Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
This was a good start. Really. I liked it here a lot. However, since I became part of the key club over at The Hostages, I have gotten more comfortable with WordPress, and frankly, one sign-in there can connect me with all my blogs, so I staked out a new corner there. Its a little rough right now, but I think I can make it all mine soon enough. I'll still come back here from time to time, but most of my politcal posting will be done at the new place. See ya there:
Thursday, April 09, 2009
The Obama Administration is doing what it can to make us less safe in the world. Oh yes, I know Joe Biden doesn't think so, but he is the same guy who got caught plagiarizing someone else's work and asked a guy in a wheelchair to stand up so people could see him. His opinion is a little light on credibility, if you know what I'm saying...
Anyway, my reason for saying this is his administration's swift and decisive response to the seizing of a U.S. flagged cargo ship near Cape Horn by Somali pirates. These pirates boarded the Maersk Alabama, which was bound for Kenya. The crew fought back, and reclaimed the ship. Thankfully, there are still some Americans who are willing to take a stand against terrorists and push them back. The drawback is that the terrorists still have a hostage, the ship's captain, who is being held by the pirates in a lifeboat. The U.S. Navy dispatched a destroyer, USS Bainbridge, which has been in sight of the lifeboat for many hours now. The Obama administration has decided to use FBI negotiators to seek the safe return of the captain. From the AP:
A ragtag band of pirates has put President Barack Obama in a bind: He commands overwhelming firepower in the form of a growing flotilla of U.S. warships, but he doesn't want to use it.
Thursday's decision to turn to FBI hostage negotiators showed Obama reaching for all of his limited options in the high-seas hostage drama. Negotiators in the United States were communicating with the pirates through a Navy destroyer that shadowed the small lifeboat where four pirates held American cargo ship captain Richard Phillips.
I guess the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy is officially dead. But the more important question is why doesn't Obama act like a world leader and dispatch these terrorists, and their land-bound compatriots with extreme prejudice? There is nothing to be gained in such a silly standoff. Each passing minute that these vermin draw breath makes us look that much weaker in the eyes of other nations and assorted bad actors who smell our blood in the water and would like nothing better than to swim by and take a bite from us. Lord Zero's intense need to be liked and perceived as a chin-stroking intellectual has now officially put us in a place where I, and others who have had to deal with bullies at any time in our lives, can realize that we really are less safe tonight as a nation then we were last night. Good Job, Barry! When the alligators come, I want to feed them your family first.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
I was driving home from working late at the office when I heard that yet another Obama nominee has...tax trouble! I placed this on the great mental bulletin board of ongoing outrages perpetrated against the American people by this administration, and it occurred to me that back a little while ago, we were boldly informed by the Vice President and Smartest Person in the Room (just ask him) that paying taxes is patriotic.
Now the Democrats were the same people who were getting their upturned noses out of joint by the insinuation that their overt and latent "Hate America First" activities somehow allowed those of us who don't prescribe to that toxic viewpoint to question their patriotism. Well, finally, I think that even by their quixotic standards, they are damned by the mouth of one of their spokespersons, and the fact that so very many of them do not feel that is necessary to pay their taxes, but that is only one of many reasons.
I question their patriotism when they run on a platform that has the government redistribution wealth, assaulting the concept of private property that is fundamental to the success of the American Experience.
I question their patriotism when they advocate for the concept of mandatory voluntary service, making the government the chief endorser of involuntary servitude.
I question their patriotism when they determine that people who are hostile to every idea we hold dear, and are prone to violence, mayhem and murder as expression of their beliefs should not be held on foreign shores, but here on our soil instead.
I question their patriotism when they push through a grossly obscene 'stimulus package' that has very little immediate spending, that funds political activist groups sympathetic to those who do not respect the law of the land, and that many of them never even bothered to read.
I question their patriotism when they appoint a tax cheat as the head of the cabinet agency that oversee the tax system and enforcement.
I question their patriotism when they propose a federal budget that will destroy the economy and enslave many future generations to the serve of government debt that may never be repaid.
I question their patriotism when they move beyond the role of regulator in our economy, a role plagued by uneven application and selective prosecution on its best days, to being an active participant by deciding who wins and loses by 'bailing out' some companies in financial difficulty, and letting others fail.
I question their patriotism when they bypass the Board of Directors of corporations accepting bailout money and demanding the resignations of CEO of said companies.
I question their patriotism when they seek the 'regulatory' power to seize any business that they deem to be a threat to the economy.
I question their patriotism when they introduce legislation that, if passed, would limit my choices for health care, food, or the programs I want to listen to or watch.
I question their patriotism when they actively undermine the dollar by monetizing our debt.
I question their patriotism when they propose ex post facto laws and bills of attainder to seize bonuses that were lawfully contracted for and allowed in their own legislation with regard to a corporation that accepted bailout money, and using the faux and misplaced outrage to suggest that they have a right to regulate the compensation for executives in all businesses.
I question their patriotism when they state their goal to increase taxation on American corporations with the idiotic but popular justification that the corporations do not "pay their fair share".
I question their patriotism when they foment class envy, and encourage the belief that those who did not work to earn are somehow entitled to the fruits of the labor of those that did.
I question their patriotism when they continually vilify those industries and individuals who produce innovation and bring cutting edge technology, services, and treatments on line, and are willing to risk their futures to do so.
I question their patriotism when they rule with an underlying philosophy that the government, an entity that does not produce anything, and does very little in an efficient manner, has a duty to provide health care, rescue the fiscally irresponsible, and impose mediocrity upon us all.
I question their patriotism when they appoint as 'czars' that are not part of the chains of command of cabinet agencies in roles where they will probably have oversight over the areas governed by those agencies, largely because they would not make it through the appointment process.
I question their patriotism when they stubbornly adhere to environmental policies that ARE NOT supported by the science, even though they will be ruinous to US business.
I question their patriotism when they appoint transnationalist attorneys to high ranking positions where they will be able to actively advocate for their foreign law-over-the Constitution preferences.
I question their patriotism when the overall effect of their stated goals and proposed legislation is to consolidate power, including powers reserved to the states and individuals in the hands of the federal government.
I question their patriotism when they establish automotive company advisory boards populated by people who do not own American cars, have no experience in the auto business, or any business, for that matter.
I question their patriotism when they so hamstring an industry with regulations that it simply cannot succeed, and then have the nerve to vilify the executives of those industries when they finally do fail.
But hey, what do we expect from people who aren't patriotic enough to pay their taxes?
Feel free to add your own. I know there are more reasons to question their patriotism.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
To the three regular readers of this blog, I'm sorry.
I have been very busy with work, and watching the clownshoes in Congress and the White House heap insult upon injury in an attempt to out-incompetent each other. There comes a point where it just doesn't help anymore to point out the folly that occurs on a daily basis in the nation's capitol. It has descended into madness, and the fact that the elected "officials" have not been forced to flee for their lives only demonstrates how effectively the media-liberal cabal has subverted the national awareness. I don't think I have any outrage left. Only weariness, and a morbid curiousity about what will be the final insult, what act by this power-mad, and wrecklesly irresponsible government will be the one that makes the 48 percenters rise up in an effort to restore reason and a health fear of the governed in the halls of power once again.
Don't call it a hiatus as much as a breath. I'll post again when I find a reason.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Youtube vid of the always entertaining leftard dingleberry Charles "Chuckles" Wrangle. Keep smilin', Chuckles. We see how hard you laugh when people decide that scumbags like you don't have a place in government anymore.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
A Cautionary tale from LC Azygos, who is on the front lines every day.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
I admit it. I have not posted a lot lately. Work is one of the reasons. When the economy is down, people are more willing to fight over money that in better times, they are more likely to let go. But the bigger part of it is the day-to-day stupidity that is the hallmark of elected officals all over the country these days. Whether it is the outstanding bipartisan spirit increasingly demonstrated by the left (We won, you didn't, so you'll do it our way and like it!), or the constant assaults on the dignity of logic and reason that translate into daily outrages that pile up like cordwood. If I attempted to catelog them all, this blog would become a full-time job. However, the worst part is the conumdrum at the heart of our current predicament. As more comes to light to inspire mistrust and disgust with government, the kind that robs it of any pretense of legitimacy, the nation as a whole seems to be nonplussed. Those of you who are regular readers know that this is not the whole story, as the mainstream media completely abandoned any appearance of impartiality in the last election cycle and publically embraced the left, finally ceasing to pretend that they didn't have a bias. And they did their jobs well. The 52% of the voters in the last election decided to believe the hype, ignore the lack of substance in the current President, and the complete lack of any serious criticism or investigation of Barry H. Obama. Hope and Change were enough. And even now, when the man who champions the cause of transparency in government hires a tax cheat for the Secretary of the Treasury, and uses the economic downturn, which was orchestrated by 'community organizers' who bullied and threatened banks into makeing bad loans, and facilitated by Democrats in Congress who turned a blind eye the mushrooming of the debt bomb, and actively dissuaded any attempt at regulation and oversight which would have put a stop to the stupid lending practices that have created the current "crisis". As a result, the Congress and the President spent more on one piece of legislation than they typically spend in one year, under the guise of 'economic stimulus', although it contains so very much more. Billions for ACORN (hey, the attorneys necessary to fight the fraud charges are expensive), money for birth control, for green power, which, when the math is done is extraordinarily expensive for the resulting power achieved, computerizing every American's health records, so that government can second guess decisions about your care made by you an your physician, and so very much more. All passed by a Congress that could not have possibly reviewed the entire bill before voting on it. State governments that expanded into so many realms in which they had no business when times were good that now face such deficits that they look to taxpayers for even more money that the government itself did not earn, and to the federal government, which means you and me. These state governments are issuing IOUs to taxpayers who are due returns for last year. An IOU? Try giving one to government, and see what happens to you. But best part is this: If the Feds give some of our bailout money to states like California, then we, you and I, get to pay for all of the things Calfornia officials did that we did not agree with. Sanctuary cities? Yup? Health care, welfare, and the cost to the state legal system and state agencies for dealing with illegals? Yup. We will get to pay for that too! And what is the reaction to all of this by the 52%ers? Yawns. They don't see any downside to any of this. "Debt so large that my grandchildren will be paying it? Whatever. When is Obama going to fix my mortgage so I can stay in this home? Paying all my McDonald's wages to do it right now is a real bummer. I want to get a plasma screen. I hope he hurries up."
The rumblings are there. Words like "disinfranchisement", "crooks", "unconstitutional", and "illegitimate" are cropping up more than I feel comfortable thinking about. The last time so many people in this country were so completely fed up with the direction of government, it lead to years of the saddest bloodshed this nation has ever known. I don't want to see it happen again in my lifetime, but I also wonder how much longer I can fullfill my duties as an officer of the court, which adjudicates the laws of a government that I increasingly feel is abdicating its duty to its people in favor of ruling over them, and the paradox grows more obvious with each passing day. Perhaps the Fresh Prez of Bill Ayers would be well served by contemplating a quote by the man whose legacy he is so eager to claim, yet he fails so tragically short of: "A house divided against itself cannot stand".
Monday, February 16, 2009
Another case of a 'speech code' on campus defending the right not to be offended. Beautiful. The best part? I'm betting that the professor simply cannot grok the irony in his actions.
LOS ANGELES - A college student has filed a lawsuit saying a public speaking professor berated him in class for making a speech opposing same-sex marriage.
Yeah, how dare that student express an opinion on a topic that VOTERS in the state recently expressed opinions on with their votes. Straying from the path of unicorns who poop rainbows out their rears when speaking in the once-hallowed halls of acedemia is a poor choice. Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!
In the federal court suit filed last week, student Jonathan Lopez said that midway through his speech, when he quoted a dictionary definition of marriage and recited a pair of Bible verses, professor John Matteson cut him off and would not allow him to finish. He said Matteson also called him a "fascist bastard."
I can almost see this professor now...wild eyes, spittle flying from frenzied lips screaming "You're done! Done! No more! I don't care that you are citing the source material from one of the most influential tomes in Western Civilization! I don't care that you are citing the dictionary!!! I don't like what you are saying and that makes it untrue, inappropriate, and hate speech!!"
A student evaluation form included with the lawsuit lacks a score for Lopez's speech, and reads "ask God what your grade is."
Not acceptable. It won't be enough to cost this bully his job. He needs to be given a homework assignment in which he must research the history of American Higher Education and the purposes and results of its implementation. He sullies the heritage of the American higher educational system with his actions and hostility to religion.
In a letter, Dean Allison Jones wrote that she had met with Lopez, considered his complaint "extremely serious in nature," and had begun a disciplinary investigation. Jones said in the letter she could not elaborate because of concerns for Matteson's privacy.
The careful answer, but I suspect that nothing will come of it. Call it a hunch.
But Jones also wrote that two students were "deeply offended" by the speech, and quoted one as saying "this student should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom."
And this is why. Truly, the Dean misunderstands. As a community college, I'll wager that the school accepts taxpayer dollars, and I'll also bet that the school probably is chartered through the state government. That would make it a government entity. That means that ANY restriction on the speech of a citizen SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, no matter who gets offended. You don't like it if a student points out that a "marriage" between Neal and Bob doesn't meet the definition of marriage? Tough. You don't like it that the Bible has specific proscriptions against homosexuality? Too bad. Despite the popular opinion, this nation was founded on primarily Christian principals. Yeah, I said that out loud, and I have been doing the research to back it up.
Matteson did not immediately respond to calls and e-mails seeking comment early Monday. Offices of the Los Angeles Community College District were closed for the Presidents Day holiday.
No Surprise there.
Lopez made the speech at Los Angeles City College in November, days after the passage of Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.
Topical and well-sourced? He'll never get anywhere in academia that way. What was he thinking?
"Basically, colleges and universities should give Christian students the same rights to free expression as other students," David J. Hacker, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization that is representing Lopez, told the Los Angeles Times.
And considering that colleges and universities were once founded by Christians to provide an educated and knowledgable clergy to preserve and foster a free and just society, that really isn't too much to expect.
Lopez and his attorneys are seeking financial damages and want the court to strike down a code at Los Angeles City College forbidding students from making statements deemed offensive.
And I hope they take it as far as they have to get that result.
Apparently I was wrong. The Dean does get it, and has sided against the First Amendment. Maybe she is counting on the courts to get it wrong.
From Mike S. Adams at Townhall.com
Following the inaction of Dean Jones, Mr. Lopez sent, via counsel, a second letter demanding action in his case. Dean Jones responded by saying that the situation had been appropriately addressed. She then brazenly stated that any service of process or tort claims could be served on the District’s General Counsel.
Methinks some personal liability under a section 1983 civil rights suit might get this worm's attention.
Friday, February 13, 2009
“Meanwhile, from the hearts of multitudes the dignity of honest labor and the dictates of a sober and modest economy have died out, on the one hand increasing pauperism and crime and lending to misfortune the aggrivation of human improvidence, and on the other hand, fostering habits of false show, and thus increasing the temptation to deception, fraud, peculation, and all the dishonesties of the most high-pampered extravagance and excess. Moreover, the wanton neglect or abuse of our providential blessings, and the unconscious apostasy from every sentiment of purity and virtue, have served greatly to defile and degrade the mind of a large portion of the community and ill the centers of population with a low and vulgar herd, who throng at the open temples of obscenity and infamy. Thus the materials are prepared for human guilt and wretchedness, whose catalog of crimes and woes exhausts the power of language to express them. Beyond all this, political controversy and partisan strife for the reins and spoils of power, conducted without principal, and reeking with abuse, have taken so fierce a form as often to have driven the best men from the arena and left the worst upon the field. The selfish and prolifigate stand forward to control the nominations and elections to office, and afterwords gamble with its duties and obligations without shame and without remorse.”
I love this book, but I fear the wisdom it imparts.
NY's blind governor: 'SNL' insensitive to disabled
With a headline like that, you know what is coming...yet another cry from a "victim".
MORRISVILLE, N.Y. (AP) -- The legally blind governor of New York says a second parody of him on the television show "Saturday Night Live" promotes insensitivity against the disabled.
You'll note that there is no discussion of the fact that it was a parody of a public figure, more specifically, someone who put himself in the spotlight when he sought office. In fact, I'll wager that he exploited his condition to get elected in the first place.
Democratic Gov. David Paterson said Thursday that the show's continued parodies hurt disabled people not in a position to fight back.
Nonsense! The parody pricked his over-developed ego...the same ego that likely inspired him to run for office in the first place. After all, if one is a democrat and blind, where else can they seek lucrative employment? The executive branch of a state government is a perfect place for such a person to work!
A segment on Paterson aired last week featured "SNL" cast member Fred Armisen — with one eye closed most of the time, the other focused on his own nose — unable to see fellow cast member Seth Meyers or a prop. Armisen portrayed the governor as a clueless blind man with a past of youthful drug use and womanizing.
And this hurt disabled persons not in a position to fight back. Seems the governor has done a wonderful job using his position to fight back. And he does so using the Democratic playbook, too: Don't address the substance, swing at the emotional component. If he were my governor, I'd send him a box of hankies to cry into. He knows politics is a full-contact sport, but he has no compunction about exploiting his condition to get the result he wants. And people say I'm cynical.
NBC spokeswoman Sharon Pannozzo says neither the network nor the show would comment on Paterson's remarks.
Of course not. The Democratic Party's media arm has been properly chastised for turning its satire in the direction of one of their own. I'm sure they will perform the appropriate mea culpa and have a Sarah Palin skit or three this weekend.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Last week was very, very busy, and the weekend hasn't been much better.
Sig, the point is it is my motto, and I was pointed to that site which can be used to create such seals.
To those who participated in the headline contest, the answer is having government getting any deeper in to mortgages is wrong wrong WRONG!
I got my new book this week. It is "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States", by Benjamin F. Morris. I have been so busy, I have not had a chance to really start reading it, but in reading the introduction, which was written April 14, 1863, by Byron Sunderland, it have found it remarkably prescient. An example?
"Our unparalled liberty has degenerated into dissolute indulgence; we have been so long without the burdens of government as to have almost forgotten the price of our birthright and to have cast away the only safeguards for its continuance; we have proved ourselves unworthy of our inheritance, in our contempt of the virtue which alone provides protection to our society, in our blind disregard of the Christian foundations on which alone the great interests of a nation can permanently rest."
I think I am going to really enjoy this book.
Monday, February 02, 2009
GOP circulates plan to cut the cost of mortgages (AP)
AP - Senate Republicans circulated a sweeping plan to drive down the cost of mortgages by expanding the federal government's role in the industry, officials said Monday night as debate opened on an economic stimulus bill at the top of President Barack Obama's agenda.
Everyone post your answers in the comments. I'll grade them Friday.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
But we all knew that, didn't we? Last year, my home state, The Peeples' Republik of Washingtonistan passed a law allowing same-sex couples to register their 'relationship' with the state, and they could have all the rights that the more militant among them keep bitching that they are denied. So now they have all the rights, except to call it marriage, because their relationship doesn't meet that definition. (and yes, I was thrilled to see all the family law/dissolution forms amended to include 'domestic partnership'...brave new world, indeed)
So it wasn't so much of a surprised to see that the state legislature is now quietly working behind the scenes to destroy any distinction detween the two. The purpose? Other than to call something marriage when it is not, forcing society's approval of a lifestyle that many do not agree with? My money is on a challenge to federal full-faith and credit.
The language, from SB 5688:
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms spouse, marriage,
marital, husband, wife, widow, widower, next of kin, and family shall
be interpreted as applying equally to state registered domestic partnerships or individuals in state registered domestic partnerships
as well as to marital relationships and married persons, and references
to dissolution of marriage shall apply equally to state registered
domestic partnerships that have been terminated, dissolved, or
invalidated, to the extent that such interpretation does not conflict
with federal law. Where necessary to implement this act, gender-
specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or
other law shall be construed to be gender neutral, and applicable to
individuals in state registered domestic partnerships.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
First, the Democrats want to force silly spending bills down our throats, you know, triple the Earned Income Tax Credit, so that people who don't pay taxes now get an even BIGGER refund on the taxes that they don't pay, and payoffs for various political organizations that aided Teh One in his quest for the Oval Office, and call it a "Stimulus Plan" that stimulates nothing but bureaucrats looking for new and exciting ways to spend our money on things that we would never spend it on ourselves, and then pass an immigration bill that is nothing but an amnesty bill that makes citizenship less than worthless, because we will get to fund it too. To sum it up, the Dhims want us to be so burdened with taxes and strip citizenship of all benefits so that we will just be BEGGING for the death of the Republic. Again, a new vid. Same warnings apply. Put away the breakables, take the blood pressure meds.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The naked emperor news put together this tantalizing exchange between Ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich, and Congressman Charles Wrangle, yes the I have serious tax trouble Charles Wrangle, discussing the latest 'infrastructure stimulus package', and the vital importance of making sure that the contracts do not go to "white construction workers", that the states have no input into what the projects are, and that the middle class is working too hard just trying to feed and clothe their families to take notice of what they are doing to raise any objections to their blatant racism. If you ever gave a damn about how the knuckleheads inside the beltway come to decisions, then you should watch this. Put away all breakables first, and take any appropriate blood pressure meds.
These people need to run out of town on a rail. The Sooner, the Better.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Sure, you read the title, and you thought, "How could that be? Of course we knew he is a racist. All those years listening to Reverend Wright and company, playing the card in the campaign when he was the only one to even begin to invoke racism, and of course, that travesty of a Benediction at his Inauguration. We knew it, you knew it, so you must have slipped a cog in the brainbox, BiW."
Not so fast. Yeah, those issues were evident before, but I'm talking about his racism against black, brown, and yellow people.
"What???" you wonder. 'Tis true, I say. My proof? Today President Obama lifted the ban on overseas abortion funding. The ban, known as the Mexico City Policy requires any non-governmental organization to agree before receiving U.S. funds that they will "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." It is also known as the "global gag rule," because it prohibits taxpayer funding for groups that even talk about abortion if there is an unplanned pregnancy.
Now putting aside perfectly legitimate questions that will unfortunately never be asked, like "What in the name of Chuhuthulu are we doing funding abortions overseas when working Americans will have to dig deeper into their pockets than ever before to support the most socialist Agenda foisted upon this nation since the New Deal?", stop and think a minute. Where are in the world are our tax dollars most likely to be used to pay to murder unborn children? Even money says places with high poverty and dense populations. That means places like Mexico, Central America, Africa, and Asia. All areas that the last I looked, were populated by brown, black, and yellow people. Hardly seems like an enlightened policy from someone constantly preaching hope and change, but then how many Democrats will ever give up the opportunity to ensure a good ol' American taxpayer funded abortion, even if it is being done to someone who isn't a citizen. Brought to you by the group in government constantly ascribing its abridgment of rights and stupid laws as being "FOR THE CHILDRENNNNNNNNNN!!!" They constantly whine about things like the Iraq War, which helped to bring the Iraqi children the first chance at real freedom that they have ever had, but see no contradiction in exporting death by funding abortions. I don't know if it is a blessing or a curse to be that obtuse, but I do know that I am very tired of these people representing me.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
I did my best not to pay attention to the doings in the nation's capital yesterday. What little I did not escape only reinforced my belief that I did the right thing. A press, intent on giving the new President a disgusting tongue bath in full view of everyone, complete and utter disrespect of the outgoing President by THE ONE'S faithful acolytes, presumably with the tacit consent of the new President, since it took place in front of him, and he did not raise his divine voice to his ardent admirers in admonishment for their shameful behavior. A tepid inaugural address, met with the screaming adulation of the teeming masses eager to dine on the inanition patronizingly served by the new occupant of the Oval Office, and a racist prayer from a preacher who likely has memorized every major speech Dr. King ever uttered, but who obviously failed to sufficiently grok the meaning of the words.
And today, the work continued. Senate confirmation hearings for a Nominee for Treasury Secretary who deliberately did not pay taxes he owed for years until after he knew he was a nominee. One of several nominees who demonstrate an astonishing brazenness or complete inability to understand and relate to the people they would govern. And the President decided that people so dangerous that their own governments do not want them back have rights under our laws and should be tried in our courts and held on our nation's soil, so that he can keep a dangerously silly promise to close Gitmo.
No position seems to ridiculous for the incoming administration, whether it is a nominee for 'Regulatory Czar' who has gone on record as saying that animals should have the right to sue humans and that hunting should be outlawed, or the financial whiz kid who claimed that it was a mistake that he didn't pay his payroll taxes while he worked for the IMF, despite the fact that they gave him statements of what he owed and he applied for and got the money to pay such taxes. An appointee to the President's vacated seat in the Senate selected by a governor caught red-handed trying to sell the seat. A Presidential Agenda that includes mandatory altruism in the form of compulsive voluntary service, and a civilian defense agency to rival the military. The belief that government, the same people who brought you the IRS and the DMV, should be in the business of providing 'free' health care to everyone, and my personal favorite, a desire to pump billions of taxpayer dollars into the economy to 'stimulate' it, despite the fact that NO ONE will tell us, the folks paying the damn bill, where the billions already spent have actually gone. Instead, we are treated with brusque indignation for having the temerity to ask the question. And everywhere, the ever present theme that only the brilliant minds that THE ONE has tapped to help him lead us can see us through.
I cannot speak for everyone. If I could, then frankly, we would not be facing the absurdity, the corruption, the inefficiency, the arrogance, and the glittering deception that are the hallmarks of the current government of this nation. I can, however, speak for myself. And for myself I say:
The final legitimacy of government is wholly reliant upon the consent of the governed. When you are openly corrupt, when there is a clear double standard, one for those in power and one for the rest of us, when you hold forth as intelligent, and waste beautiful words to say nothing, when you show contempt for those you would presume to lead, when you forget who pays the freight, when you believe government should enter every aspect of our lives, to such a degree that in time we will have to serve it and not the other way around, you set a dangerous standard. Few things are as unhealthy to the continuation of such a government as a complete disrespecting of the body politic and the trust that is a vital component of the social contract underlying the Republic. Such abuse is reprehensible, and the willful indenturing of the individual to the state can only have one ultimate end.
If this President is really as intelligent as he and his supporters would have us believe, then I can only conclude that these provocations are willful; he intends to transform the conflict of beliefs, ideals, and philosophies in to a sad and divisive clash that will separate Americans from each other like they have been no other time since the 1860s. At the same time, I am patient. I will wait. The conflict, if it comes, will be terrible, and the damage it will cause will be like nothing the average person can begin to fathom. Because no God-fearing American relishes the thought of such a butcher's bill, we will wait. We will wait for the final provocation, all the while praying that it will never come.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
The Obamessiah grows bold as his coronation approaches, as both Misha and Nice Deb have noted. The closer he gets to power, the more the mask is drawn back, and the real agenda comes forth. I questioned whether he is trying to provoke conflict before. I now have little doubt, and still the population slumbers, completely oblivious to what the Dear Leader says. In his own words:
And just in case it slipped past you:
“It was these ideals that led us to declare independence, and craft our constitution, producing documents that were imperfect but had within them, like our nation itself, the capacity to be made more perfect.
We are here today not simply to pay tribute to our first patriots but to take up the work that they began.
And yet while our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence not just in our nation, but in our own lives..independence from ideology…"
Simply unfettered arrogance and a willingness to set the nation aflame.
Friday, January 16, 2009
As I was driving home today, the commentator on the radio was talking about the nominee for Obama's 'Regulatory Czar', Professor Cass Sunstein. Now the phrase "Regulatory Czar" was enough to chill my blood when spoken in the context of Obama and his leftie crowd, since their idea of regulation seems to be "take private property away from those who earned it give it to those who did not." I think that perception was added by the inclusion of the word "czar". But the best part was listening to the commentator describe the professor's bona fides. For that he read an article describing the professor's recent comments. That is when it dawned on me. These people really are trying to start a war by destroying this country. Honestly. When a law school professor, most recently at Harvard Law, which only reduces my perception of the school further publicly states:
“[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”
What? I'm Sorry. I don't think I heard you correctly. Did you say "Animals should be entitled to sue with human counsel? You want to give Morris the freaking cat the RIGHT to sue someone??? This is what happens when you spend too damn long in academia and not enough time in the real world. A law school professor just proposed allowing animals to engage in lawsuits. The court system rarely works the way it is supposed to right now, with overloaded dockets and judges who go out of their way to keep from hearing cases. I'm betting the esteemed professor who is so willing to give these rights to our food, pets, and threats is thoroughly against allowing similar rights to unborn humans. That's just a hunch. If you are offended by that statement, go ahead and prove me wrong. But the flip side is the part about representation by human counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions on their client's behalf. How convenient. Human counsel gets to determine that Elsie really isn't contented and gets to sue Farmer Brown on her behalf...for a fee, I'm sure. And the best part? No one can ever challenge the attorney's interpretation of his 'client's' intent. I can see a whole new legal specialty cropping up around this. I'm sure all the big name law schools will pioneer these courses. Of course, if there is wisdom in allowing animals to sue, why stop there? Why not allow other living beings to sue? After all, I am quite sure your cactus doesn't like where you have it placed right now. What about those bacteria that you are damaging with the antibiotics you are taking? Come to think of it, you really are heartless for even existing. You are competing with those animals for the air you breathe. Consuming food takes nutrients they could otherwise benefit from. There are all sorts of plant species that could be living in the space your home currently occupies.
Of course, this 'regulator-to-be' wasn't content with his first deployment of weapons-grade stupidity. No, he had to go after another American tradition and human birthright:
“We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
Sunstein also argued in favor of “eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially.”
Remember, the smug intellectuals who don't like us having the right to keep and bear arms grudgingly allow that hunting is perhaps the only use that we illiterate peasants could legitimately have for a firearm, and therefore anything that they deem inappropriate for hunting is something we should not be allowed to own. Take away hunting as a justification, most likely with a...regulation, and "Voila!" "You don't have any right to own a gun, peasant! Hand it over, and oh, by the way, we are going to act as if your purpose in life is to serve us and not the other way around. Get used to it, or maybe we'll send you to a reeducation camp."
And banning meat-eating. I'm sure that fits in with the justification for the government telling us all what we can eat, and how much, after Universal Healthcare is forced on us all, at the cost of all we make. For our own good, I'm sure.
I just don't understand what happens to people to make them think that such things have any business being uttered seriously in public. I think on somethings that I have read in my life, The Bible, This Present Darkness, and I wonder...demonic possession? But then I could just as easily place my money on insanity. The insanity of the person who believes such things, and the insanity of the person who actively considers putting him in a place where he just might be able to transform it into law.
I really don't believe we can afford four years of such lunacy.
Monday, January 12, 2009
I have a confession to make. '24' is among my guilty pleasures.
I don't mean 'guilty' as I want to distance myself from taking pleasure at terrorists and would-be terrorists meeting a violent and bloody end. Hell no! That's the best part. I don't mean 'guilty' because the show frequently features government officials as villains, although they usually splash the ones of the wrong persuasion with that paint. No, its a 'guilty' pleasure because as satisfying as it is to see an American showing backbone, I realize that the writers and producers still pull the punches and try to have all the threats and troubles somehow be rooted in America and Americans. Well, that and the fact that they jumped the shark a few seasons ago. In spite of these things, I still watch it and enjoy it tremendously. Why? Because Jack has given me some of the most satisfying moments I have ever witnessed on television, whether it was finally getting some quality "alone time" with his wife's assassin, or the summary execution of a Presidential assassin, Jack has given me more "YESSSS!!!" moments than any television viewer had any right to expect. And last night was no exception, offering up the cool and measured appraisal of a professional to a smarmy, self-serving politician whose idea of sacrifice is probably giving up pricey meals out with well-heeled lobbyists. But its much, much better in his own words. From the man himself, the first of hopefully many morsels of Bauery goodness this season:
SENATOR: Will the witness please state his name.
BAUER: Jack Bauer.
SENATOR: Mr. Bauer, I don't see your counsel present. Or is he or she not aware we're about to start?
BAUER: I've chosen not to retain counsel.
SENATOR: Mr. Bauer, I have to advise you that many of the questions we're about to pose to you are of a legal nature and might result in answers that could incriminate you.
BAUER: I understand that, Senator.
SENATOR: We can postpone your testimony until this afternoon if you'd like to bring in representation, something that I would strongly advise.
BAUER: What is the first question, sir?
SENATOR: All right then.
SENATOR: And isn't it true that you detained Mr. Haddad without due process and that you used extreme interrogation methods on him until he answered your request he is?
BAUER: Yes, sir.
SENATOR: Would you say that you broke procedure with this interrogation?
SENATOR: Probably? Well, that's a very cavalier answer. You don't seem to care about the implications here. Well, Mr. Bauer?
BAUER: I'm sorry, Senator. I didn't hear a question.
SENATOR: All right then. Did you torture Mr. Haddad?
BAUER: According to the definitions set forth by the Geneva Convention, yes, I did. Senator, why don't I save you some time. It's obvious that your agenda is to discredit and generate a series of --
SENATOR: My only agenda is to get to the truth.
BAUER: I don't think it is, sir.
SENATOR: Excuse me.
BAUER: Abraham Haddad had targeted a bus train of 45 people, 10 of which were children. The truth, Senator, is I stopped that attack from happening.
SENATOR: By torturing Mr. Haddad.
BAUER: By doing what I deemed necessary to protect innocent lives.
SENATOR: So basically what you're saying, Mr. Bauer, is that the ends justify the means and that you are above the law.
BAUER: When I am activated, when I am brought into a situation, there is a reason and that reason is to complete the objectives of my mission at all costs.
SENATOR: Even if it means breaking the law?
BAUER: For a combat soldier the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The people that I deal with, they don't care about your rules. All they care about is a result. My job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. I simply adapt it. In answer to your question, am I above the law? No, sir. I am more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. I will let them decide what price I should pay. Now please do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect me to regret the decisions that I have made because, sir, the truth is I don't.
Simple, elegant, and to the point. The writers nailed this moment better than they probably realized, as the mask of arrogance worn by the Senator clearly prevented him from indicating that he even understood how directly he had been judged and found not worthy.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Sunday, January 04, 2009
So I was thinking this morning about the things that I am not looking forward to in 2009, and its a pretty grim list.
1. Changes in our employer provided health care. Don't get me wrong, it still beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it is quite a step down from what we have had the last three years.
2. Additional changes to the rules regarding ex parte proceedings in the local courts. Everyone is cash-strapped these days, and the courts are no exception. However, as of Jan. 1, 2009, we can no longer present ex parte matters directly ourselves. Now, if we have orders for ex parte signature, we present them to the Clerk's Office, with an additional fee, and they present the orders for signature. If we are willing to pay an additional fee to expedite the orders, which means we can cool our heels in the Clerk's Office for 20 minutes or so and leave with our signed documents. Why is this bad? First, the clients already pay more for the non-participation of our court system in seeking settlements to their disputes. Second, once more, we are removing attorneys from the process. I usually enjoy taking documents to ex parte, because I learn new things, from the judges, commissioners, and other attorneys gathered there. Third, many times judges and commissioners have additional questions, which they used to be able to ask about face-to-face. Not any more, so in addition to making sure that the documents are legally sufficient, we also now have to anticipate questions and have the answers incorporated into the documents. More delays, complications, costs and fees. It becomes easier with each passing day to understand the growing disillusionment that non-lawyers have with the system.
3. Increased gas prices. I'm fairly certain they're coming. The Dems seem to think that they should dictate the price of gas instead of the market, and that raising the tax on gas will help force us all in to alternative fuels, and other technologies that still do not exist, or are still so expensive that most of us peasants, who will already be straining under the extraordinary taxation necessary to support the coming nanny state, will not be able to afford them. That isn't even taking into account the coming THUMP that will be administered to Iran by us or Israelis very shortly. That will probably cause prices to double overnight.
4. Democratic Leadership in the House, Senate, and White House. Touchy-feely leadership, concerned with "world opinion", "climate change", and "corporate excesses", and all the legislation necessary to address these "pressing concerns", which will sufficiently intrude upon all personal choices, large and small until we reach the point where we really don't have any choices. I moved away from home for a reason. How do I resist my government when it has made up its mind to be mother and father for me? Funny how we'll all be expected to work for our government. "Birthright? What birthright? Get back to work, slave. There are a whole bunch of 10 year olds who want abortions and they aren't going to pay for themselves, you know."
5. The Fairness Doctrine. Liberal Fascism at its finest. Squelch any remaining avenue of media that they do not control...for the good of the people, and all in the name of fairness, of course. Musn't have the little peasants exposed to any information other than the official party line, because we know that they simply are not capable of properly discerning the truth in any given matter, which of course is what ever we tell them the truth is. Kinda funny when you read some of the original cases on the subject before it was done away with. More avenues of media available to the public than any time in human history, and when given the choice, the old guard, which sold its soul to liberal agenda, is being abandoned in record numbers, and yet the answer isn't perceived to be a return to the appearance of impartial reporting with the obvious bias confined to the editorial pages. Instead, the idea is to restrict the speech and freedom of association of the newly successful mediums by imposing the requirement that they tie themselves to voices discredited and rejected by many consumers of information.
6. More bailouts. Somewhere, in the deepest, hottest circles of Hell, between each penetration suffered at the hands of the demons assigned to his torment, V.I. Lenin is laughing. The idea that government HAS to interfere in the market to save businesses victimized by their own stunning lack of foresight, inability to adapt, and piss-pour management is as about as communist as they come. Especially in light of the slavery that makes such an intervention possible. The only way the government can raise the capitol necessary is to raise taxes. A lot of them. Then the government takes our tax money, and invests it in these failing businesses. So, for the money I didn't want to spend, I am a silent investor in a company I didn't want to own, and now the government has an incentive in seeing these businesses succeed, probably at the expense of others. By even going down this road, government has now started to decide who wins and who loses. And how can it efficiently prosecute anti-trust laws when it has a stake in some of the players in the market place? Yeah, that's what I thought. Let me know when it will be time for the adults to take over and restore the Republic.
Friday, January 02, 2009
I normally eschew planning and making resolutions because I find that Life usually has plans for me that have nothing to do with the plans I make for myself. Having said that, I decided to make a few this year...just because.
1. Laugh More. This last political season left me ragged out. The idea that the country could be so eager elect a blank canvas on which each BDS-suffering mentally deficient malcontent projected their most fevered fantasy was tough enough, but then when they returned to power the party that worked so hard to screw us all on the Freddie and Fannie deal, and crash the economy, costing taxpayer's TRILLIONS in bailouts of companies caught short by their own greed and poor business planning, I found myself depressed by so many Americans so willing to give up not only their birthright, but mine too. Now, sadly, geniuses like this one will be loudly proclaiming their breathtaking ignorance as loudly as they possibly can, and stamping their feet when reality lands on the shoulders of their hollow messiah and he has to actually, you know, lead.
2. Work Out Regularly. Not only does it do an exceptional job handling stress, I could stand to lose some weight and get my doctor off my back. Not to mention, experience has taught me that the masses would be more likely to be swayed by a slightly greying blond, green-grey eyed adonis than a slightly greying blond, green-grey eyed middle-aged guy who needs to lose weight. Just all part of doing my part to advance the VRWC doncha know.
3. Do More With Heir No. One's Scout Group. I have some really great memories of my time in scouts. I think he can too, but the organization here needs more help and more planning if the boys are going get everything out of it that they possibly can.
4. Work on Getting More Clients. The Boss doesn't want me to do it, but the fact is, I'm tired of us not making money when I know we can do better. That is going to mean dragging the firm into the 21st century with an actual website and professional email addresses.
5. Work on the Novel More Regularly. The thing isn't going to just write itself, after all.