Apples and oranges you’re comparing here.

Jeff Matthews replies:

Not apples and oranges at all. Take the new bill that just passed into law by Congress submitting jurisdiction over tobacco to the FDA. Now, the FDA will have all sorts of fun running a tobacco-related political agenda.

The point I made above was that this is Unconstitutional, but the majority does not care because they support such usurpations against the minority. Divide and conquer.

It is directly on point to Michael’s comment that, “We can’t just turn our heads because “they” are coming for someone we don’t like. Every time the government takes more power and violates another person’s rights is another step closer to you.”

Okay, I'm a little bit confused now. Let's see what the following will yield:

TM:

So you’re saying the government has no more legitimate interest (neither authority) in preventing the spread of an ideology antithetical to itself within its jurisdiction, than it has tampering with the personal choices of individuals which can in virtually no conceivable way present it with an existential threat and has no ideological preferences one way or the other? Are we losing something in translation here? I’m a little confused.

Stay tuned. Or, of course, you can jump in there anytime. Because, you see, before they elicited a non-approving response out of me, they'd already scared away everyone else. You know, the Christians and the conservatives, the non-egalitarians, etc. ;-)

Read More

Jefferson on Balanced Government

In his autobiography Thomas Jefferson makes his case for Balanced Government.

Jefferson writes:

But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor. Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. It is by this partition of cares, descending in gradation from general to particular, that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all. ...

In a letter to Justice William Johnson, Jefferson writes:

The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave with the states all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States: to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others. (emphasis mine)...

Jefferson continues:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

[...]

Can it be believed, that under the jealousies prevailing against the general government, at the adoption of the Constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties and restraining vice, within their own territory?...Can any good be effected by taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority, or to one of their corporations, which may justify forcing the meaning of words, hunting after possible constructions, and hanging inference on inference, from heaven to earth, like Jacob's ladder? Such an intention was impossible, and such a licenteousness of construction and inference, if exercised by both governments, as may be done with equal right, would equally authorize both to claim all power, general and particular, and break up the foundations of the Union.

[...]

"The States supposed that by their ninth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers..."(emphasis mine)

Read More

2/3 to 3/4 of Americans Communists, depending...

Anyone who knows me well at all knows that I don't care for polls and surveys and such. I think it's a rare occurance indeed when a survey consisting of five hundred or a thousand people polled hits upon a single, much less numerous sentiments consistent with the general sense of a citizenry topping 270 million.

I don't think it's necessarily a purposeful misleading that these poll-takers are engaging in, but I don't necessarily believe it isn't either. It all depends on the reasoning behind the particular poll taken, who's conducting it, what kinds of questions are asked, what kinds of answers are provided, and so on and so forth. All of these factors weigh into the final outcome of the survey in question.

I admit that I'm not well versed in the science of poll taking. And I suppose that there are methods to the madness that I'm probably overlooking. But I think it's hard to make a case for polls basing their findings on such an insignificant proportion of the citizenry as the one the story below cites...

WASHINGTON (AP) --

Income differences in the U.S. are too stark, and the government should provide jobs and training for those having a tough time, according to majorities in a national poll released Thursday.

About seven in 10 said discrepancies between income levels are too large, a sentiment voiced by nearly two-thirds of those from households earning at least $80,000 a year, the survey said. Three-fourths of people earning less than $80,000 agreed.

Eight in 10 said the gap between the rich and the middle class has worsened over the last 25 years, said the survey by the University of Connecticut's Center for Survey Research and Analysis.

The poll comes in the early stages of a 2008 presidential campaign in which several Democratic candidates have discussed a widening distance between the country's rich and poor.
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has made ''two Americas'' one of his favorite themes. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois have also touched on the topic.

In the survey, 58 percent said large pay differences help get people to work harder. Yet 61 percent said such discrepancies are not needed for the country to prosper.

Two-thirds said the government should make sure there is a job for everyone who wants one. Small majorities said it should provide jobs for people who can't find private employment, increase federal training programs and redistribute money with high taxes on the wealthy.

Even so, nearly two-thirds said it is not the government's responsibility to ease income differences.

The survey was conducted from June 18 to July 2 and involved telephone interviews with 500 adults nationally. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

My question is simply this: How do these surveys show such disparate results on different, yet obviously related questions asked of the same individuals; why are there such inconsistencies shown in the answers given? Are people truly that fickle about what they believe?

The results to which I refer in this particular survey are of course those showing very even percentages (58% and 61% respectively) of people who apparently believe on the one hand that 'large pay differences help get people to work harder,' yet on the other that 'such discrepancies (in pay I'm assuming) are not needed for the country to prosper.' Huh!?....prosperity has no relationship to incentive, yet it does; productivity is, or it isn't to be associated with success? I'm getting more confused by the second.

Other results from this survey I'm referring to are the ones indicating that two out of three people surveyed believe the government should 'make sure there is a job for everyone who wants one,' and nearly two out of three people surveyed believe that 'it's not the government's responsibility to ease income differences.' Say what!? On the one hand it IS the government's responsibility to provide jobs for those unemployed 'against their will;' on the other hand, and at the same time, it IS NOT the responsibility of government to do anything about the income gap between the, what, 'over-employed,' and the 'under-employed?'

Okay, obviously I'm utterly confused now. And I admit that the more surveys I read, the more confused I get, as a general rule. That probably accounts for most of why I'm simply not a survey/poll kinda fella. The results have never made much sense to me, and I think, based in part on these and others I've had the misfortune to read, they probably never will.

The only thing I've ever found to be consistent in the published results of most polls I've read is the overall tendency for them to show inconsistencies in the thinking of the individuals polled. In other words, they're consistently inconsistent. That fact in itself is enough for me to shy away from putting any stock whatsoever in poll and survey results of virtually any kind, on questions of virtually any kind.

Having taken a few polls myself, I can tell you that my personal experience is that the questions are always either too vaguely asked (not specific enough), or the answers provided are too few or too vague in themselves; or both. In fact, I've given up right in the midst of taking a poll due to these very factors before. I have no interest whatsoever in answering questions wherein someone has already predetermined for me that my answers must fall within a certain range of responses carefully chosen and framed by...someone.

So what is my point, you may be asking? I guess my main point is that I don't like polls, and I want you to know it. Other than that I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on the upside to the poll - only a 'small majority' of Americans (according to the survey) are true believers in the principles of communism. We can chalk that up to the triumph of capitalism I guess.

-DW

Read More